XML 77 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Legal Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 30, 2013
Legal Matters [Abstract] |
Legal Matters | 13. Legal Matters From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved, to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and determine if accruals are appropriate. We further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made, if accruals are not appropriate. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the legal cases described below. For the cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought or specified; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, the ultimate resolutions of these various proceedings and matters are inherently difficult to predict; as such, our operating results could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these proceedings or matters for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. On June 4, 2012, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Cirrus Logic and two other defendants in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The Plaintiff alleges that Cirrus Logic infringed four U.S. patents relating to Ethernet technology. In its complaint, the Plaintiff indicated that it is seeking unspecified monetary damages, including up to treble damages for willful infringement. We answered the complaint on June 29, 2012, denying the allegations of infringement and seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents in suit were invalid and not infringed. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff amended its complaint to allege that we infringed on a fifth patent related to similar technology. We answered the amended complaint on October 8, 2012, again denying the allegations of infringement and seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents in suit were invalid and not infringed. On February 4, 2013, a purported shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two o f the Company’s executives (the “Securities Case”). Koplyay v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 13-CV-0790. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 31, 2012, and October 31, 2012, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. A second complaint was filed on April 13, 2013, by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. On April 19, 2013, the court appointed the plaintiff and counsel in the first class action complaint as the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2013, including substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. On April 13, 2013, another purported shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint against several of our current officers and directors in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 53rd Judicial District (the “Derivative Case”). Graham, derivatively on behalf of Cirrus Logic, Inc. v. Rhode, et. al., Cause No. D-1-GN-13-001285. In this complaint, the plaintiff makes allegations similar to those presented in the Securities Case, but the plaintiff asserts various state law causes of action, including claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyInformationAboutLitigationMattersAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration