Commitments and Contingencies
|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 31, 2018
|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 2023. As of March 31, 2018, future minimum payments under non-cancelable operating leases, inventory purchase and other obligations are as follows:
Other obligations consist of contractual payments due for software licenses.
The total rental expense for operating leases was $1.2 million and $0.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.
The Company has subleased certain facilities that it ceased using in connection with prior years' restructuring plans (Note 4). Such subleases expire at various years through fiscal 2023. As of March 31, 2018, future minimum rental income under non-cancelable subleases is as follows:
Total sublease income related to leased facilities the Company ceased using in connection with a restructuring plan for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017 was approximately $0.7 million and $0.5 million, respectively (Note 4).
Exar iML Divestiture Indemnification
Under the terms of the purchase agreement relating to the November 9, 2016 divestiture of Integrated Memory Logic Limited, or iML, by Exar, Exar agreed to indemnify the purchaser of the business unit for breaches of representations and warranties and covenants and for certain other matters. Exar also agreed to place $5.0 million of the total purchase price into an escrow account for a period of 18 months to partially secure its indemnification obligations under the purchase agreement; of this amount, $0.9 million has been released through March 31, 2018. In addition, Exar’s indemnification obligations for breaches of representations and warranties survived for 12 months from the closing of the sale transaction, except for breaches of representations and warranties covering intellectual property, which survive for 18 months, and breaches of representations and warranties of certain fundamental representations, which survive until the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Exar’s maximum indemnification obligation for breaches of representations and warranties, other than intellectual property and fundamental representations, is $13.6 million, its maximum indemnification obligation for breaches of intellectual property representations is $34.0 million, and is maximum indemnity obligation for breaches of fundamental representations is the full purchase price amount (approximately $136.0 million). The aggregate amount recovered by the purchaser in accordance with the indemnification provisions with respect to matters that are subject to the intellectual property representations, together with the aggregate amount recovered by the Buyer in accordance with the indemnification provisions with respect to matters that are subject to the general representations and warranties (other than fundamental representations), will in no event exceed $34.0 million. If the Company were required to make payments in satisfaction of these indemnification obligations, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
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, or the District Court Litigation. In its complaint, CrestaTech alleged that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585, or the ‘585 Patent and 7,265,792, or the ‘792 Patent. In addition to asking for compensatory damages, CrestaTech alleged willful infringement and sought a permanent injunction. CrestaTech also named 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, 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. which are collectively referred to with MaxLinear, Sharp and VIZIO 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 MaxLinear'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, or the ALJ, 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 (claims 10, 12 and 13), 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 subsequently issued its opinion, which terminated its investigation. The opinion affirmed the findings of the ALJ 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 ALJ'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, resulting in a final determination of the ITC Investigation in the Company's favor.
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 were already underway for the same CrestaTech patent. The remaining two petitions were instituted or instituted-in-part meaning, together with the IPRs filed by third parties, there were currently six IPR proceedings instituted involving the two CrestaTech patents asserted against the Company.
In October 2015, the PTAB issued final decisions in two of the six pending 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 (claim 10) mentioned above in connection with the ITC’s final decision. CrestaTech appealed the PTAB’s decisions at the Federal Circuit. On November 8, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability.
In August 2016, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the remaining four pending IPR proceedings (two for each of the asserted patents), holding that many of the reviewed claims - including the two remaining claims of the ‘585 Patent which the ITC held were infringed - are unpatentable. The parties have appealed the two decisions related to the ‘585 Patent; however, no appeals were filed as to the PTAB's rulings for the ‘792 Patent. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on these appeals on December 4, 2017. On December 7, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance in one of the '585 appeals, affirming that the two remaining claims that the ITC had ruled were valid and infringed (claims 12 and 13) are unpatentable. On January 25, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its ruling in the other ‘585 appeal, vacating the PTAB's ruling that certain claims were not unpatentable and remanding to the PTAB for further analysis of whether CrestaTech is estopped from arguing and/or has waived the right to argue whether six dependent claims are patentable.
As a result of these IPR decisions, all 13 claims that CrestaTech asserted against the Company in the ITC Investigation have been found to be unpatentable by the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.
On March 18, 2016, CrestaTech filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Northern District of California. As a result of this proceeding, all rights in the CrestaTech asserted patents, including the right to control the pending litigation, were assigned to CF Crespe LLC, or CF Crespe. CF Crespe became the named party in the then-pending IPRs, Federal Circuit appeal and District Court Litigation.
In April 2017, the Delaware court continued the stay of the District Court Litigation per the parties’ request, pending resolution of the Federal Circuit appeals in the IPR’s. The parties are in the process of submitting an updated status report, in which at least we will request that the stay continue pending resolution of the one remaining IPR proceeding.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of 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, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Trango Systems, Inc. Litigation
On or about August 2, 2016, Trango Systems, Inc., or Trango, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division, against defendants Broadcom Corporation, Inc., or Broadcom, and the Company, collectively, Defendants. Trango is a purchaser that alleges various fraud, breach of contract, and interference with economic relations claims in connection with the discontinuance of a chip line the Company acquired from Broadcom in 2016. Trango seeks unspecified general and special damages, pre-judgment interest, expenses and costs, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and unspecified injunctive and equitable relief. On June 23, 2017, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer to each cause of action in the second amended complaint filed on or about December 6, 2016. Trango filed its third amended complaint on or about July 13, 2017. On February 23, 2018, the Court sustained, in part, MaxLinear’s demurrer, dismissing with prejudice the cause of action for breach of a written contract, and Trango voluntarily dismissed its cause of action for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The remaining causes of action have been permitted to proceed. On March 15, 2018, Trango filed its fourth amended complaint. MaxLinear filed its answer on April 17, 2018. Also, on April 17, Broadcom filed a cross-complaint against the Company, alleging causes of action for indemnity, contribution and apportionment, and declaratory relief. The cross-complaint seeks damages from MaxLinear to reimburse Broadcom for the fees and costs it is incurring for the lawsuit, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 2, 2018, Broadcom filed a request to voluntarily dismiss its cross-complaint. As of now, no trial date has been set. The Court set a case management conference set for June 1, 2018. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit as it proceeds.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the Trango Systems, Inc. litigation. Any adverse determination in the Trango Systems, Inc. litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
In addition, from time to time, the Company is subject to threats of litigation or actual litigation in the ordinary course of business, some of which may be material. Other than the CrestaTech and Trango litigation described above, the Company believes that there are no other currently pending litigation matters that, if determined adversely by the Company, would have a material effect on the Company's business or that would not be covered by the Company's existing liability insurance.
No definition available.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef