XML 33 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES: From time to time in the ordinary course of business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, or customers and distributors may make claims against the Company. In accordance with ASC 450-10, Contingencies, the Company makes a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. On October 20, 2004, the Company filed a complaint against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (referred to collectively as “Fairchild”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its complaint, the Company alleged that Fairchild has and is infringing four of Power Integrations’ patents pertaining to pulse width modulation (PWM) integrated circuit devices. Fairchild denied infringement and asked for a declaration from the court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent and that the patents are invalid. The Court issued a claim construction order on March 31, 2006 which was favorable to the Company. The Court set a first trial on the issues of infringement, willfulness and damages for October 2, 2006. At the close of the first trial, on October 10, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company finding all asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit to be willfully infringed by Fairchild and awarding $34.0 million in damages. Fairchild raised defenses contending that the asserted patents are invalid or unenforceable, and the Court held a second trial on these issues beginning on September 17, 2007. On September 21, 2007, the jury returned a verdict in the Company’s favor, affirming the validity of the asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit. Fairchild submitted further materials on the issue of enforceability along with various other post-trial motions, and the Company filed post-trial motions seeking a permanent injunction and increased damages and attorneys’ fees, among other things. On September 24, 2008, the Court denied Fairchild’s motion regarding enforceability and ruled that all four patents are enforceable. On December 12, 2008, the Court ruled on the remaining post-trial motions, including granting a permanent injunction, reducing the damages award to $6.1 million, granting Fairchild a new trial on the issue of willful infringement in view of an intervening change in the law, and denying the Company’s motion for increased damages and attorneys’ fees with leave to renew the motion after the resolution of the issue of willful infringement. On December 22, 2008, at Fairchild’s request, the Court temporarily stayed the permanent injunction for 90 days. On January 12, 2009, Fairchild filed a notice of appeal challenging the Court’s refusal to enter a more permanent stay of the injunction, and Fairchild filed additional motions requesting that both the Federal Circuit and the District Court extend the stay of injunction. The District Court temporarily extended the stay pending the Federal Circuit ruling on Fairchild’s pending motion, but the Federal Circuit dismissed Fairchild’s appeal and denied its motion on May 5, 2009, and the District Court issued an order on May 13, 2009 confirming the reinstatement of the permanent injunction as originally entered in December 2008. On June 22, 2009, the Court held a brief bench re-trial on the issue of willful infringement. On July 22, 2010, the Court found that Fairchild willfully infringed all four of the asserted patents, and the Court also invited briefing on enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. Fairchild also filed a motion requesting that the Court amend its findings regarding willfulness. On January 18, 2011, the Court denied Fairchild’s request to amend the findings regarding Fairchild’s willful infringement and doubled the damages award against Fairchild but declined to award attorneys’ fees. On February 3, 2011, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company for a total damages award of $12.9 million. Fairchild filed a notice of appeal challenging the final judgment and a number of the underlying rulings, and the Company filed a cross-appeal seeking to increase the damages award. The appeal was argued on January 11, 2012, and the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling on March 26, 2013, affirming Fairchild’s infringement of certain claims that support the basis for the permanent injunction while reversing, vacating, and remanding the findings with respect to other claims, including the Company’s claim for damages. The Company filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s ruling on damages issues, and the Supreme Court called for a response from Fairchild but ultimately declined to review the case. On remand, the District Court reinstated the prior findings that Fairchild willfully infringed three of the Company’s patents; the Company intends to pursue its claim for financial compensation based on Fairchild’s infringement. Moreover, following a new Supreme Court case on patent damages, the District Court on October 4, 2018 determined that the Federal Circuit’s ruling on damages in the earlier appeal had been overruled; that issue is now on appeal at the Federal Circuit, with further briefing on the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the scope of the proceedings on remand expected in the coming months. On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a complaint against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Fairchild’s wholly owned subsidiary System General Corporation (referred to collectively as “Fairchild”), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its complaint, the Company alleged that Fairchild has infringed and is infringing three patents pertaining to power supply controller integrated circuit devices. Fairchild answered the Company’s complaint on November 7, 2008, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent and that the patents are invalid and unenforceable. Fairchild’s answer also included counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing three patents pertaining to primary side power conversion integrated circuit devices. Fairchild had earlier brought these same claims in a separate suit against the Company, also in Delaware, which Fairchild dismissed in favor of adding its claims to the Company’s already pending suit against Fairchild. The Company has answered Fairchild’s counterclaims, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Fairchild patent and that the Fairchild patents are invalid. Fairchild also filed a motion to stay the case, but the Court denied that motion on December 19, 2008. On March 5, 2009, Fairchild filed a motion for summary judgment to preclude any recovery for post-verdict sales of parts found to infringe in the parties’ other ongoing litigation, described above, and the Company filed its opposition and a cross-motion to preclude Fairchild from re-litigating the issues of infringement and damages for those same products. On June 26, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ motions, and on July 9, 2009 the Court issued an order denying the parties’ motions but staying proceedings with respect to the products that were found to infringe and which are subject to the injunction in the other Delaware case between the parties pending the entry of final judgment in that case; those products are expected to be addressed in the context of the parties’ remand proceedings following the appeal in their earlier litigation in Delaware, and the remainder of the case is proceeding. On December 18, 2009, the Court issued an order construing certain terms in the asserted claims of the Company’s and Fairchild’s patents in suit. Following the Court’s ruling on claim construction, Fairchild withdrew its claim related to one of its patents and significantly reduced the number of claims asserted for the remaining two patents. The parties thereafter filed and argued a number of motions for summary judgment, and the Court denied the majority of the parties’ motions but granted the Company’s motion to preclude Fairchild from re-arguing validity positions that were rejected in the prior case between the parties. Because the assigned Judge retired at the end of July 2010, the case was re-assigned to a different Judge, and the Court vacated the trial schedule and had the parties provide their input on the appropriate course of action. The Court thereafter set a trial schedule with the jury trial on infringement and validity to begin in July 2011. On April 18, 2011, the Court rescheduled the trial to begin in January 2012, and on June 2, 2011, the Court moved the trial date to April 2012 to permit the parties to address another patent the Company accused Fairchild of infringing. Following a trial in April 2012, the jury returned a verdict finding that Fairchild infringes two of the Company’s patents, that Fairchild has induced others to infringe the Company’s patents, and also upheld the validity of the infringed patents. Of the two remaining counterclaim patents Fairchild asserted in the case, one was found not to be infringed, but the jury found the second patent to be infringed by a limited number of the Company’s products, although the jury further found the Company did not induce infringement by any customers, including customers outside the United States. On March 29, 2013, the District Court denied most of the parties’ post-trial motions on liability but granted the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law finding that Fairchild infringed another of the Company’s patents. On April 25, 2013, the Court denied both parties’ motions regarding the unenforceability of each other’s patents. The Company challenged adverse findings on appeal; nevertheless, the Company estimated that even if the verdict on Fairchild’s patent had ultimately been upheld, the sales potentially impacted would have amounted to less than 0.5% of the Company’s revenues. The Company requested an injunction preventing further infringement of its own patents by Fairchild, and Fairchild requested an injunction as well. Following a hearing on the issue in June 2014, the Court denied Fairchild’s request for an injunction against the Company and granted the Company’s request for an injunction against Fairchild. On January 13, 2015, the District Court entered final judgment on the liability and validity issues discussed above, and both parties filed appeals with the Federal Circuit. After briefing was completed, oral argument on the appeal took place in early July 2016, and on December 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the appeal, overturning the lone infringement verdict against the Company, finding one of the Company’s patents invalid, and overturning the District Court’s jury instruction on inducement. In view of the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the District Court’s jury instruction on inducement, the Court also vacated the inducement findings and associated injunction against Fairchild and remanded the case for a retrial on inducement, but the underlying validity and infringement findings against Fairchild on those two patents remain intact. At the conclusion of the retrial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company, finding that Fairchild willfully infringed the Company’s patents and induced infringement of the patents, awarding $24.3 million in damages on November 9, 2018. Although the jury awarded damages, at this stage of the proceedings the Company cannot state the amount, if any, it might ultimately recover from Fairchild, and no benefits have been recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements as a result of the damages verdict. Fairchild challenged the verdict, and the Company is also seeking enhanced damages for Fairchild’s willful infringement, in post-trial proceedings where rulings are expected over the coming months, with appeals to follow. On June 28, 2004, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against System General Corporation (SG), a Taiwanese company, and its U.S. subsidiary. The Company’s complaint alleged that certain integrated circuits produced by SG infringed and continue to infringe certain of its patents. On June 10, 2005, in response to the initiation of an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation on the patents asserted in the District Court lawsuit, the District Court stayed all proceedings. Subsequent to the completion of the ITC proceedings, the District Court temporarily lifted the stay and scheduled a case management conference. On December 6, 2006, SG filed a notice of appeal of the ITC decision. In response, and by agreement of the parties, the District Court vacated the scheduled case management conference and renewed the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC determination. On November 19, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s findings in all respects, and SG did not file a petition for review. The parties subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the District Court case without prejudice. On November 4, 2009, the Company re-filed its complaint for patent infringement against SG and its parent corporations, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, to address their continued infringement of patents at issue in the original suit that recently emerged from SG requested reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Company seeks, among other things, an order enjoining SG and Fairchild from infringing the Company’s patents and an award of damages resulting from the alleged infringement. Fairchild has denied infringement and asked for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent, that the patents are invalid, and that one of the two of the Company’s patents now at issue in the case is unenforceable. On May 5, 2010, SG and Fairchild filed an amended answer including counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing two patents, and later Fairchild withdrew its claim for infringement of one of the patents it originally asserted against the Company but added another patent to the case over the Company’s objections. Both parties filed summary judgment motions and challenges to each other’s experts’ testimony, and the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to one of Fairchild’s two patents. Following a trial on the remaining claims in February 2014, the jury returned a verdict in the Company’s favor, affirming the validity of the asserted claims of the Company’s patents-in-suit, finding that SG and Fairchild infringed the Company’s asserted patents and induced infringement by others, and awarding $105.0 million in damages. The Jury also rejected Fairchild’s remaining counterclaims for infringement against the Company. Fairchild challenged these rulings in post-trial motions, but the judge confirmed the jury’s determinations on infringement and damages, although the Court declined to find Fairchild’s infringement willful. Fairchild also pressed its unenforceability claim with respect to one of the two patents it was found to infringe in post-trial briefing, but the Court rejected Fairchild’s unenforceability claim. Fairchild also requested reconsideration of the damages determinations, and the Court granted a new trial with respect to damages but none of the other issues addressed in the previous trial, with the retrial scheduled for December 2015. Thereafter, the parties completed pretrial proceedings challenging each other’s experts, and the Court granted portions of each party’s motions limiting the scope of expert testimony for purposes of the damages retrial, but neither party was successful in their efforts to prevent the other side’s experts from testifying at trial. Following a retrial on the issue of damages in December 2015, the jury returned a verdict in the Company’s favor, finding that the Company’s patented technology created the basis for customer demand for the infringing Fairchild products and awarding $139.8 million in damages. Although the jury awarded damages, at this stage of the proceedings the Company cannot state the amount, if any, it might ultimately recover from Fairchild, and no benefits have been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a result of the damages verdict. Fairchild filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict, but the Court rejected Fairchild’s motions challenging the damages verdict in August 2016. The Company also filed motions requesting enhanced damages and attorney fees and reinstatement of the willfulness finding against Fairchild in view of an intervening change of law; on January 13, 2017, the District Court reinstated the finding that Fairchild’s infringement was willful but declined to enhance damages or award fees. In January 2017, Fairchild filed a further challenge to the verdict, but the Court rejected Fairchild’s motion and entered a final judgment of $146.5 million after factoring in pre-judgment interest. Fairchild’s appeal on the merits challenged the infringement findings and damages award. In July 2018, on appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings that Fairchild infringed both of the Company’s asserted patents but vacated the damages award and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Company filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling, but the Supreme Court denied further reviews. On remand, the Company intends to pursue its claim for damages, although the patent claims at issue in litigation currently stand rejected in IPR proceedings, subject to appeal as discussed below. On May 1, 2012, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild’s wholly owned subsidiary, System General Corporation (referred to collectively as “Fairchild”), filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its complaint, Fairchild alleged that the Company has infringed and is infringing four patents pertaining to power conversion integrated circuit devices. The Company answered Fairchild’s complaint, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Fairchild patent and that the Fairchild patents are invalid, and the Company also asserted counterclaims against Fairchild for infringement of five of the Company’s patents. Fairchild withdrew its claim for infringement of one of the patents it asserted against the Company after the Company’s preliminary challenge. The parties streamlined their contentions in view of the Court’s pretrial rulings, and following a trial in late May and early June 2015, a jury returned a verdict finding that Fairchild infringed one of the Company’s patents, that Fairchild has induced and contributed to others’ infringement of the Company’s patent, and that the Company induced infringement of a Fairchild patent that was previously found infringed in the 2012 trial described above, with a damages award of $2.4 million in favor of Fairchild. Both parties filed post-trial motions and challenges to various portions of the jury verdicts, and the Court addressed the first wave of post-trial motions, denying each side’s challenges to the verdict and denying Fairchild’s request for an injunction. In parallel proceedings, the Federal Circuit overturned the underlying finding of infringement against the Company on the Fairchild patent-in-suit, and the Company moved to vacate the inducement and damages judgment against the Company, a motion that Fairchild did not oppose. Following a retrial on indirect infringement and damages for Fairchild’s infringement of one of the Company’s asserted patents, a jury awarded the Company $0.7 million in damages on November 15, 2018; post-trial proceedings are under way, with appeals to follow. On October 21, 2015, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., and wholly-owned subsidiary Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (referred to collectively as “Fairchild”) to address Fairchild’s continued infringement of two patents Fairchild was previously found to infringe in the three District Court cases the Company brought against Fairchild discussed above. In each of the three prior cases, Fairchild was found to infringe one of the patents at issue in the latest complaint, and Fairchild’s challenges to the validity of the patents were rejected during the course of the prior lawsuits as well. Fairchild has answered the Company’s complaint, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent and that the patents are invalid. Fairchild’s answer also included counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing four patents pertaining to power conversion integrated circuit devices, including one patent the Company was found not to infringe in prior litigation. The Company has answered Fairchild’s counterclaims, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Fairchild patent and that the Fairchild patents are invalid. On December 15, 2016, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of the parties’ inter partes review (IPR) and reexamination proceedings regarding the patents-in-suit. Following additional briefing regarding the Company’s proposal to move forward with some of the Company’s claims, the Court lifted the stay as to one of each side’s patents and set a trial for November 2020, with fact and expert discovery taking place in the interim. On March 10, 2016, Silver Star Capital, LLC filed a petition with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) requesting that the PTO conduct an IPR of the validity of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079 (the ‘079 patent), which the Company has asserted against Fairchild Semiconductor in the California litigation initiated in 2004, as discussed above. The Company’s ‘079 patent is also asserted in the Company’s most recent lawsuits against Fairchild filed in October 2015 and against ON Semiconductor filed in November 2016, also discussed herein. On March 29, 2016, ON Semiconductor Corporation filed another petition requesting an IPR of the Company’s ‘079 patent. Since that time, ON Semiconductor has filed eleven more IPR petitions requesting review of various patents that the Company has previously asserted against Fairchild as described above, and another eleven IPR petitions requesting review of various patents that the Company asserted against ON Semiconductor as described herein. The PTO denied Silver Star Capital’s IPR petition on the ‘079 patent but instituted IPR proceedings with respect to ON Semiconductor’s petition directed to the ‘079 patent. On September 22, 2017, the PTO rejected as obvious the claims of the Company’s ‘079 patent that were asserted in litigation and which formed the basis for the $146.5 million judgment against Fairchild; an appeal has been filed to reverse the PTO’s adverse findings, with further proceedings expected in the coming months. The PTO also instituted IPR proceedings in response to eight of ON Semiconductor’s eleven other petitions challenging patents previously asserted against Fairchild, denying institution in three cases, and the PTO has rejected a number of the Company’s patent claims in the context of these ongoing proceedings. In one case, the PTO rejected as anticipated the claims of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908 that were asserted in litigation against Fairchild; an appeal is under way, with briefing expected in the coming months, and further proceedings and appeals regarding other IPRs are expected in the coming months as well. Although the validity of many of the Company’s challenged patents has previously been confirmed in the Company’s District Court litigation with Fairchild and in many cases in prior PTO reexamination proceedings as well, and though the Company intends to vigorously defend the validity of its patents, the outcome of the IPR proceedings is uncertain. On April 1, 2016, Opticurrent, LLC filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In its complaint, Opticurrent alleges that the Company has infringed and is infringing one patent pertaining to transistor switch devices. The Company filed a motion to transfer the case to California, which the Court granted, and the case was assigned to a new judge in San Francisco following the transfer. On December 21, 2018, the Court granted the Company’s challenge to Opticurrent’s damages expert but denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment. Following a trial in February 2019, a jury issued a finding of direct infringement by the Company but found that the Company did not induce infringement, and awarded Opticurrent damages of $6.7 million. The Company is challenging those findings in post-trial proceedings and believes it has strong defenses, and intends to vigorously defend itself against Opticurrent’s claims, with appeals to follow. On August 11, 2016, ON Semiconductor filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. In its complaint, ON Semiconductor alleged that the Company has infringed and is infringing six patents and requested injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which the Court granted, and the case has been consolidated with the Company’s affirmative case against ON Semiconductor in the Northern District of California, as discussed below. The Company believes it has valid defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against ON Semiconductor’s claims. On November 1, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against ON Semiconductor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to address ON Semiconductor’s infringement of six patents. The court denied ON Semiconductor’s motion requesting that the case be transferred to Arizona and scheduled trial for December of 2019, with interim deadlines for claim construction and dispositive motions. In consolidating the pleadings from the California and Arizona cases following the transfer of ON Semiconductor’s case from Arizona, ON Semiconductor asserted two additional patents, bringing the total number of patents asserted against the Company to eight in this case, and ON Semiconductor’s amended complaint also seeks a declaration of non-infringement with respect to another of the Company’s patents that was previously asserted against Fairchild Semiconductor. Further proceedings and discovery will take place over the coming months, with a trial scheduled for December of 2019. On December 27, 2016, ON Semiconductor filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In its complaint, ON Semiconductor alleged that the Company has infringed and is infringing six patents and requests injunctive relief. On March 9, 2017, ON Semiconductor dismissed its Texas complaint and re-filed a substantially similar complaint in the District of Delaware. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss, ON Semiconductor filed an amended complaint; the Company has answered ON Semiconductor’s complaint and asserted claims for infringement of several of the Company’s patents. Trial has been scheduled for February 2020, with interim deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. The Company believes it has valid defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against ON Semiconductor’s claims. In November 2017, ON Semiconductor filed suit against the Company in Taiwan charging the Company with infringing three Taiwanese patents and seeking an injunction and damages of approximately $1.0 million. After a number of hearings and briefings on various disputed issues, including issues of jurisdiction, claim construction, validity, and infringement, the Court on April 8, 2019 denied ON’s claims and dismissed the case. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against ON Semiconductor’s claims in any further proceedings in this matter. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of legal proceedings with certainty, and there can be no assurance that Power Integrations will prevail in the above-mentioned unsettled litigations. These litigations, whether or not determined in Power Integrations’ favor or settled, will be costly and will divert the efforts and attention of the Company’s management and technical personnel from normal business operations, potentially causing a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition and operating results. Currently, the Company is not able to estimate a loss or a range of loss for the ongoing litigation disclosed above, however adverse determinations in litigation could result in monetary losses, the loss of proprietary rights, subject the Company to significant liabilities, require Power Integrations to seek licenses from third parties or prevent the Company from licensing the technology, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and operating results.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration