XML 23 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 26, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal and Regulatory Proceedings. Consolidated Securities Class Action Lawsuit: On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our former officers and directors. The complaints alleged, among other things, that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with certain allegations that we are or were engaged in anticompetitive conduct. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On September 1, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on March 18, 2019, the court denied our motion. On January 15, 2020, we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing on the motion was held on February 2, 2022. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. In re Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger Securities Litigation: On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against us and two of our then current officers. The complaints alleged, among other things, that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose that we had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On May 10, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on March 10, 2020, the court granted our motion. On May 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and on October 8, 2020, the court granted our motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. On November 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit), and a hearing on the appeal was held on November 16, 2021. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a ruling. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. Consumer Class Action Lawsuits: Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action complaints have been filed against us in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices. In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District of California to the Northern District of California. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that we violated California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to our competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of our baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license our entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with our commitments to standard setting organizations. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or restitution, as well as an order that we be enjoined from further unlawful conduct. On August 11, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court denied our motion, except to the extent that certain claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on September 27, 2018, the court granted that motion. On January 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted us permission to appeal the court’s class certification order, and on January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending our appeal. On December 2, 2019, a hearing on our appeal of the class certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit, and on September 29, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order, ruling that the court had failed to correctly assess the propriety of applying California law to a nationwide class. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court and instructed the court to consider the effect of United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. QUALCOMM Incorporated (which the Ninth Circuit decided in favor of Qualcomm in August 2020) on this case. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. Since November 2017, several other consumer class action complaints have been filed against us in Canada (in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Quebec Superior Court), Israel (in the Haifa District Court) and the United Kingdom (in the Competition Appeal Tribunal), each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging violations of certain of those countries’ competition and consumer protection laws. The claims in these complaints are similar to those in the U.S. consumer class action complaints. The complaints seek damages. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated: On May 1, 2014, ParkerVision filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that certain of our products infringed seven ParkerVision patents. On August 21, 2014, ParkerVision amended the complaint, alleging that we infringed 11 ParkerVision patents and sought damages and injunctive and other relief. ParkerVision has subsequently reduced the number of patents asserted to three. The asserted patents are now expired, and injunctive relief is no longer available. ParkerVision continues to seek damages related to the sale of many of our radio frequency (RF) products sold between 2008 and 2018. From January 24, 2022 to January 25, 2022, the court held a hearing on various summary judgment and evidentiary motions. The court has not yet ruled on the motions, and no trial date has been set. We believe that ParkerVision’s claims are without merit. Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) Investigation (2015): On March 17, 2015, the KFTC notified us that it was conducting an investigation of us relating to the Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA). On December 27, 2016, the KFTC announced that it had reached a decision in the investigation, finding that we violated provisions of the MRFTA. On January 22, 2017, we received the KFTC’s formal written decision, which found that the following conducts violate the MRFTA: (i) refusing to license, or imposing restrictions on licenses for, cellular communications standard-essential patents with competing modem chipset makers; (ii) conditioning the supply of modem chipsets to handset suppliers on their execution and performance of license agreements with us; and (iii) coercing agreement terms including portfolio license terms, royalty terms and free cross-grant terms in executing patent license agreements with handset makers. The KFTC’s decision orders us to: (a) upon request by modem chipset companies, engage in good-faith negotiations for patent license agreements, without offering unjustifiable conditions, and if necessary submit to a determination of terms by an independent third party; (b) not demand that handset companies execute and perform under patent license agreements as a precondition for purchasing modem chipsets; (c) not demand unjustifiable conditions in our license agreements with handset companies and, upon request, renegotiate existing patent license agreements; and (d) notify modem chipset companies and handset companies of the decision and order imposed on us and report to the KFTC new or amended agreements. According to the KFTC’s decision, the foregoing will apply to transactions between us and the following enterprises: (1) handset manufacturers headquartered in Korea and their affiliate companies; (2) enterprises that sell handsets in or to Korea and their affiliate companies; (3) enterprises that supply handsets to companies referred to in (2) above and the affiliate companies of such enterprises; (4) modem chipset manufacturers headquartered in Korea and their affiliate companies; and (5) enterprises that supply modem chipsets to companies referred to in (1), (2) or (3) above and the affiliate companies of such enterprises. The KFTC’s decision also imposed a fine of 1.03 trillion Korean won (approximately $927 million), which we paid on March 30, 2017. On February 21, 2017, we filed an action in the Seoul High Court to cancel the KFTC’s decision. The Seoul High Court held hearings concluding on August 14, 2019, and on December 4, 2019, announced its judgment affirming certain portions of the KFTC’s decision and finding other portions of the KFTC’s decision unlawful. The Seoul High Court cancelled the KFTC’s remedial orders described in (c) above, and solely insofar as they correspond thereto, the Seoul High Court cancelled the KFTC’s remedial orders described in (d) above. The Seoul High Court dismissed the remainder of our action to cancel the KFTC’s decision. On December 19, 2019, we filed a notice of appeal to the Korea Supreme Court challenging those portions of the Seoul High Court decision that are not in our favor. The KFTC filed a notice of appeal to the Korea Supreme Court challenging the portions of the Seoul High Court decision that are not in its favor. Both we and the KFTC have filed briefs on the merits. T he Korea Supreme Court has not yet ruled on our appeal or that of the KFTC. We believe that our business practices do not violate the MRFTA. Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) Investigation (2020): On June 8, 2020, the KFTC informed us that it was conducting an investigation of us relating to the MRFTA. The KFTC has not provided a formal notice on the scope of its investigation, but we believe it concerns our business practices in connection with our sale of radio frequency front-end (RFFE) components. We continue to cooperate with the KFTC as it conducts its investigation. If a violation is found, a broad range of remedies is potentially available to the KFTC, including imposing a fine (of up to 3% of our sales in the relevant markets during the alleged period of violation) and/or injunctive relief prohibiting or restricting certain business practices. It is difficult to predict the outcome of this matter or what remedies, if any, may be imposed by the KFTC. We believe that our business practices do not violate the MRFTA. Icera Complaint to the European Commission (EC): On June 7, 2010, the EC notified and provided us with a redacted copy of a complaint filed with the EC by Icera, Inc. (subsequently acquired by Nvidia Corporation) alleging that we were engaged in anticompetitive activity. On July 16, 2015, the EC announced that it had initiated formal proceedings in this matter. On July 18, 2019, the EC issued a decision finding that between 2009 and 2011, we engaged in predatory pricing by selling certain baseband chipsets to two customers at prices below cost with the intention of hindering competition and imposed a fine of approximately 242 million euros. On October 1, 2019, we filed an appeal of the EC’s decision with the General Court of the European Union. The court has not yet ruled on our appeal. We believe that our business practices do not violate the European Union (EU) competition rules. In the third quarter of fiscal 2019, we recorded a charge of $275 million to other expenses related to this EC fine. We provided a financial guarantee in the first quarter of fiscal 2020 to satisfy the obligation in lieu of cash payment while we appeal the EC’s decision. The fine is accruing interest at a rate of 1.50% per annum while it is outstanding. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019, we designated the liability as a hedge of our net investment in certain foreign subsidiaries, with gains and losses recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income as a component of the foreign currency translation adjustment. At December 26, 2021, the liability, including related foreign currency gains and accrued interest (which, to the extent they were not related to the net investment hedge, were recorded in investment and other income, net), was $283 million and included in other current liabilities. European Commission (EC) Investigation: On October 15, 2014, the EC notified us that it was conducting an investigation of us relating to Articles 101 and/or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). On January 24, 2018, the EC issued a decision finding that pursuant to an agreement with Apple Inc. we paid significant amounts to Apple on the condition that it exclusively use our baseband chipsets in its smartphones and tablets, reducing Apple’s incentives to source baseband chipsets from our competitors and harming competition and innovation for certain baseband chipsets, and imposed a fine of 997 million euros. On April 6, 2018, we filed an appeal of the EC’s decision with the General Court of the European Union. From May 4, 2021 to May 6, 2021, a hearing on our appeal was held before the court. The court has not yet issued a ruling. We believe that our business practices do not violate the EU competition rules. In the first quarter of fiscal 2018, we recorded a charge of $1.2 billion to other expenses related to this EC fine. We provided financial guarantees in the third quarter of fiscal 2018 to satisfy the obligation in lieu of cash payment while we appeal the EC’s decision. The fine is accruing interest at a rate of 1.50% per annum while it is outstanding. In the first quarter of fiscal 2019, we designated the liability as a hedge of our net investment in certain foreign subsidiaries, with gains and losses recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income as a component of the foreign currency translation adjustment. At December 26, 2021, the liability, including related foreign currency gains and accrued interest (which, to the extent they were not related to the net investment hedge, were recorded in investment and other income, net), was $1.2 billion and included in other current liabilities. Contingent Losses and Other Considerations: We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in the foregoing matters. However, litigation and investigations are inherently uncertain, and we face difficulties in evaluating or estimating likely outcomes or ranges of possible loss, particularly in antitrust and trade regulation investigations. Other than with respect to the EC fines, we have not recorded any accrual at December 26, 2021 for contingent losses associated with these matters based on our belief that losses, while reasonably possible, are not probable. Further, any possible amount or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. We are engaged in numerous other legal actions not described above arising in the ordinary course of our business (for example, proceedings relating to employment matters or the initiation or defense of proceedings relating to intellectual property rights) and, while there can be no assurance, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these other legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration