XML 38 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company leases certain of its office 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 |  |  |
2016 |  | $ | 1,314 |
2017 |  |  | 762 |
2018 |  |  | 338 |
2019 |  |  | 213 |
2020 and thereafter |  |  | 119 |
Rent expense was approximately $1,902,000, $1,824,000 and $1,820,000 in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The Company also pays tenant-related 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 the 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 the 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 that date, SynQor also announced it and Ericsson had entered into a definitive settlement agreement, the terms of which were not disclosed. On September 16, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Texas Court”) 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 (the “ ‘290 patent”), which was issued on that day. As with SynQor’s original complaint, the amended complaint alleges the Company’s products, including but not limited to the Company’s unregulated bus converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems, infringe 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 Texas 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 Texas Court’s claim construction ruling. On March 31, 2014, the Texas Court issued an order severing the case against the Company and Cisco into two separate matters, with separate trials to be held with respect to SynQor’s claims against Cisco and SynQor’s claims against the Company. On June 30, 2014, the Company filed a number of motions seeking summary judgment in this matter, including for a finding of no direct, indirect, or willful infringement and for a finding of indefiniteness with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,272,021 (the “ ‘021 patent”), which is one of four related patents at question in the Texas Action. The Texas Court has yet to rule on these motions. On October 23, 2014, the Texas Court issued an order continuing trial in this matter indefinitely. On January 7, 2015, the Company’s case and that of Cisco were assigned to a new judge within the Texas Court. On February 6, 2015, SynQor filed a motion to consolidate the Company’s and Cisco’s cases for trial, which was subsequently denied. On March 13, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. Circuit issued a ruling invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 (the “ ‘190 patent”) asserted by SynQor against the Company. Challenges to the validity of the remaining claims relating to the ‘190 patent, and to the remaining patents asserted by SynQor against the Company, remain pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and in the Texas Action. On March 26, 2015, the Texas Court scheduled pre-trial conferences for September 15, 2015, for Cisco’s case and January 13, 2016, for the Company’s case. On April 20, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTAB”) issued a decision upholding the validity of all of the claims of SynQor’s U.S. Patent No. 7,564,702 (the “ ‘702 patent”), another of the power converter patents included in the claims asserted against the Company in the Texas Action. On May 20, 2015, the Company filed a request for rehearing concerning that decision. The PTAB has not ruled on that request. On May 5, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision invalidating all of the asserted claims of the ‘021 patent. On June 10, 2015, SynQor filed a request for rehearing concerning that decision. The PTAB has not ruled on that request. The Company has received no notice from the Texas Court regarding the timing of rulings on the Company’s summary judgment motions. On June 19, 2015, the Texas Court issued an order scheduling a jury trial in SynQor’s patent infringement action against Cisco beginning on November 30, 2015. SynQor’s patent infringement allegations against Cisco include allegations that Cisco is using certain parts supplied by the Company in infringing circuits. On October 5, 2015, the Texas Court issued an order denying a motion by Cisco seeking a stay of SynQor’s case against Cisco pending the resolution of matters concerning the asserted SynQor patents before the PTAB. On November 20, 2015, SynQor and Cisco informed the Texas Court they had reached a confidential settlement of SynQor’s case against Cisco. On November 24, 2015, a Magistrate Judge of the Texas Court issued an order staying SynQor’s case against the Company pending the resolution of matters concerning the asserted SynQor patents before the PTAB. SynQor has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of that order, and that request is still pending. The Company continues to believe 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, including such use by Cisco. 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, however, the Company cannot estimate the amount of possible loss or range of possible loss at this time. In addition to the SynQor matter, 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 will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration