v2.4.0.6

Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 30, 2012
Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies |
Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies |
13. Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies The Company assesses the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all its material litigation, claims, or assessments to determine whether a liability had been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. In addition, in the event an unfavorable outcome is determined to be less than probable, but reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of such loss; however, when a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, the Company may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially. Intellectual Property Litigation Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al.—On July 13, 2000, Convolve and MIT filed suit against Compaq Computer Corporation and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,916,635, “Shaping Command Inputs to Minimize Unwanted Dynamics” (the ‘635 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 5,638,267, “Method and Apparatus for Minimizing Unwanted Dynamics in a Physical System” (the ‘267 patent), misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and fraud relating to Convolve and MIT’s Input Shaping® and Convolve’s Quick and Quiet™ technology. The plaintiffs claimed their technology is incorporated in the Company’s sound barrier technology, which was publicly announced on June 6, 2000. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, $800 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages, including for willful infringement and willful and malicious misappropriation. On November 6, 2001, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued to Convolve US Patent No. 6,314,473, “System for Removing Selected Unwanted Frequencies in Accordance with Altered Settings in a User Interface of a Data Storage Device,” (the ‘473 patent”). Convolve filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2002, alleging defendants infringe this patent. The ‘635 patent expired on September 12, 2008. The court ruled in 2010 that the ‘267 patent was out of the case. On August 16, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all patent infringement claims and on 11 of the 15 remaining alleged trade secrets at issue. The court also denied Convolve’s request for enhanced damages as moot and dismissed Convolve’s request for injunctive relief. Following this ruling, the parties entered into a stipulation to conditionally dismiss without prejudice the remaining claims in order to facilitate an appeal of the August 16, 2011 order by Convolve to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pursuant to this stipulation, the court entered a final judgment on October 4, 2011. Convolve filed its notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 3, 2011. A hearing before the Court of Appeals has not yet been scheduled. In view of the court’s August 16, 2011 ruling and the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded Convolve in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Siemens, AG v. Seagate Technology (Ireland)—On December 2, 2008, Siemens served Seagate Technology (Ireland), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Seagate Technology, with a writ of summons alleging infringement of European Patent (UK) No. 0 674 769 (the EU ‘769 patent), which is the European counterpart to U.S. Patent No. 5,686,838 upon which Siemens had sued Seagate Technology in the U.S. The suit was filed in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Chancery Division. Siemens alleges that giant magnetoresistive (“GMR”), tunnel magnetoresistive (“TMR”), and tunnel giant magnetoresistive (“TGMR”) products designed and manufactured by Seagate Technology (Ireland) infringe the EU ‘769 patent. On January 30, 2012, the parties entered into a confidential settlement to resolve this matter. Alexander Shukh v. Seagate Technology—On February 12, 2010, former Seagate engineer Alexander Shukh filed a complaint and an amended complaint against the Company in Minnesota federal court, alleging, among other things, employment discrimination based on his Belarusian national origin and wrongful failure to name him as an inventor on several patents and patent applications. Mr. Shukh’s employment was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force in fiscal year 2009. He seeks damages in excess of $75 million. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. Trial is scheduled to begin April 1, 2013. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Siemens GmbH v. Seagate Technology (Germany)—On March 26, 2010, Siemens commenced proceedings against Seagate Technology GmbH, the Netherlands branch office of Seagate Technology International, and Seagate Technology LLC in the Dusseldorf District Court in Germany. The complaint alleges infringement of European Patent Number 0 674 769 (the “EU ‘769 Patent”), which corresponds to the patent in suit in the U.S. and Northern Ireland Siemens’ litigations. Siemens seeks a declaration that the EU ‘769 Patent is infringed by GMR and TMR products, removal of all infringing inventory, damages in an unstated amount, and costs. On January 30, 2012, the parties entered into a confidential settlement to resolve this matter. Rembrandt Data Storage, LP v. Seagate Technology LLC—On November 10, 2010, Rembrandt Data Storage, LP filed suit against Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,342 C1, “Thin Film Heads Having Solenoid Coils,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,195,232, “Low-Noise Toroidal Thin Film Head With Solenoidal Coil.” The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, enhanced damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 2, 2012, the district court granted Seagate’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered judgment in favor of Seagate. On March 7, 2012, Rembrandt appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A hearing before the Court of Appeals has not yet been scheduled. In view of the court’s March 2, 2012 ruling and the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded Rembrandt in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or possible range of loss related to this matter. Rambus, Inc. ITC Investigation re Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing the Same —On December 1, 2010, Rambus, Inc. filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission seeking an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The complaint names Seagate Technology LLC and numerous other respondents, including LSI, Inc. and ST Microelectronics, Inc., alleging that Seagate products incorporate semiconductor products made by LSI and STMicroelectronics that infringe various patents owned by Rambus. The ITC initiated an investigation on December 29, 2010. Rambus seeks an order to exclude entry of infringing products into the U.S. and a cease and desist order. The Administrative Law Judge’s initial determination (ID) was issued on March 2, 2012, finding no violation of Section 337 by Seagate or the other respondents. On March 19, 2012, Rambus filed a petition for review of the ID. In light of the March 2, 2012 ID and the nature of the relief sought, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, or other possible adverse result, if any, that may be incurred with respect to this matter. Environmental Matters The Company’s operations are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing discharges of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the Company’s operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and reduce air and water pollution, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by issuing authorities. The Company has established environmental management systems and continually updates its environmental policies and standard operating procedures for its operations worldwide. The Company believes that its operations are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations and permits. The Company budgets for operating and capital costs on an ongoing basis to comply with environmental laws. If additional or more stringent requirements are imposed on the Company in the future, it could incur additional operating costs and capital expenditures. Some environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, the “Superfund” law) and its state equivalents, can impose liability for the cost of cleanup of contaminated sites upon any of the current or former site owners or operators or upon parties who sent waste to these sites, regardless of whether the owner or operator owned the site at the time of the release of hazardous substances or the lawfulness of the original disposal activity. The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party at several sites. At each of these sites, the Company has an assigned portion of the financial liability based on the type and amount of hazardous substances disposed of by each party at the site and the number of financially viable parties. The Company has fulfilled its responsibilities at some of these sites and remains involved in only a few at this time. While the Company’s ultimate costs in connection with these sites is difficult to predict with complete accuracy, based on its current estimates of cleanup costs and its expected allocation of these costs, the Company does not expect costs in connection with these sites to be material. The Company may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including disk drives, put on the market after July 1, 2006. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan and others. The European Union REACH Directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) also restricts substances of very high concern (“SVHCs”) in products. If the Company or its suppliers fails to comply with the substance restrictions, recycle requirements or other environmental requirements as they are enacted worldwide, it could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s business. Other Matters The Company is involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to its business, and the Company may be involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of its business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

X
- Details
Name: | stx_LegalEnvironmentalAndOtherContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | stx_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration