Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2015
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Commitments and Contingencies
Lease Commitments and Other Contractual Obligations
The Company leases facilities and certain equipment under operating lease arrangements expiring at various years through fiscal 2022. As of December 31, 2015, future minimum payments under non-cancelable operating leases, other obligations and inventory purchase obligations are as follows:
On December 17, 2013, the Company amended a lease arrangement with The Campus Carlsbad, LLC, so that the current Carlsbad office space of approximately 45,000 square feet will be expanded to include an additional 24,000 square feet of space. The original lease, which had a term of three years and seven months with an original expiration date of November 30, 2019, was extended to an expiration date of June 30, 2022. During 2015, the Company has begun significant tenant improvement activities to expand into this office space. The Company was provided a tenant improvement allowance of approximately $1,543,000 for tenant improvement costs and related fees and expenses.
On November 11, 2015, the Company entered into a real property lease with The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, with respect to the lease of approximately 50,235 square feet of office and laboratory space located at 50 Parker in Irvine, California. The Company expects to relocate current operations in Irvine, California to the new facility in 2016.
The lease has an initial term of six years and two months, commencing on the later of (i) April 1, 2016 or (i) the date upon which certain building and tenant improvements have been substantially completed and possession of the substantially completed premises has been tendered by the landlord to us. The base monthly rent under the lease is approximately $68,000 per month during the first year of the initial lease term, increasing to approximately $86,000 per month during the last year of the initial lease term. The lease contains an option to extend the lease term for a single, five-year period. If the lease term is extended for the optional five-year period, the monthly base rent will be adjusted based on the fair market rental value. In addition to base rent, the Company has agreed to pay for a proportional share of the common area operating expenses and real property taxes. The lease includes customary provisions providing for late fees for unpaid rent, landlord access to the property, insurance obligations and events of default. In addition, this agreement includes tenant improvement incentives of $2.7 million.
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.
Based on the above, we have determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible; or determined that the amount or range of any possible loss is reasonably estimable. The reasonably estimable loss is not material.
On January 21, 2014, CrestaTech Technology Corporation, or CrestaTech, filed a complaint for patent infringement against us in the United States District Court of Delaware (the “District Court Litigation”). In its complaint, CrestaTech alleges that we infringe 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 our television tuners. On January 28, 2014, CrestaTech filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or ITC, again naming, among others, us, 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 us, Sharp and VIZIO, the “Company Respondents”). CrestaTech’s ITC complaint alleged 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 sought an exclusion order preventing entry into the United States of certain of our television tuners and televisions containing such tuners from Sharp, Sharp Electronics, and VIZIO. CrestaTech also sought 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 our 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 our 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 ITC has subsequently issued its opinion, which terminated its investigation. The opinion affirmed the findings of the administrative law judge that no violation of Section 1337 had occurred because CrestaTech had failed to establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The ITC also affirmed the administrative law judge's finding of infringement with respect to the three claims of the '585 Patent that were not held to be invalid. On November 30, 2015, CrestaTech filed an appeal of the ITC decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit").
The District Court Litigation remains stayed pending resolution of the appeal to the ITC. In addition, we have filed four petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") by the US Patent Office of the two CrestaTech patents asserted against us. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) did not institute two of these IPRs as being redundant to IPRs filed by another party that are already underway for the same CrestaTech patent. The remaining two petitions were instituted or instituted-in-part and, together with the IPRs filed by third parties, there are currently six IPR proceedings filed involving the two CrestaTech patents asserted against us. In October 2015, the PTAB issued final decisions in two of the six IPR proceedings, holding that all of the reviewed claims are unpatentable. Included in these decisions was one of the three claims mentioned above. CrestaTech is appealing the PTAB’s decisions at the Federal Circuit.
We cannot predict the outcome of any appeal by CrestaTech, the District Court Litigation, or the IPRs. Any adverse determination in the District Court Litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef