15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases certain of its office, warehousing and manufacturing space. The future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases with remaining terms in excess of one year are as follows (in thousands):


Year
2014	$	1,425
2015		644
2016		131
2017		108
2018 and thereafter		99

Rent expense was approximately $1,820,000, $1,677,000 and $1,592,000 in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company also pays executory costs such as taxes, maintenance and insurance.

On January 28, 2011, SynQor, Inc. (“SynQor”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against Ericsson, Inc. (“Ericsson”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and the Company in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“the Texas Action”). This immediately followed a complaint filed by the Company on January 26, 2011, in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in which the Company sought a declaratory judgment that its bus converter products do not infringe any valid claim of certain of SynQor’s U.S. patents, and that the claims of those patents are invalid. With respect to the Company, SynQor’s complaint alleges the Company’s products, including, but not limited to, unregulated bus converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems, infringe certain SynQor patents. SynQor seeks, among other items, an injunction against further infringement and an award of unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorney fees. On February 8, 2011, SynQor filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining the Company from manufacturing, using, selling, and offering for sale in the United States and/or importing into the United States certain identified unregulated bus converters, as well as any other bus converters not significantly different from those products. On February 17, 2011, the Company withdrew its Massachusetts action without prejudice to allow the litigation to proceed in Texas. On May 16, 2011, SynQor announced it was withdrawing its motion for preliminary injunction against the Company. On September 16, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order setting a trial date of July 7, 2014. On September 20, 2011, SynQor filed an amended complaint in the Texas Action. The amended complaint repeated the allegations of patent infringement against the Company contained in SynQor’s original complaint, and included additional patent infringement allegations with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,023,290 (“290 patent”), which was issued on that day. As with SynQor’s original complaint, the amended complaint alleged that the Company’s products, including but not limited to the Company’s unregulated bus converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems, infringed the asserted patents. On October 4, 2011, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims to SynQor’s amended complaint, in which the Company alleges the 290 patent is unenforceable because it was procured through inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and seeks damages against SynQor for SynQor’s unfair and deceptive trade practices and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage in connection with SynQor’s allegations of patent infringement against the Company. On January 2, 2014, the court issued its claim construction order following a claim construction hearing held on December 17, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of certain aspects of the court’s claim construction ruling. The Company continues to believe that none of its products, including its unregulated bus converters, infringe any valid claim of the asserted SynQor patents, either alone or when used in an intermediate bus architecture implementation. The Company believes SynQor’s claims lack merit and, therefore, continues to vigorously defend itself against SynQor’s patent infringement allegations. The Company does not believe a loss is probable for this matter. If a loss were to be incurred, though, the Company cannot estimate the amount of possible loss or range of possible loss at this time.

On February 22, 2007, the Company announced it had reached an agreement in principle with Ericsson, Inc., the U.S. affiliate of LM Ericsson, to settle a lawsuit brought by Ericsson against the Company in California state court. Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into on March 29, 2007, after a court ordered mediation, the Company paid $50,000,000 to Ericsson, of which $12,800,000 was reimbursed by the Company’s insurance carriers. Accordingly, the Company recorded a net loss of $37,200,000 from the litigation–related settlements in the fourth quarter of 2006. The Company subsequently sought further reimbursement from its insurance carriers. On November 14, 2008, a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found in favor of the Company in a lawsuit against certain of its insurance carriers with respect to the Ericsson settlement. The jury awarded $17,300,000 in damages to the Company, although the verdict was subject to challenge in the trial court and on appeal. Both parties filed certain motions subsequent to the ruling and, on March 2, 2009, the judge in the case rendered his decision on the subsequent motions, reducing the jury award by $4,000,000. On March 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (“the Court”) issued its judgment in the matter, affirming the award of $13,300,000, plus prejudgment interest from the date of breach on March 29, 2007, through March 26, 2009, the date of judgment in the amount of approximately $3,179,000. The insurance carriers filed their appeal to this total judgment in the amount of approximately $16,479,000 and an oral argument was held in early February 2010 on the insurer’s appeal. On March 16, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the judgment in favor of the Company and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinions. On October 3, 2012, a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was filed with the Court, reflecting the contemporaneous settlement agreement between the Company and the insurance carriers in which the company received a cash payment of $1,975,000 in exchange for its release of the insurance carriers from future claims. The settlement amount of $1,975,000 was recorded as a gain from litigation–related settlement in the fourth quarter of 2012.

In addition, the Company is involved in certain other litigation and claims incidental to the conduct of its business. While the outcome of lawsuits and claims against the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not expect any current litigation or claims to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.