Commitments and Contingencies |
6 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies
Lease Commitments and Other Contractual Obligations
At June 30, 2015, future minimum payments under non-cancelable operating leases, other obligations and inventory purchase obligations are as follows:
Entropic Communications Merger Litigation
The Delaware Actions
Beginning on February 9, 2015, eleven stockholder class action complaints (captioned Langholz v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10631-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Tomblin v. Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10640-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Parshall v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10652-VCP (filed Feb. 12, 2015); Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10661-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Iyer v. Tewksbury, et al., C.A. No. 10665-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10669-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Gal v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10671-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10673-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015)) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of Entropic Communications, Inc. stockholders. The complaints name Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC as defendants. The complaints generally allege that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints further allege that Entropic, MaxLinear, and/or the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, an order declaring the merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, in the event that the proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to the class, imposition of a constructive trust, damages, and/or attorneys’ fees and costs.
On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Ankur Saggar, Jon Werbowsky, and Angelo Agosti filed an amended class action complaint. Also on March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Martin Wohl and Jeffrey Park filed an amended class action complaint. On April 1, 2015, plaintiff Mark Respler filed an amended class action complaint.
On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the Delaware actions, captioned In re Entropic Communications, Inc. Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10631-VCP (the “Consolidated Action”). The April 16, 2015 order appointed plaintiffs Rama Iyer and Jon Werbowsky as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and designated the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Ankur Saggar, Jon Werbowsky, and Angelo Agosti as the operative complaint (the “Amended Complaint”).
The Amended Complaint names as defendants Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic, the Company, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC. The Amended Complaint generally alleges that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by the Company, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders, engaging in a purportedly unfair and conflicted sale process, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement, and allegedly misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose all material information in connection with the proposed transaction. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company and the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things: an order declaring the merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, an order rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the merger agreement, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, imposition of a constructive trust, and attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs.
On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of the Delaware actions. The proposed settlement is subject to negotiation of the settlement papers by the parties and is subject to court approval after notice and an opportunity to object is provided to the proposed settlement class. There can be no assurance that the parties will reach agreement regarding the final terms of the settlement agreement or that the Court of Chancery will approve the settlement.
CrestaTech Litigation
On January 21, 2014, CrestaTech Technology Corporation, or CrestaTech, filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court of Delaware (the “District Court Litigation”). In its complaint, CrestaTech alleges that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585 (the “’585 Patent”) and 7,265,792. In addition to asking for compensatory damages, CrestaTech alleges willful infringement and seeks a permanent injunction. CrestaTech also names Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corp. and VIZIO, Inc. as defendants based upon their alleged use of the Company's television tuners. On January 28, 2014, CrestaTech filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or ITC, again naming the Company, Sharp, Sharp Electronics, and VIZIO (“the “ITC Investigation”). On May 16, 2014 the ITC granted CrestaTech’s motion to file an amended complaint adding six OEM Respondents, namely, SIO International, Inc., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., Wistron Corp., Wistron Infocomm Technology (America) Corp., Top Victory Investments Ltd. and TPV International (USA), Inc. (collectively, with the Company, Sharp and VIZIO, the “Company Respondents”). CrestaTech’s ITC complaint alleges a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 through the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of the Company’s accused products that CrestaTech alleges infringe the same two patents asserted in the Delaware action. Through its ITC complaint, CrestaTech seeks an exclusion order preventing entry into the United States of certain of the Company's television tuners and televisions containing such tuners from Sharp, Sharp Electronics, and VIZIO. CrestaTech also seeks a cease and desist order prohibiting the Company Respondents from engaging in the importation into, sale for importation into, the sale after importation of, or otherwise transferring within the United States certain of the Company's television tuners or televisions containing such tuners.
On December 1-5, 2014, the ITC held a trial in the ITC Investigation. On February 27, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued a written Initial Determination (“ID”), ruling that the Company Respondents do not violate Section 1337 in connection with CrestaTech’s asserted patents because CrestaTech failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement pursuant to Section 1337(a)(2). In addition, the ID stated that certain of the Company’s television tuners and televisions incorporating those tuners manufactured and sold by certain customers infringe three claims of the ‘585 Patent, and these three claims were not determined to be invalid. On April 30, 2015, the ITC issued a notice indicating that it intended to review portions of the ID finding no violation of Section 1337, including the ID’s findings of infringement with respect to, and validity of, the ‘585 Patent, and the ID’s finding that CrestaTech failed to establish the existence of a domestic industry within the meaning of Section 1337. The Commission has requested additional briefing from the parties on certain issues under review, and the initial target date for completing the ITC investigation was June 29, 2015, which has since been revised to August 19, 2015. The District Court Litigation is currently stayed pending resolution of the ITC Investigation.
In addition, the Company has filed four petitions for inter partes review of the two asserted CrestaTech patents, including the three claims that the ID stated the Company infringed and that were not determined to be invalid. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has decided not to institute one IPR as being redundant to another IPR already underway for the same CrestaTech patent in front of the PTAB (not including the three claims mentioned above), and will likely decide whether to institute review proceedings on the remaining three in or about Q3 2015.
In view of the initial ruling in the ITC Investigation of no violation, the Company has not recorded an accrual for loss contingencies associated with the litigation; determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible; or determined that the amount or range of any possible loss is reasonably estimable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||