XML 84 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 28, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Legal Expenses The Company may retain the services of law firms that specialize in patent licensing and enforcement and patent law in connection with its licensing and enforcement activities. These law firms may be retained on a contingent fee basis whereby such law firms are paid on a scaled percentage of any negotiated fee, settlements or judgments awarded based on how and when the fees, settlements or judgments are obtained. TRGP Agreement and Related Intercreditor Agreements On May 3, 2017, the Company and TRGP entered into an investment agreement (the “TRGP Agreement”), which generally provides that TRGP will directly fund the costs incurred by or on behalf of the Company in connection with certain legal proceedings against SK hynix (see “Litigation and Patent Reexaminations” in this Note 8 below), including costs incurred since January 1, 2017 and costs to be incurred in the future in the Company’s first action in the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and its U.S. district court proceedings, but excluding the Company’s second ITC action and its proceedings in international courts (all such funded costs, collectively, the “Funded Costs”). In exchange for such funding, the Company has agreed that, if the Company recovers any proceeds in connection with the funded SK hynix proceedings, it will pay to TRGP the amount of the Funded Costs paid by TRGP plus an escalating premium based on when any such proceeds are recovered, such that the premium will equal a specified low-to-mid double-digit percentage of the amount of the Funded Costs and such percentage will increase by a specified low double-digit amount each quarter after a specified date until any such proceeds are recovered. In addition, pursuant to the terms of a separate security agreement between the Company and TRGP dated May 3, 2017 (the “Security Agreement”), the Company has granted to TRGP (i) a first priority lien on, and security in, the claims underlying the funded SK hynix proceedings and any proceeds that may be received by the Company in connection with these proceedings, and (ii) a second priority lien on, and security in, the Company’s patents that are the subject of the funded SK hynix proceedings. The TRGP Agreement does not impose financial covenants on the Company. Termination events under the TRGP Agreement include, among others, any failure by the Company to make payments to TRGP thereunder upon receipt of recoveries in the SK hynix proceedings; the occurrence of certain bankruptcy events; certain breaches by the Company of its covenants under the TRGP Agreement or the related Security Agreement; and the occurrence of a change of control of the Company. If any such termination event occurs, subject to certain cure periods for certain termination events, TRGP would have the right to terminate its obligations under the TRGP Agreement, including its obligation to make any further payments of Funded Costs after the termination date. In the event of any such termination by TRGP, the Company would continue to be obligated to pay TRGP the portion of any proceeds the Company may recover in connection with the SK hynix proceedings that TRGP would have been entitled to receive absent such termination, as described above, and TRGP may also be entitled to seek additional remedies pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the TRGP Agreement. In connection with the TRGP Agreement, in May 2017, TRGP, SVIC and SVB entered into the Intercreditor Agreements. Pursuant to the terms of the Intercreditor Agreements, TRGP, SVB and SVIC have agreed to their relative security interest priorities in the Company’s assets, such that: (i) TRGP has a first priority security interest in the Company’s claims underlying the funded SK hynix proceedings and any proceeds that may be received by the Company in connection with these proceedings, and a second priority security interest in the Company’s patents that are the subject of the funded SK hynix proceedings, (ii) SVIC has a first priority security interest in the Company’s complete patent portfolio and a second priority security interest in all of the Company’s other tangible and intangible assets (other than the Company’s claims underlying and any proceeds it may receive from the SK hynix proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement), and (iii) SVB has a first priority security interest in all of the Company’s tangible and intangible assets other than its patent portfolio and its claims underlying and any proceeds it may receive from the SK hynix proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement, a second priority security interest in the Company’s patent portfolio other than the patents that are the subject of the SK hynix proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement, and a third priority security interest in the Company’s patents that are the subject of the SK hynix proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement. The Company consented and agreed to the terms of each of the Intercreditor Agreements. Legal expenses incurred by the Company but paid by TRGP pursuant to the terms of the TRGP Agreement are excluded from the consolidated financial statements. During the years ended December 29, 2018 and December 30, 2017, the Company excluded legal expenses of $1.8 million and $10.2 million, respectively, as a result of TRGP’s payment of these expenses under the TRGP Agreement. The Company does not anticipate any further legal expenses will be paid by TRGP under this agreement. During the year ended December 28, 2019, there were no legal expenses excluded as a result of TRGP’s payment of these expenses under the TRGP Agreement. Any settlement or other cash proceeds the Company may recover in the future in connection with the funded SK hynix proceedings would be reduced by the aggregate amount of legal expenses excluded by the Company as a result of TRGP’s payment of these expenses under the TRGP Agreement, plus the premium amount due to TRGP under the terms of the TRGP Agreement at the time of any such recovery. On January 23, 2020, the Company and TRGP entered into an amendment to the TRGP Agreement to alter the recovery sharing formula related to claims against SK hynix for alleged infringement of the Company’s patents. Litigation and Patent Reexaminations The Company owns numerous patents and continues to seek to grow and strengthen its patent portfolio, which covers various aspects of the Company’s innovations and includes various claim scopes. The Company plans to pursue avenues to monetize its intellectual property portfolio, in which it would generate revenue by selling or licensing its technology, and it intends to vigorously enforce its patent rights against alleged infringers of such rights. The Company dedicates substantial resources to protecting and enforcing its intellectual property rights, including with patent infringement proceedings it files against third parties and defense of its patents against challenges made by way of reexamination and review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The Company expects these activities to continue for the foreseeable future, with no guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection or litigation activities will be successful, or that the Company will be able to monetize its intellectual property portfolio. The Company is also subject to litigation based on claims that it has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others. Any litigation, regardless of its outcome, is inherently uncertain, involves a significant dedication of resources, including time and capital, and diverts management’s attention from other activities of the Company. As a result, any current or future infringement claims or patent challenges by or against third parties, whether or not eventually decided in the Company’s favor or settled, could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the outcome of pending or future litigation and related patent reviews and reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect the Company’s ability to continue to sell its products, protect against competition in the current and expected markets for its products or license or otherwise monetize its intellectual property rights in the future. Google Litigation On December 4, 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google, Inc. (“Google”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”), seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Google’s alleged infringement of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 (the “‘912 patent”), which relates generally to technologies to implement rank multiplication. In February 2010, Google answered the Company’s complaint and asserted counterclaims against the Company seeking a declaration that the patent is invalid and not infringed, and claiming that the Company committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract based on the Company’s activities in the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (“JEDEC”) standard-setting organization. The counterclaim seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to Google’s counterclaim because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. In October 2010, Google requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. In connection with the reexamination request, the Northern District Court granted the Company’s and Google’s joint request to stay the ‘912 patent infringement lawsuit against Google until the completion of the reexamination proceedings. On January 31, 2019, the PTAB, in response to Google’s rehearing request, denied rehearing of the PTAB’s previous decision upholding the validity of claims in Netlist’s ‘912 patent. On April 16, 2019, Google filed an appeal to this decision. Inphi Litigation On September 22, 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Inphi Corporation (“Inphi”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”). The complaint, as amended, alleges that Inphi is contributorily infringing and actively inducing the infringement of U.S. patents owned by the Company, including the ‘912 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 (the “‘537 patent”), which relates generally to memory modules with load isolation and memory domain translation capabilities, and U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 (the “‘274 patent”), which is related to the ‘537 patent and relates generally to load isolation and memory domain translation technologies. The Company is seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Inphi’s use of the Company’s patented technology. Inphi denied infringement and claimed that the three patents are invalid. In June 2010, Inphi requested and was later granted Inter Partes Reexaminations of the ‘912, ‘537 and ‘274 patents by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below (except for the reexamination proceeding related to the ‘537 patent, which have concluded with the confirmation of all of the claims of such patent). In connection with the reexamination requests, Inphi filed a motion to stay the patent infringement lawsuit with the Central District Court until completion of the reexamination proceedings, which was granted. On April 16, 2019, Inphi filed an appeal to the PTAB’s January 31, 2019 decision upholding the validity of claims in Netlist’s ‘912 patent. ‘912 Patent Reexamination As noted above, in April 2010, June 2010 and October 2010, Google and Inphi submitted requests for an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO, claiming that the ‘912 patent is invalid and requesting that the USPTO reject the patent’s claims and cancel the patent. Additionally, in October 2010, Smart Modular, Inc. (“Smart Modular”) submitted another such reexamination request. On January 18, 2011, the USPTO granted such reexamination requests, and in February 2011, the USPTO merged the Inphi, Google and Smart Modular ‘912 patent reexaminations into a single proceeding. On March 21, 2014, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”), an office action that states the USPTO examiner’s position on patentability and closes further prosecution, and on June 18, 2014 the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice (“RAN”), a notice that triggers the rights of the involved parties to file a notice of appeal to the ACP, each of which confirmed the patentability of 92 of the ‘912 patent’s claims and rejected the patent’s 11 other claims. The parties involved filed various notices of appeal, responses and requests, and on November 24, 2015, the PTAB held a hearing on such appeals. On May 31, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming certain of the examiner’s decisions and reversing others. On February 9, 2017, the PTAB granted the Company’s request to reopen prosecution before the USPTO examiner and remanded the consolidated proceeding to the examiner to consider the patentability of certain of the pending claims in view of the PTAB’s May 31, 2016 decision and comments from the parties. On October 3, 2017, the examiner issued a determination as to the patentability of certain of the pending claims, which were found to be unpatentable. On June 1, 2018, the PTAB reversed the Examiner and found the pending amended claims to be patentable. On July 2, 2018, Google requested rehearing of the PTAB’s decision. On January 31, 2019 the PTAB, in response to Google’s rehearing request, denied rehearing of the PTAB’s previous decision upholding the validity of claims in Netlist’s ‘912 patent. On April 16, 2019, Inphi and Google filed an appeal to the ‘912 patent decision. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to the ‘912 patent reexamination proceedings because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. ‘627 Patent Reexamination In September 2011, Smart Modular submitted a request for an Inter Partes Reexamination by the USPTO of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 7,864,627 (the “‘627 patent”), related to the ‘912 patent, alleging that the ‘627 patent is invalid and requesting that the USPTO reject the patent’s claims. On November 16, 2011, the USPTO granted Smart Modular’s request and initiated reexamination. By June 27, 2014, the USPTO’s patent examiner had rejected all of the ‘627 patent’s claims. The Company appealed the examiner’s rejections to the PTAB, and on May 31, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming some of the examiner’s rejections. On July 31, 2016, the Company submitted a request to the PTAB to reopen prosecution before the examiner to amend the claims. On February 9, 2017, the PTAB granted the Company’s request to reopen prosecution and remanded the proceeding to the examiner to consider the patentability of the amended claims in view of the PTAB’s May 31, 2016 decision and comments from Smart Modular. On October 2, 2017, the examiner issued a determination that the amended claims should also be rejected. On June 1, 2018, the PTAB reversed the examiner and found the amended claims to be patentable. Smart Modular did not appeal this latest PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit. On October 3, 2018, the USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexam Certificate, and on November 5, 2018, the USPTO issued Reexamination Certificate No. 7,864,627 concluding the reexamination. The original ‘627 patent had eighteen claims, and during the reexamination, five were canceled (claims 1, 4, 15, 19, 20) and the remaining fifteen were amended (claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14-18) into their current form as issued in the reexamination certificate. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to the ‘627 patent reexamination proceedings because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. ‘274 Patent Reexamination As noted above, in April 2010 and June 2010, Inphi submitted requests for an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘274 patent by the USPTO. On August 27, 2010, the request was granted. In March 2012 and June 2012, the USPTO issued an ACP and a RAN, respectively, each of which confirmed the patentability of many of the ‘274 patent’s claims. The parties involved filed various notices of appeal, responses and requests, and on November 20, 2013, the PTAB held a hearing on such appeals. On January 16, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the examiner in part but reversing the examiner on new grounds and rejecting all of the patent’s claims. On September 11, 2015, the USPTO examiner issued a determination rejecting the amended claims. On January 23, 2017, the USPTO granted-in-part the Company’s petition to enter comments in support of its positions in the proceeding. On May 9, 2017, the PTAB issued a decision on appeal affirming the rejection of all claims. Netlist requested rehearing of the PTAB’s decision on June 6, 2017. The PTAB denied the rehearing request on August 8, 2017. On October 6, 2017, Netlist appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which Netlist dismissed on March 19, 2018, thereby terminating the proceedings with the rejection of all ‘274 patent claims becoming final. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to the ‘274 patent reexamination proceedings because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Smart Modular ‘295 Patent Litigation and Reexamination On September 13, 2012, Smart Modular filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the “Eastern District Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company willfully infringes and actively induces the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,250,295 (“the ‘295 patent”) issued to Smart Modular and seeks damages and injunctive relief. The Company answered Smart Modular’s complaint in October 2012, denying infringement of the ‘295 patent, asserting that the ‘295 patent is invalid and unenforceable, and asserting counterclaims against Smart Modular. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to Smart Modular’s complaint because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. On December 7, 2012, the USPTO granted the Company’s request for the reexamination of the ‘295 patent. On April 29, 2014, the USPTO examiner issued an ACP confirming some claims and rejecting others, and on August 4, 2015, the examiner issued a RAN confirming all pending claims. On September 4, 2015, the Company appealed to the PTAB. The parties involved filed various notices of appeal, responses and requests, and on September 22, 2016, the PTAB held a hearing on such appeals. On November 14, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision reversing the examiner and rejected all of the pending claims. On January 23, 2017, Smart Modular filed a request to reopen prosecution. The parties had the opportunity present evidence and arguments and the examiner issued a determination on May 8, 2017, which found all pending claims to be unpatentable. On December 12, 2017, the PTAB agreed with the examiner and found all pending claims to be unpatentable. Smart Modular appealed the PTAB’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 28, 2018, the Eastern District Court stayed the proceedings related to the ‘295 patent. On January 18, 2019, the Company and Smart Modular filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, terminating the proceedings related to the ‘295 patent in the Eastern District Court. Smart Modular and SanDisk Litigation On July 1 and August 23, 2013, the Company filed complaints against Smart Modular, SMART Storage Systems (which was subsequently acquired by SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”)), Smart Worldwide Holdings (“Smart Worldwide”) and Diablo Technologies (“Diablo”) in the Central District Court, seeking, among other things, damages and other relief for alleged infringement of several of the Company’s patents by the defendants based on the manufacture and sale of the ULLtraDIMM memory module, alleged antitrust violations by Smart Modular and Smart Worldwide, and alleged trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement by Diablo. More particularly, the Company asserted claims from U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,150; 8,001,434; 8,081,536; 8,301,833; 8,359,501; 8,516,185; and 8,516,187 (the “Asserted Patents”). On August 23, 2013, Smart Modular and Diablo each filed a complaint in the Oakland Division of the Northern District Court seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Asserted Patents. Based on various motions filed by the parties, on November 26, 2013, the Central District Court severed and transferred the patent claims related to the ULLtraDIMM memory module to the Northern District Court. On February 12, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing all claims against Smart Modular without prejudice. On April 15, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing all claims against Smart Worldwide without prejudice. Between June 18, 2014 and August 23, 2014, SanDisk, Diablo, and Smart Modular filed numerous petitions in the USPTO requesting Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the Company’s Asserted Patents. On April 9, 2015, the Northern District Court stayed the proceedings as to the Company’s patent infringement claims pending resolution of all outstanding IPRs. The trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement claims against Diablo were fully adjudicated on August 17, 2016 (during the pendency of the IPR’s) and are no longer pending. All of the IPRs filed by SanDisk, Diablo and SMART Modular associated with the Asserted Patents with Patent Nos. ending in ‘185, ‘187 and ‘833 have been resolved in the Company’s favor and are no longer pending. The IPRs associated with the Asserted Patents with Patent Nos. ending in ‘150, ‘434, ‘501 and ‘536, and the appeals therefrom, have also concluded, with the Board confirming the patentability of several asserted claims. The litigation, however, remains stayed pending resolution of IPRs filed by Hynix on the same or related patents. On December 8, 2017, Diablo filed for bankruptcy, and on November 9, 2018, the Northern District Court dismissed all claims against Diablo without prejudice. The Company’s patent infringement claims as to all Asserted Patents remain pending against SMART Storage Systems and SanDisk, subject to the stay. SK hynix Litigation On September 1, 2016, the Company filed legal proceedings for patent infringement against SK hynix in the ITC (the “First ITC Action”) and the Central District Court. These proceedings are based on the alleged infringement by SK hynix’s RDIMM and LRDIMM enterprise memory products of six of the Company’s U.S. patents. On October 31, 2017, the Company filed additional legal proceedings for patent infringement against SK hynix in the ITC (the “Second ITC Action”) based on the alleged infringement by SK hynix’s RDIMM and LRDIMM products of two additional U.S. patents owned by the Company. In all of the ITC proceedings, the Company has requested exclusion orders that direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop allegedly infringing SK hynix RDIMM and LRDIMM products from entering the United States. In the Central District Court proceedings, the Company is primarily seeking damages. On October 3, 2016, the ITC instituted an investigation of the trade practices of SK hynix and certain of its subsidiaries in connection with the First ITC Action, and held a hearing on the merits of the investigation from May 8, 2017 until May 11, 2017. On November 14, 2017, the ITC issued a final initial determination for the First ITC Action, finding no infringement of the asserted patents and no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act, and on January 16, 2018, the ITC issued a final determination for the First ITC Action, affirming the findings of no infringement and no violation and terminating the investigation. The Company appealed this final determination to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with oral arguments occurring on December 5, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity ruling by the PTAB involving the patents in litigation at the first ITC Action and dismissed the appeal of the final determination of the first ITC Action as moot. On January 11, 2018, the ITC set a 19-month target date of July 3, 2019 for an investigation related to the Second ITC Action, with a final initial determination for the Second ITC Action being filed no later than March 1, 2019. Based on this target date, the ITC scheduled a hearing on the merits of the investigation related to the Second ITC Action to begin on November 9, 2018 and conclude on November 19, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the ITC granted SK hynix’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement and terminated the Second ITC Action in its entirety. On April 23, 2018, the Company filed a petition seeking ITC review of this decision. On May 29, 2018, the ITC Commission remanded the Second ITC Action back to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to resolve the parties’ claim construction disputes and continue the investigation. On June 14, 2018, the ITC extended the target date for the final determination to August 5, 2019, with a final initial determination due by April 5, 2019. Based on this extended target date, the ITC scheduled a hearing on the merits to begin on December 14, 2018 and conclude on December 21, 2018. On September 13, 2018, the ITC rescheduled the hearing on the merits to begin on January 14, 2019 and conclude on January 18, 2019. On January 29, 2019, due to the government shutdown, the ITC again rescheduled the hearing on the merits to begin on March 11, 2019 and conclude on March 15, 2019. On February 8, 2019 Chief Administrative Law Judge of the ITC issued an Order in Investigation No. 337-TA-1089 denying SK hynix’s motion for “Summary Determination of Non Infringement of Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,535,623 Based On Issue Preclusion.” On March 12, 2019, the ALJ postponed the trial due to reasons unrelated to the dispute between the parties. The trial recommenced on July 15, 2019 and ended on July 19, 2019. On October 21, 2019, the ITC issued an initial determination for the Second ITC Action, finding infringement by SK hynix of asserted Netlist U.S. Patent No. 9,606,907 (the “‘907 Patent”) resulting in a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. On January 31, 2020, the ITC issued a Notice of Commission Determination regarding Investigation No. 337-TA-1089, which stated the ITC would review in part the positive Final Initial Determination and extended the target date for completion of the Investigation from February 21, 2020 to April 7, 2020. Between December 30, 2016 and January 20, 2017, SK hynix filed numerous petitions in the USPTO requesting IPR of certain of the Company’s patents, including the patents asserted in the First ITC Action and the Central District Court proceedings, which have now concluded and certain of which are now on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Between December 19, 2017 and February 7, 2018, SK hynix filed additional petitions in the USPTO requesting IPR of the patents asserted in the Second ITC Action, which are now proceeding. On March 21, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,535,623 invalid. Netlist has filed notice of intent to appeal. On June 27, 2019, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions on two IPR proceedings regarding Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,606,907 (the “‘907 Patent”) based on the reference Ellsberry, holding that claims 1-39 and 42-65 of the ‘907 Patent are unpatentable, but claims 40 and 41 are not unpatentable. On July 12, 2019, Netlist filed a Motion to Terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) the remaining two IPR proceedings regarding the ‘907 Patent based on the references Halbert and Amidi. On July 19, 2019, SK hynix filed and served their opposition to Netlist’s Motion To Terminate. The PTAB issued a decision to Terminate IPR IPR2018-0036 on August 5, 2019. On July 17, 2017, the Central District Court granted in part SK hynix’s request to stay the infringement proceedings pending further order of the court. On July 11, 2017, the Company filed legal proceedings for patent infringement against SK hynix and certain of its distributors in the courts of Germany and the PRC based on the alleged infringement by SK hynix’s LRDIMM products of certain of the Company’s patents in those jurisdictions. On January 25, 2018, the court in Germany held a preliminary hearing and then held the trial on December 6, 2018. In December 2017, SK hynix filed petitions challenging the validity of the patents asserted by the Company in Germany and the PRC. On June 3, 2018, the patent asserted in the PRC was found to be invalid. On June 19, 2018, the Company withdrew the patent infringement suits filed in the PRC. On January 31, 2019, the court in Germany dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Company to bear the costs of the action. Netlist has elected not to appeal the German court’s finding. Other Contingent Obligations In the ordinary course of its business, the Company has made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include, among others: (i) intellectual property indemnities to the Company’s customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of Company products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on the Company’s negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to directors and officers of the Company to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities to TRGP, SVIC, SVB and Iliad pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; and (vi) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, may be indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments the Company could be obligated to make. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments as a result of these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration