XML 26 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 28, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies 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. For those orders not governed by master purchase agreements, the commitments are governed by the commercial terms on the Company's purchase orders subject to acknowledgment from its suppliers. As of June 28, 2020, the Company had approximately $124.4 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 loss liability was included in Other accrued liabilities on the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. 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. Non-Trade Commitments As of June 28, 2020, the Company had long term, non-cancellable purchase commitments of $15.8 million pertaining to non-trade activities. Warranty Obligations Changes in the Company’s warranty obligations, which is included in Other accrued liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, are as follows:
|  | Three Months Ended |  |  | Six Months Ended |
|  | June 28, 2020 |  |  | June 30, 2019 |  |  | June 28, 2020 |  |  | June 30, 2019 |
Balance as of beginning of the period |  | $ | 9,923 |  |  | $ | 12,531 |  |  | $ | 10,556 |  |  | $ | 14,412 |
Provision for warranty liability made |  |  | 1,528 |  |  |  | 2,131 |  |  |  | 3,211 |  |  |  | 3,412 |
Settlements made |  |  | (2,176 | ) |  |  | (2,749 | ) |  |  | (4,492 | ) |  |  | (5,911 | )
Balance as of the end of the period |  | $ | 9,275 |  |  | $ | 11,913 |  |  | $ | 9,275 |  |  | $ | 11,913 |
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 June 28, 2020. 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. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of June 28, 2020. Employment Agreements The Company has signed various change in control and severance agreements with key executives. Upon a termination without cause or resignation with good reason, executive officers would be entitled to (1) cash severance equal to the executive officer’s annual base salary, and, for the Chief Executive Officer, an additional amount equal to his target annual bonus, (2) 12 months of health benefits continuation and (3) accelerated vesting of any unvested equity awards that would have vested during the 12 months following the termination date. Upon a termination without cause or resignation with good reason that occurs during the one month prior to or 12 months following a change in control of the Company, executive officers would be entitled to (1) cash severance equal to a multiple (2x for the Chief Executive Officer and 1x for all other executive officers) of the sum of the executive officer’s annual base salary and target annual bonus, (2) a number of months (24 for the Chief Executive Officer and 12 for other executive officers) of health benefits continuation and (3) accelerated vesting of all outstanding, unvested equity awards. Severance is conditioned upon the execution and non-revocation of a release of claims. The change in control and severance agreements do not provide for any excise tax gross ups. If the merger-related payments or benefits of the executive officer are subject to the 20% excise tax under Section 4999 of the tax code, then the executive officer will either receive all such payments and benefits subject to the excise tax or such payments and benefits will be reduced so that the excise tax does not apply, whichever approach yields the best after-tax outcome for the executive officer. The Company had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of June 28, 2020. 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. 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 and the Company has responded with a counter appeal brief on December 3, 2017 and awaits scheduling of the hearing. 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 was held on November 17, 2017 and the Company received a positive decision on December 11, 2017. On June 11, 2018, the Italian government filed its appeal brief with the Supreme Court, and the Company filed its counter brief on July 12, 2018 and awaits scheduling of the hearing. With respect to 2008 through 2010, the Company filed its appeal briefs with the Provincial Tax Court in October 2015 and the hearing for the validity of the tax assessments was held on April 21, 2016. 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. The hearing was held on May 21, 2018, and the Company received a favorable decision on June 12, 2018. On October 14, 2019, Milan Tax Office filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Company filed its counter brief with the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019 and awaits scheduling of the hearing. With respect to 2011 through 2012, the Company has filed its appeal brief on February 26, 2016 with the Provincial Tax Court to contest the relevant tax assessments. The hearing for suspension was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. On October 13, 2016, the Company filed its final 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 before the Regional Tax Court. The Regional Tax Court heard the case on February 26, 2019 for both years and issued a decision favorable to the Company on March 11, 2019. On October 14, 2019, Milan Tax Office filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Company filed its counter brief with the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019 and awaits scheduling of the hearing. 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. Via Vadis has completed its appeal of the PTAB decisions on the IPRs, which were affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile, the W.D. Texas Court issued a claim construction order finding the '680 patent indefinite. The parties in the W.D. of Texas case lifted their stay and Via Vadis filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s finding of indefiniteness, which the Court has denied. On August 8, 2019, Via Vadis filed its notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit in the W.D. Texas cases. The Company’s case in N.D. California will remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. On July 8, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the appeal of the Via Vadis cases pending in the W.D. of Texas against Amazon and Blizzard. The appellate court affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part. The Company expects that the stay in the Company’s case in N.D. California will be lifted and the Court will likely set a case management conference in the coming months. 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. On December 21, 2017, the PTAB issued the first of the four Final Written Decisions in the IPRs filed by the Company on the patents in suit, ruling that the claims of the ‘107 Patent asserted by Chrimar were invalid. This was quickly followed by two more Final Written Decisions -- on January 3, 2018, the ’838 patent’s asserted claims were ruled invalid, and on January 23, 2018 the ‘012 patent’s asserted claims were ruled invalid. Chrimar has 30 days from each Final Written Decision to seek a rehearing at the PTAB and 63 days from each to file an appeal. On April 26, 2018, the PTAB issued its decision invalidating all of the claims of the ‘760 patent challenged in the IPR. The PTAB’s reasoning was similar to the reasoning set forth in the PTAB’s previous decisions on the 012, 107 and 838 patents. The ‘760 patent claims were, however, amended by Chrimar during the pendency of the ‘760 IPR, and the PTAB did not rule on the validity of the amended claims, as they were not challenged in the original IPR Petitions (they couldn’t have been because the Chrimar amendments had not yet happened). On June 6, 2018, Chrimar's appeals on all 4 written decisions by the USPTO invalidating all challenged claims were consolidated. The parties have completed briefing the matter and are awaiting schedule for oral argument before the Federal Circuit. On September 3, 2019, the Company and other defendants conducted their oral argument before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 19, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s decisions on defendants’ IPRs invalidating all of the challenged claims. On December 19, 2019, Chrimar petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit Court’s decision invalidating all of the challenged claims in the IPRs. On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Chrimar’s final appeal of the invalidity decisions from the IPRs. After lifting the stay of the N.D. of California case, the Court held a case management conference on April 24, 2020 and allowed Chrimar to pursue two sets of new claims: (1) claims from the ‘760 Patent that Chrimar amended during an ex parte reexam filed by an unknown party during the pendency of the IPRs, and (2) claims of a new patent, the ‘825 Patent (also related to POE), but denied Chrimar’s right to add a new claim from the ’107 Patent where all of the asserted claims were previously invalidated by the PTO. The Company filed motions for summary judgment on both sets of claims (of the ‘760 and ‘825 Patents) and is awaiting the Court’s ruling. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. 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 WiFi 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 WiFi 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. On March 20, 2018, the Company and other defendants in the various Vivato cases moved the Court to stay the case pending various IPRs filed on all of the patents in suit. Every asserted claim of all three patents-in-suit is now subject to challenge in IPRs that are pending before the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”). In particular, the Company, Belkin, and Ruckus are filing one set of IPRs on the three patents in suit; Cisco is filing another set of independent IPRs on the three patents in suit; and Aruba is filing yet another set of independent IPRs on the three patents in suit. On April 11, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay pending filing of the IPRs. On May 3, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed their IPRs. The PTAB instituted the IPRs for the ’296 and ’728 patents, but not the ’231 patent from the Ruckus and Belkin set of petitions. However, the Cisco IPR for the ’231 patent was instituted. Vivato has proposed amendments to its claims and the parties have completed briefing the matter before the PTAB. In July and August of 2019, the Company and other defendants had two oral arguments before the PTAB regarding the ’296 and ’728 patents. The PTAB denied institution of petition for the’231 Patent. On October 10, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all of the original claims at issue in the ’296 Patent and denied Vivato’s motion to amend (the claims). In November 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all of the challenged claims in the ’728 Patent. In the meantime, the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in the Cisco IPR of the’231 Patent found the claims to be valid and Cisco is appealing the finding. The Company anticipates that the Company’s case will remain stayed through Cisco’s appeal. 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. On December 12, 2017, the Company answered the complaint, denying why each claim limitation of the patents in suit were allegedly met and asserting various affirmative defenses, including invalidity and noninfringement. A proposed joint Scheduling Order was submitted to the Court on January 24, 2018 with trial proposed for March of 2020. On February 27, 2018, Hera Wireless identified the accused products and the asserted claims, alleging that any 802.11n compliant product infringes, and identified only the Company’s Orbi and WND930 products with particularity. Hera Wireless’ infringement contentions were submitted on April 28, 2018. Discovery is ongoing. On June 28, 2018, the Company and other defendants submitted invalidity contentions. The Company along with other defendants jointly filed IPRs challenging three of the patents in suit on July 18, 2018. On September 14, 2018, the Company and other defendants jointly filed a second set of IPRs with the USPTO challenging the remaining six patents asserted in the Amended Complaint. All of the instituted IPRs have been decided in defendants’ favor, thereby canceling all claims for 8 of the 9 asserted patents. Hera appealed all of the adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit, and the appeals have been consolidated for the same patents for all defendants. Hera’s opening briefs are due in mid-August 2020. The district court case remains stayed. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. John Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., NETGEAR Inc., et al., and other related actions On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters involved in the spin-off of Arlo. Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al.. In total, six putative class action complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa Clara County. The Company is named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits. The complaints generally allege that Arlo’s IPO materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo’s Ultra product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of plaintiffs, making very similar claims. The Company is not presently named in the federal action. Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in deference to the federal court action. The court held a hearing on April 26, 2019 to consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits and appoint a “lead plaintiff” and another hearing on May 31, 2019 to consider defendants’ motions to stay the state court cases. On June 21, 2019, the California state court judge granted the Company’s motion to stay the state court case pending the outcome of the federal case. The case will now proceed only in federal court. On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2019. The motion is set for hearing on December 5, 2019. The state court action remains stayed pending the outcome of the federal action. On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on December 19, 2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend. The Parties are currently discussing settlement. On February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary approval for classwide settlement. On June 11, 2020, the Parties signed the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. On June 12, 2020, lead attorney for plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. If the motion is granted, the Parties will proceed with the required procedures before the Settlement Hearing to be set by the Court. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from these matters. China Patent Matters - Beijing and Heifei Municipalities On or around May 14, 2019, NETGEAR Beijing Network Technology Co. Ltd (“Beijing WOFE”) received notice from the Beijing Municipal IP Office (BMIPO) that petitioner Global Innovation Aggregators, a Delaware registered company (“Patentee”), filed two patent infringement complaints against Beijing WOFE, alleging infringement of two patents: China Patent Nos. CN100502338C and CN103138979B. The accused products were certain Company routers sold in China. Patentee alleges that the Dynamic Quality of Service (“QoS”) or dynamic bandwidth adjustment and allocation functionality in the routers infringes CN100502338C, and the parental control functionality infringes CN103138979B. The Company hired local counsel who has responded to the Beijing matters and separately filed invalidation actions against both patents. On or around July 2, 2019, the Company received notice that the Patentee also filed petitions against a NETGEAR reseller, Heifei Wanghang Network Technology Co., Ltd., before the Heifei Municipal IP Office, asserting the same patents against the Company’s routers. The Company has filed similar invalidation actions in the Heifei cases and requested that the Heifei IP Office stay the infringement cases pending outcome of the Beijing matters. On October 12, 2019, the Company attended oral hearings for the infringement and invalidity cases for CN103138979B related to the parental control functionalities before the BMIPO, and the invalidity case for the same patent before the Heifei IPO. The Company has since received a notice that the Plaintiff withdrew the infringement case for Patent CN100502338C related to QoS functionality before the BMIPO. The invalidity cases for the QoS patent before both Beijing and Heifei IPO’s remain pending and the Company is awaiting notice(s) for oral hearing(s). The two Heifei infringement cases remain stayed pending resolution of the BMIPO infringement cases. In October 2019, plaintiff withdrew its infringement case for CN100502338C in Beijing, and in December 2019, it withdrew both infringement cases in Heifei. The only remaining infringement case is the one covering CN103138979B in Beijing, for which the parties are awaiting BIMPO’s decision. In October and November 2019, the Company completed all four of its invalidity hearings on both patents before the Beijing and Heifei IP offices. Decisions on all four cases remain pending in both offices. As of April 10, 2020, three of the four infringement cases were withdrawn by the Patentee and the patent in the fourth case was invalidated by the China IP Office. The Parties are awaiting the decision from the hearing on patent CN103138979B. Patentee has three months from the date of the invalidation decision to appeal to the Beijing IP Court. . On June 3, 2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office found non-infringement of the CN103138979B patent by the Company. Plaintiff did not appeal, thereby concluding these matters all in the Company’s favor without any material impact to the Company. Aegis 11 S.A. v. NETGEAR Inc. On June 21, 2019, Aegis 11 S.A. (“Aegis”) sued NETGEAR and several other defendants for patent infringement in the District of Delaware. Aegis asserted that NETGEAR’s WiFi routers infringe three patents related to the 802.11 standard: U.S. Patent No. 6,839,553, U.S. Patent No. 9,584,200, and U.S. Patent No. 9,848,443. In lieu of filing its Answer on October 15, 2019, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss against one of the asserted claims based on unpatentable subject matter. The Company’s Answer will not be due until the motion to dismiss is decided. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Cassiopeia v. NETGEAR, Inc. Cassiopeia IP LLC sued the Company in the District of Delaware, on December 21, 2019, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,322,046, entitled “Method and System for the Secure Use of a Network Service.” The accused product is the NeoTV MAX Streaming Player. On March 2, 2020, the Company filed an Answer in the case. On March 11, 2020, the Court granted a stipulation to stay the case pending the result of an IPR filed by United Patents Inc. Cassiopeia and United Patents settled their IPR dispute in June 2020. The Company expects that the stay on the Company’s district court case will likely be lifted in the coming months. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Donjun Technology v. NETGEAR (China Patent Matters) On or around July 2, 2020, Company received notice from its local litigation counsel in China that a Chinese Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) brought an infringement action against its Beijing office before the Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office (BMIPO). The action alleges that NETGEAR WAC510 and other devices infringe Chinese patent ZL02123502.3 (the ’502 Patent). Company’s local counsel received service on the Company’s behalf on or around July 20, 2020. In addition, local counsel was informed by the BMIPO that Donjun filed a separate patent suit against NETGEAR Inc., the Company’s U.S. headquarters, before the Shanghai IP Court. The Company is awaiting service for this matter, though it may take some time to complete as it must be done via the Hague Convention. In the meantime, the Company will proceed with its Beijing case. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this matter.

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