XML 96 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3.a.u2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Inventory Purchase and Other Contractual Obligations As of December 31, 2019, future minimum payments under inventory purchase and other obligations are as follows:
| Inventory Purchase Obligations |  | Other Obligations |  | Total
| (in thousands)
2020 | $ | 15,093 |  |  | $ | 5,735 |  |  | $ | 20,828 |
2021 | — |  |  | 893 |  |  | 893 |
2022 | — |  |  | 425 |  |  | 425 |
2023 | — |  |  | 447 |  |  | 447 |
Total minimum payments | $ | 15,093 |  |  | $ | 7,500 |  |  | $ | 22,593 |
Other obligations consist of contractual payments due for software licenses. CrestaTech Litigation The Company was a defendant in patent litigation originally filed by CrestaTech Technology Corporation, or CrestaTech. On January 21, 2014, CrestaTech filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court of Delaware, or District Court Litigation, alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585, or the ‘585 Patent and 7,265,792, or the ‘792 Patent. In addition to asking for compensatory damages, CrestaTech alleged willful infringement and sought a permanent injunction. CrestaTech also named Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corp. and VIZIO, Inc. as defendants based upon their alleged use of the Company’s television tuners. Following the litigation history described in the Company’s prior filings on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q, the District Court dismissed the District Court Litigation in April 2018. While the successor plaintiff following a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding of CrestaTech below had suggested that the dismissal may have been in error, it took no action to re-instate the case. In the related bankruptcy proceeding, the plaintiff stated that it “no longer has any valid patent claims that it is asserting in any of the proceedings purchased under the Sale Agreement,” which includes the District Court Litigation against the Company in re Cresta Technology Corporation, Case No. 16-50808 (N.D. Cal. Bank. 2016) at Dkt. No. 270. In November 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with CF Crespe resolving all outstanding matters with CF Crespe and CrestaTech (its predecessor-in-interest). On December 5, 2019, the Federal Circuit dismissed the Company’s appeal from the inter partes review of CF Crespe’s patent number 7,075,585 -- the only remaining active matter as of the parties’ settlement. The terms of the settlement are confidential, and the settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Trango Systems, Inc. Litigation On or about August 2, 2016, Trango Systems, Inc., or Trango, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division, against defendants Broadcom Corporation, Inc., or Broadcom, and the Company, collectively, Defendants. Trango is a purchaser that alleges various fraud, breach of contract, and interference with economic relations claims in connection with the discontinuance of a chip line the Company acquired from Broadcom in 2016. Trango seeks unspecified general and special damages, pre-judgment interest, expenses and costs, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and unspecified injunctive and equitable relief. On June 23, 2017, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer to each cause of action in the second amended complaint filed on or about December 6, 2016. Trango filed its third amended complaint on or about July 13, 2017. On February 23, 2018, the Court sustained, in part, the Company's demurrer, dismissing with prejudice the cause of action for breach of a written contract, and Trango voluntarily dismissed its cause of action for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The remaining causes of action have been permitted to proceed. On March 15, 2018, Trango filed its fourth amended complaint. The Company filed its answer on April 17, 2018. Also, on April 17, Broadcom filed a cross-complaint against the Company, alleging causes of action for indemnity, contribution and apportionment, and declaratory relief. Broadcom voluntarily dismissed the cross-complaint on June 8, 2018. On December 10, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication concerning all of Trango’s causes of action asserted against it. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and on June 6, 2019, the case was dismissed with prejudice. The terms of the settlement are confidential, and the settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Other Matters In addition, from time to time, the Company is subject to threats of litigation or actual litigation in the ordinary course of business, some of which may be material. The Company believes that there are no other currently pending litigation matters that, if determined adversely by the Company, would have a material effect on the Company's business or that would not be covered by the Company’s existing liability insurance.

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