Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
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 March 31, 2016, future minimum payments under non-cancelable operating leases, other obligations, and inventory purchase obligations are as follows:
Operating Leases
Other Obligations
Inventory Purchase Obligations
(in thousands)
2016 (nine months)
























Total minimum payments




On May 6, 2015, 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 May 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 the Company. 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
Between February 9, 2015 and February 18, 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, or the Court, on behalf of a putative class of Entropic stockholders alleging that the board of directors of Entropic breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the then-proposed acquisition of Entropic by the Company and that the Company aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs in the complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction.
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 , or the Consolidated Action.
On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of the Delaware actions. As part of the proposed settlement, on April 27, 2015, Entropic filed a Form 8-K containing supplemental disclosures in connection with the acquisition. On April 30, 2015, Entropic’s stockholders voted to approve the acquisition, which closed later that same day. The parties to the Consolidation Action subsequently agreed not to proceed with the settlement and, instead, on February 23, 2016, entered into a stipulation and proposed order dismissing the Consolidated Action as moot and setting a briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ counsel to make an application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses from the Court, which the Court entered on February 25, 2016. After negotiations, the Company agreed to pay fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $150,000. On March 18, 2016, the Court entered an order vacating the briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses and providing that dismissal of the Consolidated Action was final.
CrestaTech Litigation
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, or the District Court Litigation. In its complaint, CrestaTech alleges that we infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585, or 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, MaxLinear, Sharp, Sharp Electronics, and VIZIO, or 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. MaxLinear, Sharp and VIZIO, are collectively referred to as 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 alleged 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 the Company's 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 the Company's television tuners or televisions containing such tuners.
On March 10, 2014, the court stayed the District Court Litigation pending resolution of the ITC Investigation.
On December 15, 2014, the ITC held a trial in the ITC Investigation. On February 27, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued a written Initial Determination, or 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 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, or the Federal Circuit. On March 7, 2016, CrestaTech voluntarily dismissed its appeal.
In addition, the Company has filed four petitions for inter partes review, or IPR, by the US Patent Office, two for each of the CrestaTech patents asserted against the Company. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or the 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 the Company.  In October 2015, the PTAB issued final decisions in two of the six IPR proceedings (one for each of the two asserted patents), holding that all of the reviewed claims are unpatentable. Included in these decisions was one of the three claims of the ‘585 Patent mentioned above in connection with the ITC’s final decision. CrestaTech is appealing the PTAB’s decisions at the Federal Circuit. The remaining two claims of the ‘585 Patent are included in at least one of the four IPR proceedings instituted and currently pending before the PTAB against CrestaTech.
On March 18, 2016, CrestaTech filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Northern District of California. The PTAB has temporarily suspended the IPR proceedings while the parties and the PTAB assess the impact of this petition on the pending IPRs. In parallel, the petitioners are working with the bankruptcy trustee to obtain court approval for lifting the stay of the IPRs. The PTAB has suggested that it hopes to resume these proceedings shortly and has tentatively scheduled the oral arguments for the four remaining IPRs for May 19 and 20, 2016.
The Company 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 the Company's business and operating results.