XML 58 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
 Commitments and Contingencies
Warranties
The following table summarizes the changes in the Company's product warranty liabilities (in thousands):
Balance at June 24, 2012
$
5,513

Warranties accrued in current period
2,873

Changes in estimates for pre-existing warranties
787

Expenditures
(2,027
)
Balance at March 31, 2013
$
7,146


Product warranties are estimated and recognized at the time the Company recognizes revenue. The warranty periods range from ninety days to ten years. The Company accrues warranty liabilities at the time of sale, based on historical and projected incident rates and expected future warranty costs. The warranty reserves, which are primarily related to Lighting products, are evaluated on a quarterly basis based on various factors including historical warranty claims, assumptions about the frequency of warranty claims,  and assumptions about the frequency of product failures derived from quality testing, field monitoring and the Company's reliability estimates.
Litigation
The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, including those described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2012 and in the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2013. The following is provided as an update to the Company's legal proceedings as contained in those reports. Unless otherwise indicated, the potential losses for claims against the Company in these matters are not reasonably estimable.
Cooper Lighting Litigation
In addition to the previously disclosed litigation with Cooper Lighting, on February 19, 2013, the Company, as successor-in-interest to Ruud Lighting, Inc., filed a third complaint for patent infringement against Cooper Lighting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages for infringement of two U.S. patents owned by the Company, No. 8,282,239, entitled “Light-Directing Apparatus with Protected Reflector-Shield and Lighting Fixture Utilizing Same” and No. 8,070,306, entitled “LED Lighting Fixture.”
Also, as previously reported, Illumination Management Solutions, Inc., a subsidiary of Cooper Lighting, LLC, filed a complaint for patent infringement against Ruud Lighting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 7, 2010. The action was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As amended in January 2012, the complaint alleged that Ruud Lighting infringed two U.S. patents owned by Illumination Management Solutions, No. 7,674,018 and No. 7,993,036, each entitled "LED Device for Wide Beam Generation." It also alleged that Ruud Lighting and its then president, Alan Ruud, who served on the plaintiff's board of directors in 2006 and 2007 when Ruud Lighting was a shareholder of the plaintiff, conspired to misuse confidential information obtained from the plaintiff to file patent applications and to obtain patents assigned to Ruud Lighting. The complaint sought injunctive relief, damages and ownership of the patent applications and patents alleged to have been wrongfully filed and obtained. The court in October 2012 granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ruud Lighting, finding that most of the accused products did not infringe either of the asserted patents. The court in February 2013 entered final judgment in which the court 1) dismissed the claims relating to most of the accused products, finding that they did not infringe either of the asserted patents; 2) dismissed with prejudice and with the consent of the parties the claims with respect to the remaining accused products; 3) severed the conspiracy claim, which was subsequently voluntarily dismissed; and 4) dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaims without prejudice. In March 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dow Corning Litigation
Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on September 27, 2011. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff did not infringe three U.S. patents owned by the Company relating to high quality silicon carbide materials and that the patents are invalid. The patents in suit were: No. 7,294,324, entitled “Low Basal Plane Dislocation Bulk Grown SiC Wafers”; No. 7,314,520, entitled “Low 1C Screw Dislocation 3 Inch Silicon Carbide Wafer”; and No. 7,314,521, entitled “Low Micropipe 100 MM Silicon Carbide Wafer.” The district court dismissed the action with prejudice in March 2013 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that at the time the complaint was filed there was no substantial or immediate controversy between the parties regarding the patents-in-suit.
The Fox Group Litigation
The Fox Group, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on June 29, 2010. The complaint, which sought injunctive relief and damages, asserted that the Company was infringing two U.S. patents relating to high quality silicon carbide material: No. 6,534,026, entitled "Low Defect Density Silicon Carbide" (the "'026 patent"); and No. 6,562,130, entitled "Low Defect Axially Grown Single Crystal Silicon Carbide" (the "'130 patent"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company in August 2011. The court determined that the Company did not infringe the '026 patent and that the claims of the '130 patent asserted against the Company are invalid. The Fox Group appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the judgment. The Fox Group's petition for a rehearing was denied in February 2013.
Lighting Science Group Litigation
Lighting Science Group Corporation filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 10, 2013.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages for alleged infringement of U.S. patent No. 8.201,968, entitled “Low Profile Light."