XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies |
12. | Commitments and Contingencies
At March 31, 2019, the Company had approximately $4,393,000 of capital expenditure commitments. The Company is the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit originally filed on January 28, 2011 by SynQor, Inc. (“SynQor”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Texas Action”). The complaint, as amended in September 2011, alleges that the Company’s products, including but not limited to, unregulated bus converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems, infringe SynQor’s U.S. patent numbers 7,072,190, 7,272,021, 7,564,702, and 8,023,290 (“the ‘190 patent”, “the ‘021 patent”, “the ‘702 patent”, and “the ‘290 patent”, respectively). SynQor’s complaint sought an injunction against further infringement and an award of unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorney fees. The Company has denied that its products infringe any of the SynQor patents, asserted that the SynQor patents are invalid, and asserted that the ‘290 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by SynQor or its agents during the examination of the ‘290 patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Company also asserted counterclaims seeking damages against SynQor for deceptive trade practices and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage arising from SynQor’s attempted enforcement of its patents against the Company. On May 23, 2016, after extensive discovery, the Texas Action was stayed by the court pending completion of certain inter partes reexamination proceedings at the USPTO (including any appeals from such proceedings to the Federal Circuit (as defined below)) concerning the SynQor patents, which are described below. On November 2, 2018, SynQor filed a motion to lift the stay of the Texas Action. On January 3, 2019, the magistrate judge issued an order denying the motion and reaffirming the Court’s original decision that the stay should remain at least until the conclusion of all pending inter partes reexaminations and related appeals. On January 17, 2019, SynQor filed objections to the magistrate judge’s order, and sought reconsideration of that order by the district court judge. The district court judge has not yet ruled on SynQor’s objections. In 2011, in response to the filing of the Texas Action, the Company initiated inter partes reexamination proceedings at the USPTO challenging the validity of certain claims of the SynQor patents asserted in the Texas Action, including all claims that were asserted against the Company by SynQor. The current status of these proceedings is as follows. Regarding the ‘190 patent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued a decision on March 13, 2015, determining that certain claims were invalid, remanding the matter to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the USPTO for further proceedings. On May 2, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the examiner’s original rejection of all but one of the remaining claims of the ‘190 patent, and identifying a new basis for rejecting the remaining claim (“claim 34”), which had been added by SynQor during the reexamination. SynQor then requested further examination of claim 34 by the examiner, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(1). On June 22, 2017, the examiner issued a determination under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(d), finding claim 34 was unpatentable. That decision was affirmed by the PTAB on February 20, 2019. SynQor subsequently appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit and that appeal is currently pending. On May 2, 2016, the PTAB also issued decisions finding all challenged claims of SynQor’s ‘021 patent invalid and upholding the validity of all challenged claims of SynQor’s ‘702 and ‘290 patents. On August 30, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued rulings with regard to those decisions. With respect to the ‘021 patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that all of the challenged claims of the ‘021 patent were invalid. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the PTAB for further consideration of the patentability of certain claims that had been added by amendment during the reexamination. On February 20, 2019, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the examiner’s rejections of all challenged claims. With respect to the ‘702 patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that all of the challenged claims of the ‘702 patent were patentable. With respect to the ‘290 patent, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision upholding the patentability of the ‘290 patent claims, and remanded the case to the PTAB for further consideration. On February 20, 2019, the PTAB issued a decision reversing its prior affirmance of the examiner’s non-adoption of rejections with respect to the ‘290 patent, and entering rejections of all of the claims of the ‘290 patent. SynQor may now choose to reopen prosecution of this proceeding, or to appeal the PTAB’s decision to the Federal Circuit. On October 31, 2017, the Company filed a request with the USPTO for ex parte reexamination of the asserted claims of the ‘702 patent, based on different prior art references than had been at issue in the previous inter partes reexamination of the ‘702 patent. On December 6, 2017, the USPTO issued a decision initiating ex parte reexamination of the ‘702 patent after finding that the Company’s request had raised a substantial new question of patentability of the challenged claims. On March 21, 2018, the examiner issued a non-final office action finding all of the challenged claims of the ‘702 patent to be unpatentable. On May 14, 2018, SynQor filed a petition requesting the USPTO to vacate its prior decision granting the Company’s request for ex parte reexamination. No action has been taken on the petition to date. On September 12, 2018, the examiner issued a final office action finding all of the challenged claims of the ‘702 patent to be unpatentable. On October 26, 2018, SynQor filed a notice of appeal appealing the examiner’s final rejection to the PTAB. On December 3, 2018, the USPTO denied SynQor’s petition to vacate the decision initiating the ex parte reexamination. On January 25, 2019, SynQor appealed the Examiner’s final rejection to the PTAB. That appeal is pending. The Company continues to monitor the progress of this proceeding. On August 6, 2018, the Company filed a request with the USPTO for ex parte reexamination of the asserted claims of the ‘190 patent, based on different prior art references than had been at issue in the previous inter partes reexamination of the ‘190 patent. On September 11, 2018, SynQor filed a petition asking the USPTO to reject the Company’s request on the ground that it presented substantially the same prior art or arguments presented to the USPTO in the prior inter partes reexamination of the ‘190 patent. On December 3, 2018, the USPTO denied SynQor’s petition to reject the Company’s ex parte reexamination request. On December 4, 2018, the USPTO instituted ex parte reexamination of the ‘190 patent after finding that the Company’s request had raised a substantial new question affecting the patentability of the challenged claims. On March 15, 2019, the USPTO issued a non-final rejection of all of the asserted claims of the ‘190 patent. On January 23, 2018, the 20-year terms of the ‘190 patent, the ‘021 patent and the ‘702 patent expired. The 20-year term of the ‘290 patent expired on July 16, 2018. As a consequence of these expirations, the Company cannot be liable under any of the SynQor patents for allegedly infringing activities occurring after the patents’ respective expiration dates. In addition, any amended claims that may issue as a result of any of the still-pending reexamination proceedings will have no effective term and cannot be the basis for any liability by the Company. 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. The Company believes SynQor’s claims lack merit and, therefore, it 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://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