XML 24 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments And Contingencies Commitments and contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Oct. 01, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company leases office space, cars and equipment under operating leases, some of which are non-cancelable, with various expiration dates through December 2026. The terms of some of the Company’s office leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period, and has accrued for rent expense incurred but not paid. Purchase Obligations The Company has entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. As of October 1, 2017, the Company had approximately $143.7 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. The Company establishes a loss liability for all products it does not expect to sell for which it has committed purchases from suppliers. Such losses have not been material to date. From time to time the Company’s suppliers procure unique complex components on the Company's behalf. If these components do not meet specified technical criteria or are defective, the Company should not be obligated to purchase the materials. However, disputes may arise as a result and significant resources may be spent resolving such disputes. Warranty Obligation Changes in the Company’s warranty obligation, which is included in other accrued liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, are as follows:
| Three Months Ended |  | Nine Months Ended
| October 1, 2017 |  | October 2, 2016 |  | October 1, 2017 |  | October 2, 2016
| (In thousands)
Balance as of beginning of the period | $ | 60,451 |  |  | $ | 50,393 |  |  | $ | 58,520 |  |  | $ | 56,706 |
Provision for warranty obligation made during the period | 35,815 |  |  | 27,939 |  |  | 97,083 |  |  | 62,748 |
Settlements made during the period | (28,716 | ) |  | (24,506 | ) |  | (88,053 | ) |  | (65,628 | )
Balance at end of period | $ | 67,550 |  |  | $ | 53,826 |  |  | $ | 67,550 |  |  | $ | 53,826 |
Guarantees and Indemnifications The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a Director and Officer Insurance Policy that enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the fair value of each indemnification agreement is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of October 1, 2017. In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual any time after execution date of the respective agreement. The maximum amount of potential future infringement indemnification is generally unlimited. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of October 1, 2017. Employment Agreements The Company has signed various employment agreements with key executives pursuant to which, if their employment is terminated without cause, such employees are entitled to receive their base salary (and commission or bonus, as applicable) for 52 weeks (for the Chief Executive Officer), 39 weeks (for the Senior Vice President of Worldwide Operations and Support) and up to 26 weeks (for other key executives). Such employees will also continue to have equity awards vest for up to a one-year period following such termination without cause. If a termination without cause or resignation for good reason occurs within one year of a change in control, such employees are entitled to full acceleration (for the Chief Executive Officer) and up to two years acceleration (for other key executives) of any unvested portion of his or her equity awards. The Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of October 1, 2017. Litigation and Other Legal Matters The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, the Company accrues for the amount, or if a range, the Company accrues the low end of the range, only if there is not a better estimate than any other amount within the range, as a component of legal expense within litigation reserves, net. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate the Company had previously accrued. In relation to such matters, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position within the next twelve months, or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses. Ericsson v. NETGEAR, Inc. On September 14, 2010, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively “Ericsson”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company and defendants D-Link Corporation, D-Link Systems, Inc., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas alleging that the defendants infringe certain Ericsson patents. The Company has been accused of infringing eight U.S. patents: 5,790,516 (the “‘516 Patent”); 6,330,435 (the “‘435 Patent”); 6,424,625 (the “‘625 Patent”); 6,519,223 (the “‘223 Patent”); 6,772,215 (the “‘215 Patent”); 5,987,019 (the “‘019 Patent”); 6,466,568 (the “‘568 Patent”); and 5,771,468 (the “'468 Patent"). Ericsson generally alleged that the Company and the other defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the Ericsson patents through the defendants' IEEE 802.11-compliant products. In addition, Ericsson alleged that the Company infringed the claimed methods and apparatuses of the '468 Patent through the Company's PCMCIA routers. The Company filed its answer to the Ericsson complaint on December 17, 2010 where it asserted the affirmative defenses of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. On June 8, 2011, Ericsson filed an amended complaint that added Dell, Toshiba and Belkin as defendants. At the status conference held on June 9, 2011, the Court set a Markman (claim construction) hearing for June 28, 2012 and trial for June 3, 2013. On June 21, 2012, Ericsson dismissed the '468 Patent (“Multi-purpose base station”) with prejudice and gave the Company a covenant not to sue as to products in the marketplace now or in the past. On June 22, 2012, Intel filed its Complaint in Intervention, meaning that Intel became an official defendant in the Ericsson case. During the exchange of the expert reports, Ericsson dropped the '516 Patent (the OFDM “pulse shaping” patent). In addition, Ericsson dropped the '223 Patent (packet discard patent) against all the defendants' products, except for those products that use Intel chips. Thus, Ericsson has now dropped the '468 Patent (wireless base station), the '516 Patent (OFDM pulse shaping), and the '223 Patent (packet discard patent) for all non-Intel products. A jury trial in the Ericsson case occurred in the Eastern District of Texas from June 3 through June 13, 2013. After hearing the evidence, the jury found no infringement of the '435 and '223 Patents, and the jury found infringement of claim 1 of the '625 Patent, claims 1 and 5 of the '568 Patent, and claims 1 and 2 of the '215 Patent. The jury also found that there was no willful infringement by any defendant. Additionally, the jury found no invalidity of the asserted claims of the '435 and '625 Patents. The jury assessed the following damages against the defendants: D-Link: $435,000; NETGEAR: $3,555,000; Acer/Gateway: $1,170,000; Dell: $1,920,000; Toshiba: $2,445,000; Belkin: $600,000. The damages awards equated to 15 cents per unit for each accused 802.11 device sold by each defendant (5 cents per patent). On December 16, 2013, the Company and defendants submitted their appeal brief to the Federal Circuit. Ericsson filed its response brief on February 20, 2014, and the defendants filed their reply brief before on March 24, 2014. The oral arguments before the Federal Circuit took place on June 5, 2014. On December 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion and order in the Company’s Ericsson appeal. The Federal Circuit vacated the entirety of the $3.6 million jury verdict against the Company and the ongoing 15 cents per unit royalty verdict, and also vacated the entirety of the verdict against the other defendants and their ongoing royalties, finding that the District Court hadn’t properly instructed the jury on royalty rates and Ericsson’s licensing promises. The Federal Circuit held that the lower court had failed to adequately instruct the jury about Ericsson’s actual commitments to license the infringed patents on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (“RAND”) terms. Further, the Federal Circuit stated that the lower court had neglected to inform the jury that a royalty for a patented technology must be removed from the value of the entire standard, and that a RAND royalty rate should be based on the invention’s value, rather than any added value from standardization. The jury’s damages awards were therefore completely vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. While the Federal Circuit found the district court had inadequate jury instructions, it held that there was enough evidence for the jury to find infringement of two claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,466,568 and two claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,772,215, but reversed the lower court’s decision not to grant a noninfringement judgment as a matter of law regarding the third patent, U.S. Patent Number 6,424,625, finding that no reasonable jury could find that the ‘625 Patent was infringed by the defendants. In September 2013, Broadcom filed petitions in the USPTO at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of Ericsson’s three patents that the jury found were infringed by the Company and other defendants. On March 6, 2015, the PTAB invalidated all the claims of these three patents that were asserted against the Company and other defendants at trial -- claim 1 of the '625 Patent, claims 1 and 5 of the '568 Patent, and claims 1 and 2 of the '215 Patent -- ruling these claims were anticipated or obvious in light of prior art. The PTAB also rejected two motions to amend by Ericsson, which sought to substitute certain proposed claims in the '625 and '568 patents, should they be found unpatentable by the PTAB. This PTAB decision comes on top of the Federal Circuit decision (a) vacating the jury verdict after finding that the district court had not properly instructed the jury on royalty rates and Ericsson’s licensing promises, and (b) ruling that no reasonable jury could have found the ‘625 Patent infringed. Ericsson appealed the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit and also requested that the PTAB reconsider its decision, but the PTAB denied Ericsson’s request for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Company reversed the accruals related to this case in the first fiscal quarter of 2015. On September 16, 2016, the Federal Circuit upheld the invalidity of certain claims of the '625 Patent, the '568 Patent, and '215 Patent, as previously determined by the PTAB. The Federal Circuit only issued one precedential written opinion, on the 215 Patent; the PTAB invalidity rulings on the '625 and '568 Patents were upheld without a written decision. Ericsson petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the Federal Circuit's appeal decision, and the Federal Circuit agreed to the en banc rehearing. Arguments before the en banc panel of the Federal Circuit took place in May 2017, and the Federal Circuit has not yet released its en banc opinion. The present status of the case continues to be that the Company does not infringe on any valid Ericsson patent. Agenzia Entrate Provincial Revenue Office 1 of Milan v. NETGEAR International, Inc. In November 2012, the Italian tax police began a comprehensive tax audit of NETGEAR International, Inc.’s Italian Branch. The scope of the audit initially was from 2004 through 2011 and was subsequently expanded to include 2012. The tax audit encompassed Corporate Income Tax (IRES), Regional Business Tax (IRAP) and Value-Added Tax (VAT). In December 2013, December 2014, August 2015, and December 2015 an assessment was issued by Inland Revenue Agency, Provincial Head Office No. 1 of Milan-Auditing Department (Milan Tax Office) for the 2004 tax year, the 2005 through 2007 tax years, the 2008 through 2010 tax years, and the 2011 through 2012 tax years, respectively. In May 2014, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan an appeal brief, including a Request for Hearing in Open Court and Request for Suspension of the Tax Assessment for the 2004 year. The hearing was held and decision was issued on December 19, 2014. The Tax Court decided in favor of the Company and nullified the assessment by the Inland Revenue Agency for 2004. The Inland Revenue Agency appealed the decision of the Tax Court on June 12, 2015. The Company filed its counter appeal with respect to the 2004 year during September 2015. On February 26, 2016 the Regional Tax Court conducted the appeals hearing for the 2004 year, ruling in favor of the Company. On June 13, 2016, the Inland Revenue Agency appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Company filed a counter appeal on July 23, 2016 and is awaiting scheduling of the hearing. In June 2015, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan an appeal brief including a Request for Hearing in Open Court and Request for Suspension of the Tax Assessment for the 2005 through 2006 tax years. The hearing for suspension was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. The hearing for the validity of the tax assessment for 2005 and 2006 was held in December 2015 with the Provincial Tax Court issuing its decision in favor of the Company. The Inland Revenue Agency filed its appeal with the Regional Tax Court. The Company filed its counter brief on September 30, 2016 and the hearing was held on March 22, 2017. A decision favorable to the Company was issued by the Court on July 5, 2017. The Italian Tax Authority has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The hearing for the validity of the tax assessment for 2007 was held on March 10, 2016 with the Provincial Tax Court who issued its decision in favor of the Company on April 7, 2016. The Inland Revenue Agency has filed its appeal to the Regional Tax Court and the Company has submitted its counter brief. The hearing has been scheduled for November 17, 2017. With respect to 2008 through 2010, the Company filed its briefs with the Tax Court in October 2015 and the hearing for the validity of the tax assessments was held on April 21, 2016 and a decision favorable to the Company was issued on May 12, 2016. The Inland Revenue Agency has filed its appeal to the Regional Tax Court. The Company filed its counter brief on February 5, 2017. With respect to 2011 through 2012, the Company has filed its appeal brief on February 26, 2016 with the Provincial Tax Court to contest this assessment. The hearing for suspension was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. On October 13, 2016, the Company filed its brief with the Provincial Tax Court. The hearing was held on October 24, 2016 and a decision favorable to the Company was issued by the Court. The Inland Revenue Agency appealed the decision on April 19, 2017. The Company filed its counter brief on June 16, 2017. With regard to all tax years, it is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Via Vadis v. NETGEAR, Inc. On August 22, 2014, the Company was sued by Via Vadis, LLC and AC Technologies, S.A. (“Via Vadis”), in the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that the Company’s ReadyNAS and Stora products “with built-in BitTorrent software" allegedly infringe three related patents of Via Vadis (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,904,680, RE40, 521, and 8,656,125). Via Vadis filed similar complaints against Belkin, Buffalo, Blizzard, D-Link, and Amazon. By referring to “built-in BitTorrent software,” the Company believes that the complaint is referring to the BitTorrent Sync application, which was released by BitTorrent Inc. in spring of 2014. At a high-level, the application allows file synchronization across multiple devices by storing the underlying files on multiple local devices, rather than on a centralized server. The Company’s ReadyNAS products do not include BitTorrent software when sold. The BitTorrent application is provided as one of a multitude of potential download options, but the software itself is not included on the Company’s devices when shipped. Therefore, the only viable allegation at this point is an indirect infringement allegation. On November 10, 2014, the Company answered the complaint denying that it infringes the patents in suit and also asserting the affirmative defenses that the patents in suit are invalid and barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver, and/or estoppel. On February 6, 2015, the Company filed its motion to transfer venue from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California with the Court; on February 13, 2015, Via Vadis filed its opposition to the Company’s motion to transfer; and on February 20, 2015, the Company filed its reply brief on its motion to transfer. In early April 2015, the Company received the plaintiff’s infringement contentions, and on June 12, 2015, the defendants served invalidity contentions. On July 30, 2015 the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. In addition, the Company learned that Amazon and Blizzard filed petitions for the inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) for the patents in suit. On October 30, 2015, the Company and Via Vadis filed a joint stipulation requesting that the Court vacate all deadlines and enter a stay of all proceedings in the case pending the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final non-appealable decision on the IPRs initiated by Amazon and Blizzard. On November 2, 2015 the Court granted the requested stay. On March 8, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued written decisions instituting the IPRs jointly filed by Amazon and Blizzard. In early March of 2017, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued various decisions regarding Amazon’s and Blizzard’s IPRs of the patents in suit. One of the IPRs of the '125 patent resulted in a finding by the PTAB that Amazon and Blizzard had had failed to show invalidity. The second IPR on the '125 patent, however, resulted in cancellation of all claims asserted in Via Vadis’s suit against the Company. Reissue '521 did not have any claims found invalid by the PTAB, and some dependent claims of the '680 patent survived the IPRs, and some claims of the '680 patent were canceled. The Northern District of California case against the Company remains stayed. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v NETGEAR, Inc. On July 1, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity named Chrimar Systems, Inc., doing business as CMS Technologies and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC (collectively, “CMS”), in the Eastern District of Texas for allegedly infringing four patents-U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (the “'012 Patent”), entitled “System and method for adapting a piece of terminal equipment”; 8,942,107 (the “'107 Patent”), entitled “Piece of ethernet terminal equipment”; 8,902,760 (the “'760 Patent”), entitled “Network system and optional tethers”; and 9,019,838 (the “'838 Patent”), entitled “Central piece of network equipment” (collectively “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit relate to using or embedding an electrical DC current or signal into an existing Ethernet communication link in order to transmit additional data about the devices on the communication link, and the specifications for the patents are identical. It appears that CMS has approximately 40 active cases in the Eastern District of Texas, as well as some cases in the Northern District of California on the patents-in-suit and the parent patent to the patents-in-suit. The Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2015. On November 24, 2015, CMS served its infringement contentions on the Company, and CMS is generally attempting to assert that the patents in suit cover the Power over Ethernet standard (802.3af and 802.3at) used by certain of the Company's products. On December 3, 2015, the Company filed with the Court a motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California and their memorandum of law in support thereof. On December 23, 2015, CMS filed its response to the Company’s motion to transfer, and, on January 8, 2016, the Company filed its reply brief in support of its motion to transfer venue. On January 15, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California. The initial case management conference in the Northern District of California occurred on May 13, 2016, and on August 19, 2016, the parties exchanged preliminary claim constructions and extrinsic evidence. On August 26, 2016, the Company and three defendants in other Northern District of California CMS cases (Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., and Fortinet, Inc.) submitted motions to stay their cases. The defendants in part argued that stays were appropriate pending the resolution of the currently-pending IPRs of the patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including four IPR Petitions filed by Juniper. On September 9, 2016, CMS submitted its opposition to the motions to stay the cases. On September 26, 2016, the Court ordered the cases stayed in their entirety, until the PTAB reaches institution decisions with respect to Juniper’s four pending IPR petitions. Juniper’s four IPR petitions were instituted by the PTAB in January 2017, and the Company subsequently moved to join the IPR petitions as an “understudy” to Juniper, only assuming a more active role in the petitions in the event Juniper settles with CMS. For all four patents in suit against the Company, the PTAB ordered that (a) the Petitioners’ (the Company, Ruckus, and Brocade) Motion for Joinder to the Juniper IPRs is granted; (b) the Petitioners IPRs are instituted on the same grounds as in the Juniper ‘IPRs and Petitioners are joined with the Juniper IPRs; and (c) all further filings by Petitioners in the joined proceedings will be in the Juniper IPRs. The Company is now proceeding on the Juniper IPR schedule. The oral arguments for the Chrimar IPRs were held on August 31, 2017. The Northern District of California CMS cases remain stayed in their entirety by the Court. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Tessera v. NETGEAR, Inc. On May 23, 2016, Tessera Technologies, Inc., Tessera, Inc., and Invensas Corp. (collectively, “Tessera”) filed a complaint requesting that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 by reason of alleged infringement of certain patent claims by the Company and other respondents. On June 20, 2016, the Commission issued the related Notice of Investigation, and the Investigation was instituted on June 24, 2016. The Tessera complaint alleges that the following respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain semiconductor devices, semiconductor device packages, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,856,007 (the ‘007 patent), 6,849,946 (the ‘946 patent), and 6,133,136 (the ‘136 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”): Broadcom Limited of Singapore; Broadcom Corp. of Irvine, California; Avago Technologies Limited of Singapore; Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, California; Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California; ARRIS International plc of Suwanee, Georgia; ARRIS Group, Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia; ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, Pennsylvania; ARRIS Enterprises LLC of Suwanee, Georgia; ARRIS Solutions, Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia; Pace Ltd. (formerly Pace plc) of England; Pace Americas, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida; Pace USA, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida; ASUSTeK Computer Inc. of Taiwan; ASUS Computer International of Fremont, California; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Comcast Business Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; HTC Corp. of Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington; Technicolor S.A. of France; Technicolor USA, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana; Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana; and the Company. According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to semiconductor packaging technology. In particular, the ‘007 patent relates to a compact and economical semiconductor chip assembly that includes a packaged semiconductor chip, a chip carrier with a metallic thermal conductor, and a circuit panel with a thermal conductor mounting. The ‘946 patent relates to a semiconductor layout configuration and method that results in a more efficient planarization process for a semiconductor chip. Lastly, the ‘136 patent relates to a structure for metal interconnects used in semiconductor packaging. In the complaint, Tessera states that the respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. In particular, the complaint refers to multiple categories of accused semiconductor products associated with Broadcom and asserts that the remaining respondents import and sell products that contain these infringing Broadcom semiconductor products. Tessera requested that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the respondents and related entities. Concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, Tessera also filed a complaint against Broadcom Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the asserted patents. The Company has not been sued in Delaware or any other jurisdiction other than the ITC. The Company stipulated to certain facts regarding its importation and inventory of Broadcom-based products in return for various relief from discovery, such as reduced depositions and discovery responses in the ITC case. As per the ITC schedule, the parties exchanged direct exhibits and witness statements on February 20, 2017; rebuttal exhibits and witness statements on March 3, 2017; pre-trial briefs on March 9, 2017; and Motions in limine on March 13, 2017. The 5-day evidentiary hearing before the ITC Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) commenced on March 27, 2017 and ended on March 31, 2017. The ITC rules provide for possible closing arguments before the ALJ after post-hearing briefing, which were submitted on April 19, 2017. Reply post-trial briefs were submitted on May 1, 2017. On June 30, 2017 the ALJ released the Initial Determination based on the 5-day evidentiary hearing and related briefing. For the ‘946 patent, the ALJ found the four (4) claims infringed and valid, and that there is a domestic industry. For the ‘136 patent, the ALJ found the nine (9) claims were infringed and valid, but no domestic industry. For the ‘007 patent, the ALJ found (1) one claim infringed by the Company and Technicolor, claims 13 and 16 not infringed, all three asserted claims invalid, including the one claim found to be infringed, and no domestic industry. In summary, the ALJ found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act due to infringement by the Company and other respondents of the ‘946 patent, but not as to the ‘136 patent or ‘007 patent. There is no violation with respect to the ‘136 patent even though it was found to be infringed and valid by the ALJ because Tessera could not show a domestic industry. On August 2, 2017, the Company and other respondents filed their Public Interest Statements with the ITC and also submitted briefing to the ITC indicating why the adverse findings for the respondents of the Initial Determination should be reviewed. On August 10, 2017, the Commission extended the target date for the investigation from October 30, 2017 to December 1, 2017 and also extended the date for determination of whether to review the Initial Determination from August 31, 2017 to September 29, 2017, and, on that date, the Commission determined to review essentially all issues on the ’946 and ’136 patents, and none of the issues for the ’007 patent. Thus, the asserted claims of the ‘007 patent have been ruled invalid, and the ‘007 patent is out of the investigation. On October 13, 2017, the respondents and Tessera submitted their Opening Submissions to the Commission. These Opening Submissions included opening briefs on infringement and invalidity topics, opening briefs on remedy, opening briefs on the public interest, opening briefs on bonding, and public interest submissions by the public. The Reply Submissions to the opening briefs were submitted on October 23, 2017. At this point, there is still one patent remaining in the ITC action (the ‘946 patent), but this one patent could prevent the Company (and all the other respondents) from importing Broadcom-based products into the United States. There is no immediate legal effect from the ALJ’s Initial Determination ahead of the Commission’s Final Determination on December 1, 2017. If the Final Determination is not favorable to the respondents or the matter is not otherwise resolved, e.g. via settlement, then any exclusion order (injunction) on the Company (and all the other respondents) importing Broadcom-based products into the U.S. would go into effect the next day (December 2, 2017) (subject to postponement by up to two months until February 2, 2018 during the presidential review period upon posting of a bond by the Company). Such exclusion order on the Company’s (and all the other respondents’) importation of Broadcom-based products into the United States would potentially last until the ‘946 patent expires on August 31, 2018. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. e.Digital v. NETGEAR, Inc. On September 12, 2016, e.Digital Corporation ("e.Digital") filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Northern District of California accusing the Company of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,311,522 (“the ’522 patent”); 8,311,524 (“the ’524 patent”); 9,002,331 (“the ’331 patent”); and 9,178,983 (“the ’983 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”), which purportedly cover systems and methods for the remote detection, classification, and communication of sensor data. In the complaint, e.Digital broadly accuses the Company’s Arlo wireless camera systems, including the Arlo Wire-Free, Arlo Q, and Arlo Q Plus cameras (collectively, the “Accused Products”). The allegations are generally directed at the “remote monitoring and communication” functionality of the Accused Products. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe the patents-in-suit by utilizing sensors-such as cameras and microphones-to collect data and perform various operations-such as send alerts, trigger video recording, or take a snapshot-in response to a classification of the collected sensor data. Beginning with a lawsuit against Dropcam in July, 2014, e.Digital has litigated the patents-in-suit, and related portfolio, against a handful of other companies with products similar to the Arlo wireless camera systems. The previous litigation includes the lawsuit against Dropcam along with suits against ArcSoft, Inc., ShenZhen Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd., iBaby Labs, Inc., iSmart Alarm, Inc., MivaTek International, Inc., MyFox, Inc., and Nest. Concurrent with the filing of the instant complaint against the Company, e.Digital also filed similar suits against Netatmo LLC and Y-Cam Solutions, LLC. The Company submitted its answer to the e.Digital complaint in early November 2016, denying the infringement allegations and asserting several defenses. In February of 2017, the Court consolidated some, but not all, of the e.Digital cases for purposes of claim construction. In particular, the Court ordered that the iSmart case, for which claim construction is already fully briefed, move forward as scheduled, while the later Company, Netatmo, and Utility Associates cases be informally consolidated for claim construction purposes. As such, claim construction briefing is set to begin in August 2017, and a claim construction hearing is set for October 2017. The Court has not yet set a trial date. The Company served invalidity contentions on March 6, 2017. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, on June 27, 2017, the Company and e.Digital settled the lawsuit for a one-time payment from the Company to e.Digital in return for a license to the Company to the e.Digital patents and applications that are currently owned by e.Digital. The lawsuit against the Company was dismissed with prejudice on July 5, 2017, and the case was closed by the Court. This litigation matter did not have a material financial impact on the Company. Script Security Solutions v. NETGEAR, Inc. On December 12, 2016, Script Security Solutions L.L.C. (“Script”) sued the Company in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas for alleged patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,542,078 and 6,828,909. Script is a non-practicing entity and has filed over twenty other lawsuits alleging infringement of the same patents. A first wave of cases was filed in March 2015 against 11 defendants. All but one of those cases has settled or been terminated. A second wave of cases was filed in June 2015 against six defendants. Only two of those cases remain active. The third and most recent wave of cases was filed on December 12, 2016, against the Company and six other defendants. The asserted patents are related. The ‘909 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’078 patent. The asserted patents are titled “Portable Motion Detector and Alarm System and Method” and allegedly claim priority to May 30, 1996. The asserted patents generally are directed to a portable security alarm system that detects movement of objects relative to a variety of predetermined positions. The complaint is directed to the Company’s Arlo Home Security Systems and VueZone wireless home video system and alleges that the Company directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’078 patent and claim 1 of the ’909 patent. The answer was originally due on January 12, 2017, but the Company received an extension until February 21, 2017 to answer the complaint. On that date, the Company answered the complaint by submitting a motion to dismiss the complaint because of Script’s failure to properly and sufficiently state a claim for relief. On March 3, 2017, Script filed its consolidated response to the various Defendants’ (including the Company’s) Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Company’s reply brief was submitted on March 10, 2017. The Company also recently received Script’s infringement contentions. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, on August 1, 2017, the Company and Script Security executed a settlement agreement to settle the lawsuit for a one-time payment from the Company to Script Security in return for a license to the Company to the Script Security patents and applications that are currently owned by Script Security. The case accordingly was dismissed with prejudice on August 8, 2017. The settlement did not have a material financial impact on the Company. Realtime Data v. NETGEAR, Inc. On February 27, 2017, the Company was sued in the Eastern District of Texas by Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime”), which claims to do business as “Ixo.” The complaint includes four (4) asserted patents:
• | US 9,054,728, Data compression systems and methods;
• | US 7,415,530, System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval;
• | US 9,116,908, System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval; and
• | US 8,717,204, Methods for encoding and decoding data
The accused products specifically include the Company’s “ReadyDATA RD5200, RDD516, ReadyRECOVER” products. Generally, the complaint alleges that the asserted patents are directed to various compression / decompression algorithms and systems and is directed at the Company’s ReadyDATA, ReadyNAS, and ReadyRECOVER products. Realtime has filed several patent suits over the last few years and the asserted patents have gone through various rounds of litigation and IPRs. In this particular tranche of Realtime lawsuits, Realtime also sued Array Networks, Barracuda Networks, Carbonite, Circadence, Comm Vault, Exinda and Snacor. The Company received an extension until May 8, 2017 to answer the complaint and answered the complaint on that date. On August 15, 2017, the Company filed its motion to transfer venue for convenience from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. On September 19, 2017, the plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Company’s motion to transfer venue. On October 11, 2017, the Eastern District of Texas granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Magnacross v. NETGEAR, Inc. On April 12, 2017, Magnacross LLC (“Magnacross”) sued the Company in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas for alleged patent infringement of exemplary claim 12 of US Patent 6,917,304, and appears to contend that compliance with 802.11 standards necessarily results in infringement, specifically mentioning 802.11b/g and 802.11n-compliant radios in the Company’s products. Magnacross sued five other companies on April 12, 2017, seven others in December 2016, and 17 others in May 2016 on the same patent. The complaint identifies the AC1750, AC1450, AC1200, and AC750 WiFi routers as exemplary accused products and also references the Company’s Arlo cameras. The Company received an extension until June 7, 2017 to answer the complaint, and the Company answered the complaint on that date by requesting a transfer out of the Eastern District of Texas, as the Company’s legal position is that venue is improper in the Eastern District of Texas. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, on October 3, 2017, the Company and Magnacross settled the lawsuit for a one-time payment from the Company to Magnacross in return for a license to the Company to the patent in suit and all of its related patents and applications that are currently owned by Magnacross. The case accordingly was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on October 30, 2017. This litigation matter did not have a material financial impact on the Company. Williams v. NETGEAR, Inc. On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff Stewart Williams filed a putative class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff is represented by Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. Plaintiff Stewart Williams alleges violations of California and Nevada state consumer protection laws based on NETGEAR’s sale and marketing of its CM700 cable modem (the “Modem”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Modem contains a defect that causes severe network latency, impairing network connectivity and preventing consumers from utilizing the maximum advertised network bandwidth. According to Plaintiff, NETGEAR had exclusive knowledge of this alleged defect and actively concealed the defect from consumers with false marketing and labeling. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks to bring his lawsuit as a class action representing a nationwide class of consumers. Plaintiff states causes of action under California’s (1) Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (3) False Advertising Law, and (4) Unfair Competition Law. In addition, Plaintiff seeks to represent a subclass of Nevada consumers and brings a claim under Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On June 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding two new named plaintiffs, both residents of California, and also adding the Company’s C6300 cable gateway as a product at issue. The parties agreed to extend the Company’s time to answer the complaint to August 11, 2017. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, on August 9, 2017, the Company and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuit for a one-time payment and shipment of new products to the plaintiffs in return for a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs. The case accordingly was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on August 9, 2017. This litigation matter did not have a material financial impact on the Company. Vivato v. NETGEAR, Inc. On April 19, 2017, the Company was sued by XR Communications (d/b/a) Vivato (“Vivato”) in the United States District Court, Central District of California. Based on its complaint, Vivato purports to be a research and development and product company in the Wi-Fi area, but it appears that Vivato is not currently a manufacturer of commercial products. The three (3) patents that Vivato asserts against the Company are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,062,296, 7,729,728, and 6,611,231. The ’296 and ’728 patents are entitled “Forced Beam Switching in Wireless Communication Systems Having Smart Antennas.” The ’231 patent is entitled “Wireless Packet Switched Communication Systems and Networks Using Adaptively Steered Antenna Arrays.” Vivato also has recently asserted the same patents in the Central District of California against D-Link, Ruckus, and Aruba, among others. According to the complaint, the accused products include WiFi access points and routers supporting MU-MIMO, including without limitation access points and routers utilizing the IEEE 802.11ac-2013 standard. The accused technology is standards-based, and more specifically, based on the transmit beamforming technology in the 802.11ac Wi-Fi standard. The Company answered an amended complaint on July 7, 2017. In its answer, the Company objected to venue and recited that objection as a specific affirmative defense, so as to expressly reserve the same. The Company also raised several other affirmative defenses in its answer. On August 28, 2017, the Company submitted its initial disclosures to the plaintiff. The initial scheduling conference was on October 2, 2017, and the Court set five day jury trial for March 19, 2019 for the leading Vivato/D-Link case, meaning the Company’s trial date will be at some point after March 19, 2019. Discovery in this case is ongoing. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Hera Wireless v. NETGEAR, Inc. On July 14, 2017, the Company was sued by Sisvel (via Hera Wireless) in the District of Delaware on three related patents allegedly covering the 802.11n standard. Similar complaints were filed against Amazon, ARRIS, Belkin, Buffalo, and Roku. The Company has not yet answered the complaint and has received an extension until December 12, 2017 to do so. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. MyMail v. NETGEAR, Inc. On August 25, 2017, the non-practicing entity MyMail Ltd. (“MyMail”) sued the Company for patent infringement in the District of Delaware. This is MyMail’s third round of cases, starting in November 2016, and, in this round, MyMail also filed against Ricoh, Panasonic, Acer, and TCL Communications. MyMail is accusing essentially all the Company’s routers and range extenders of infringing claim 5 of U.S. Patent 8,732,318 (the ‘318 patent), entitled “Method of Connecting a User to a Network.” Claim 5 of the ’318 Patent describes a method for modifying network access information and then accessing the network using the modified information. MyMail is specifically accusing the Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) function of the accused routers and range extenders. The Company has not yet answered the complaint and has received an extension until November 7, 2017 to do so. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. IP Indemnification Claims In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers (the “Indemnified Parties”) for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties that are asserted against the Indemnified Parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is generally unlimited. From time to time, the Company receives requests for indemnity and may choose to assume the defense of such litigation asserted against the Indemnified Parties. Environmental Regulation The Company is required to comply and is currently in compliance with the European Union ("EU") and other Directives on the Restrictions of the use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (“RoHS”), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ("WEEE") requirements, Energy Using Product (“EuP”) requirements, the REACH Regulation, Packaging Directive and the Battery Directive. The Company is subject to various federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations, including those governing the use, discharge, and disposal of hazardous substances in the ordinary course of our manufacturing process. The Company believes that its current manufacturing and other operations comply in all material respects with applicable environmental laws and regulations; however, it is possible that future environmental legislation may be enacted or current environmental legislation may be interpreted to create an environmental liability with respect to its facilities, operations, or products. See further discussion of the business risks associated with environmental legislation under the risk titled, "We are subject to, and must remain in compliance with, numerous laws and governmental regulations concerning the manufacturing, use, distribution and sale of our products, as well as any such future laws and regulations. Some of our customers also require that we comply with their own unique requirements relating to these matters. Any failure to comply with such laws, regulations and requirements, and any associated unanticipated costs, may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations." within Item 1A Risk Factors of this Form 10-Q.

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=68068213&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=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration