XML 18 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2011
Contingencies  
Contingencies

(11) Contingencies

Applied Optical Systems, Inc. ("AOS"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company since October 31, 2009, is the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Amphenol Fiber Systems International ("AFSI") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, styled Fiber Systems International, Inc. v. Applied Optical Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-473. AFSI's Complaint claimed that specific multi-channel tactical fiber optic connector assemblies that AOS manufactures and sells, directly or indirectly, primarily to the United States Government, infringed certain of the plaintiff's patent rights.

On November 19, 2009, a jury unanimously determined that one of the AOS fiber optic connector designs that was the subject of the suit does not infringe on AFSI's U.S. Patent No. 6,305,849. In an earlier U.S. District Court ruling, the two other AOS fiber optic connector designs that were at issue in the suit were found not to infringe on the patent as a matter of law. The U.S. District Court previously had granted judgment as a matter of law to AFSI on AOS's counterclaims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair competition. The U.S. District Court also granted partial summary judgment to AFSI on AOS's antitrust counterclaims. AOS's remaining counterclaim of inequitable conduct was tried to the Court on April 8, 2010. By opinion and order issued July 7, 2010, the U.S. District Court found that AFSI did not commit inequitable conduct and that AFSI's U.S. Patent No. 6,305,849 was not unenforceable.

The U.S. District Court, on motion of AFSI, had previously entered a preliminary injunction enjoining AOS from making sales of the accused products. However, the preliminary injunction specifically excludes products sold to the U.S. Government or sold for ultimate delivery to the U.S. Government. On August 3, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order dissolving the preliminary injunction. AOS has moved to execute on the $250,000 injunction bond which AFSI was required to post in order to obtain the preliminary injunction. The U.S. District Court has not yet ruled on this motion.

On August 3, 2010, the U.S. District Court also entered a final judgment in favor of AOS on the patent infringement claims, stating "defendant AOS did not infringe claim 31 of the 849 patent" and "plaintiff AFSI takes nothing by way of its patent infringement claims." It also awarded judgment to AFSI on all of AOS's counterclaims.

AFSI has filed various post-judgment motions asking the U.S. District Court to vacate, alter or amend its judgment, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial. The U.S. District Court has not yet ruled on these motions. In the event the U.S. District Court denies AFSI's post-judgment motions, it is anticipated that AFSI will pursue an appeal. In the event AFSI were to pursue such an appeal, it could seek reversal of the U.S. District Court's judgment and request that the appellate court remand the case for a new trial and/or request that the appellate court enter judgment in its favor on the issue of infringement and remand the case for trial only on the issue of damages. In the event of an appeal by AFSI, AOS may also appeal the U.S. District Court's rulings and/or decisions on AOS's counterclaims.

In the event either the U.S. District Court or the appellate court were to order a new trial, the evidence adduced at the first trial indicated that AFSI's claimed damages were no more than $160,000 based on certain pretrial rulings by the U.S. District Court. The amount of damages sought in a retrial could potentially be higher. Additionally, in the event a new trial were ordered, a finding of infringement could result in entry of a permanent injunction that would preclude AOS from selling the infringing products.

There have been no material developments in this matter during the three months and nine months ended July 31, 2011. The Company does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

From time to time, the Company is involved in other various claims, legal actions and regulatory reviews arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity.