XML 33 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Inventory Purchase and Other Contractual Obligations As of June 30, 2024, future minimum payments under inventory purchase and other obligations are as follows:
| Inventory Purchase Obligations |  | Other Obligations |  | Total
2024 (6 months) | $ | 18,410 |  |  | $ | 17,922 |  |  | $ | 36,332 |
2025 | 12,888 |  |  | 31,111 |  |  | 43,999 |
2026 | — |  |  | 18,972 |  |  | 18,972 |
2027 | — |  |  | 3,673 |  |  | 3,673 |
Total minimum payments | $ | 31,298 |  |  | $ | 71,678 |  |  | $ | 102,976 |
Other obligations consist primarily of contractual payments due for software licenses. Jointly Funded Research and Development From time to time, the Company enters into contracts for jointly funded research and development projects to develop technology that may be commercialized into a product in the future. As the Company may be required to repay all or a portion of the funds provided by the other parties under certain conditions, funds of $15.0 million received from the other parties as of June 30, 2024 have been deferred in other long-term liabilities. Additional amounts under the contracts are tied to certain milestones and will also be recorded as a long-term liability as payment due under such milestones are received. The Company de-recognizes the liabilities when the contingencies associated with the repayment conditions have been resolved. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company did not recognize any previously deferred amounts from other parties due to resolution of such repayment conditions. Dispute with Silicon Motion As previously disclosed, on July 26, 2023, MaxLinear terminated the Merger Agreement on multiple grounds (Note 3). On August 16, 2023, Silicon Motion delivered to MaxLinear a notice, which Silicon Motion publicly disclosed, that it was purporting to terminate the Merger Agreement and that Silicon Motion would be commencing an arbitration before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre to seek damages from MaxLinear arising from MaxLinear’s alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement. Silicon Motion’s position is that MaxLinear’s Willful and Material Breaches (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement) of the Merger Agreement prevented the Merger from being completed by August 7, 2023, and that MaxLinear is consequently liable for substantial monetary damages in excess of the termination fee as provided in the Merger Agreement. On October 5, 2023, Silicon Motion filed a Notice of Arbitration with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre alleging that MaxLinear breached the Merger Agreement. Silicon Motion seeks payment of the termination fee, additional damages, fees, and costs. The arbitration will be confidential. MaxLinear believes that it properly terminated the Merger Agreement. MaxLinear remains confident in its decision and will vigorously defend its right to terminate the Silicon Motion transaction without penalty. Silicon Motion Stockholder Litigation MaxLinear and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in two lawsuits brought by stockholders of Silicon Motion. On August 31, 2023, a Silicon Motion stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned Water Island Event-Driven Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc., No. 23-cv-01607 (S.D. Cal.), against MaxLinear and certain of its current officers. The complaint includes two claims: (1) an alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 20, 2023, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs, who filed the Consolidated Complaint on February 15, 2024. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts that MaxLinear had a duty to disclose, concerning the Company’s intention to close the merger with Silicon Motion, including that: (i) MaxLinear had allegedly decided it would not consummate the merger because the economic circumstances surrounding the merger had materially changed, including a material downturn in the semiconductor industry and rising interest rates; (ii) MaxLinear had allegedly determined to unilaterally terminate the merger in the event the merger was approved by Chinese antitrust regulators; (iii) MaxLinear had allegedly intended to argue that certain conditions in Article 6 of the Merger Agreement had not been satisfied as required by May 5, 2023 as a basis to terminate the merger; and (iv) as a result, MaxLinear had allegedly materially misrepresented the viability of the merger, the purported benefits of the merger, and the likelihood that the merger would be consummated. The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs and expenses and such other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. MaxLinear will vigorously defend its position. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on March 29, 2024 and Plaintiffs’ filed an opposition on May 13, 2024. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on June 14, 2024. On June 13, 2024, HBK Master Fund L.P. and HBK Merger Strategies Master Fund L.P., stockholders of Silicon Motion, filed an additional complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned HBK Master Fund L.P. v. MaxLinear, Inc., No. 24-cv-01033 (S.D. Cal.), against MaxLinear and certain of its current officers. The complaint includes seven claims: (1) an alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder; (2) an alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder; (3) an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; (4) an alleged violation of Section 18 of the Exchange Act; (5) common law fraud; (6) common law negligent misrepresentation; and (7) alleged violations of California Civil Code Section 1709. The complaint alleges that the defendants concealed their intention to terminate the merger with Silicon Motion from Silicon Motion’s shareholders. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs and expenses, punitive damages, and such other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. Defendants intend to vigorously defend these claims. Comcast Litigation On December 1, 2023, MaxLinear filed claims against Comcast Management, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, or together, Comcast, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. MaxLinear alleges that in 2020, MaxLinear shared its proprietary design and know-how for a full-duplex, or FDX, amplifier with Comcast in the hope of securing future business with Comcast. MaxLinear shared its design and know-how on several occasions, all pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement between MaxLinear and Comcast, with the expectation that Comcast would keep the information confidential. MaxLinear alleges that Comcast needed this technology in order to effectively compete with fiber-optic internet providers. Instead of engaging MaxLinear to develop the FDX amplifier, Comcast allegedly shared MaxLinear’s proprietary designs with MaxLinear’s direct competitor. Comcast allegedly then worked with MaxLinear’s competitor to develop the FDX-amplifier technology. MaxLinear brought claims for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of the parties’ non-disclosure agreement, and it sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and attorney fees as well as an injunction against Comcast’s use or disclosure of MaxLinear’s trade secrets. On March 19, 2024, Comcast amended its claims for declaratory judgments, indemnification, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and on April 3, 2024, MaxLinear moved to dismiss all claims against it. MaxLinear intends to amend and refile its trade-secret and related claims. MaxLinear will vigorously defend its position. Dish Litigation On February 10, 2023, Entropic Communications, LLC, or Entropic, filed claims for patent infringement against Dish Network Corporation, Dish Network LLC, Dish Network Service, LLC, and Dish Network California Service Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. At that time, MaxLinear was not a party to the action. On September 21, 2023, Dish Network California Service Corporation, or Dish California, filed four counterclaims against MaxLinear. The four claims are declaratory judgment, breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. On January 31, 2024, the Dish defendants, together with DISH Technologies L.L.C., or collectively, Dish, filed eight counterclaims (amended counterclaims for Dish California) against MaxLinear. The eight counterclaims are (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud and negligent misrepresentation, (3) fraud arising from a civil conspiracy, (4) quasi-contract for restitution/unjust enrichment, (5) combination in restraint of trade, (6) violation of the Cartwright Act (by Dish California only), (7) patent misuse, and (8) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Dish’s eight counterclaims revolve around a core allegation that MaxLinear is a member of the Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) and that MaxLinear violated its obligation under MoCA’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy, or IPR Policy, by acting with Entropic to rid the asserted patents of the RAND encumbrances. Dish seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and costs. On February 21, 2024, MaxLinear moved to dismiss the Dish defendants’ counterclaim. On April 22, 2024, a Special Master issued a report and recommendation, or the R&R, which recommended granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the following counterclaims: (1) quasi-contract for restitution/unjust enrichment, (2) combination in restraint of trade, (3) violation of the Cartwright Act, (4) patent misuse, and (5) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. MaxLinear submitted objections to the R&R as to the remaining claims that were not dismissed. Dish submitted objections to the R&R’s recommended dismissal of the quasi-contract for restitution/unjust enrichment counterclaim. The court has not yet issued any ruling regarding the R&R or MaxLinear’s pending motion to dismiss. MaxLinear will vigorously defend its position. Cox Litigations On February 10, 2023, Entropic sued Cox Communications, Inc., CoxCom, LLC, and Cox Communications California, LLC, or together, Cox, in two separate actions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 6, 2023, Cox filed counterclaims against MaxLinear in each of the two actions. In the first action, Cox alleges that when MaxLinear assigned certain patents to Entropic, MaxLinear violated its obligations under MoCA’s IPR Policy by assigning these patents and by allegedly failing to ensure that Cox would be offered a FRAND license for these patents. Cox amended its counterclaims on January 9, 2024 and is asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment against MaxLinear. Cox seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. MaxLinear moved to dismiss Cox’s amended counterclaims on February 6, 2024. On April 22, 2024, a Special Master issued the R&R, which recommended granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the unjust enrichment counterclaim but denying the motion as to the breach of contract and declaratory judgment counterclaims. MaxLinear submitted objections to the R&R’s denial-in-part. Cox submitted objections to the R&R as to the unjust enrichment counterclaim and as to certain findings related to the breach of contract counterclaim. The court has not yet issued any ruling regarding the R&R or MaxLinear’s pending motion to dismiss. In the second action, in response to Entropic suing Cox for patent infringement, Cox filed counterclaims against MaxLinear. Cox alleges that MaxLinear granted CableLabs a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to all patents essential for compliance with DOCSIS specifications. It further alleges that MaxLinear breached this agreement when MaxLinear assigned certain patents to Entropic. Cox amended its counterclaims on January 9, 2024 and is asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Cox seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. MaxLinear moved to dismiss Cox’s amended counterclaims on February 6, 2024. On April 22, 2024, a Special Master issued the R&R, which recommended dismissing all Cox counterclaims with prejudice. Cox submitted objections to the R&R as to the unjust enrichment counterclaim. The court has not yet issued any ruling regarding the R&R or MaxLinear’s pending motion to dismiss. MaxLinear will vigorously defend its position. * * * The Company records a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2024, no material loss contingencies have been accrued for litigation and other legal claims in the consolidated financial statements, since the Company’s management currently does not believe that the ultimate outcome of any of the matters described above is probable. An unfavorable outcome of these matters may be reasonably possible in excess of recorded amounts; however, a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of such loss cannot be made at this time. Other Matters From time to time, the Company is subject to threats of litigation or actual litigation in the ordinary course of business as described above and in “Part II. — Other Information, Item 1. — Legal Proceedings,” some of which may be material. The results of any litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have a material adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration