Contingencies |
6 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 29, 2019 | |||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||
| Contingencies | Contingencies Kim Securities Litigation
On January 16, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Kim et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint purported to assert claims against the Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired AMD's common stock during the period February 21, 2017 through January 11, 2018. The complaint sought damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual officers regarding a security vulnerability (Spectre), which statements and omissions, the plaintiff claimed, allegedly caused AMD's common stock price to be artificially inflated during the purported class period. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with similar allegations and shortening the class period to June 29, 2017 through January 11, 2018. On September 25, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims. On May 23, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On June 13, 2019, plaintiffs notified the court that they would not amend the complaint. On June 14, 2019, the court entered a final judgment, dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal.
Hauck et al. Litigation
Since January 19, 2018, three putative class action complaints have been filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: (1) Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0047, filed on January 19, 2018; (2) Brian Speck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0744, filed on February 4, 2018; and (3) Nathan Barnes and Jonathan Caskey-Medina, et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00883, filed on February 9, 2018. On April 9, 2018, the court consolidated these cases and ordered that Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc. serve as the lead case. On June 13, 2018, six plaintiffs (from California, Louisiana, Florida, and Massachusetts) filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company failed to disclose its processors’ alleged vulnerability to Spectre. Plaintiffs further allege that the Company's processors cannot perform at its advertised processing speeds without exposing consumers to Spectre, and that any “patches” to remedy this security vulnerability will result in degradation of processor performance. The plaintiffs seek damages under several causes of action on behalf of a nationwide class and four state subclasses (California, Florida, Massachusetts, Louisiana) of consumers who purchased AMD processors and/or devices containing AMD processors. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, equitable relief, and restitution. Pursuant to the court's order directing parties to litigate only eight of the causes of action in the consolidated amended complaint initially, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2018. On October 29, 2018, after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one of their claims, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed six causes of action with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on December 6, 2018. On January 3, 2019, the Company again moved to dismiss the subset of claims currently at issue. On April 4, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed all claims currently at issue with prejudice. On May 6, 2019, the court granted the parties’ stipulation and request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enter a partial final judgment and certify for appeal the court’s April 4, 2019 dismissal order, and on that same date, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their remaining claims pursuant to an agreement whereby, subject to certain terms and
conditions, the Company agreed to toll the statute of limitations and/or statute of repose. On May 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing is scheduled to be completed later this year.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Zeng Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Zeng v. Su, et al., Case No. 18CIV01192 was filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its directors and officers in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the Company and certain individual directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual directors and officers regarding Spectre, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for AMD's common stock during the period. On April 26, 2018, the lawsuit was transferred to Santa Clara County and assigned a new case number, 18CV327692. On August 14, 2018, the Court stayed this lawsuit pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in Kim et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Securities Class Action”). As discussed above, on May 23, 2019, the court in the Securities Class Action granted a motion to dismiss filed by the Company and certain individual officers and thereafter entered final judgment dismissing the Securities Class Action with prejudice. On June 17, 2019, the court in this case entered a joint stipulation to extend the stay until October 7, 2019.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
In re Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Two purported shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its directors and officers in the United States District Court, Northern District of California: (1) Jacqueline Dolby, derivatively on behalf of AMD, Inc. v. Su et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-03575, filed on June 14, 2018; and (2) Gusinsky Trust, derivatively on behalf of AMD, Inc. v. Su et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-03811, filed on June 26, 2018. The complaints purport to assert claims against the Company and certain individual directors and officers for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages purportedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual directors and officers regarding Spectre. The plaintiffs allege that these statements and omissions operated to artificially inflate the price paid for AMD's common stock during the period. On July 12, 2018, the court consolidated the Dolby and Gusinsky Trust shareholder derivative lawsuits under the caption In re Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On August 10, 2018, the Court stayed this lawsuit pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in Kim et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Class Action). As discussed above, on May 23, 2019, the court in the Class Action granted a motion to dismiss filed by the Company and certain individual officers and thereafter entered final judgment dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. On June 12, 2019, the court in this case entered a joint stipulation to extend the stay until October 7, 2019.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
MediaTek Litigation
MediaTek, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 19-cv-368 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 21, 2019, MediaTek, Inc. filed suit against the Company, alleging infringement of six patents related to memory controllers and integrated circuit structures. On April 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss portions of MediaTek's complaint. On April 29, 2019, MediaTek filed an amended complaint. On May 13, 2019, AMD filed a motion to dismiss part of MediaTek’s amended complaint.
On March 18, 2019, AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. was provided with four complaints filed by MediaTek in the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, China. Each complaint alleges infringement of one patent by certain AMD entities, identifies an exemplary product, and seeks injunctive and monetary relief:
infringe patent 201110060964.1, titled “Integrated Circuit Chip.” On April 2, 2019, the Company submitted a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction, and separately initiated invalidity proceedings in the Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The Court had set an initial hearing for June 20, 2019. The Court subsequently cancelled the June 20, 2019 initial hearing. On June 27, 2019, AMD voluntarily terminated the invalidity proceeding; the Company filed a revised invalidity petition on July 29, 2019. On July 30, 2019, the Shenzhen Court denied the Company's challenge to the Court's jurisdiction.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Dickey Litigation
On October 26, 2015, a putative class action complaint captioned Dickey et al. v. AMD, No. 15-cv-04922 was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allege that the Company misled consumers by using the term “eight cores” in connection with the marketing of certain AMD FX CPUs that are based on the Company's “Bulldozer” core architecture. The plaintiffs allege these products cannot perform eight calculations simultaneously, without restriction. The plaintiffs seek to obtain damages under several causes of action for a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were deceived into purchasing certain Bulldozer-based CPUs that were marketed as containing eight cores. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees. On December 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted on April 7, 2016. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint with a narrowed putative class definition, which the Court dismissed upon the Company's motion on October 31, 2016. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and allowing the plaintiffs to move forward with a portion of their complaint. On March 27, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On January 17, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The class definition does not encompass the Company's RyzenTM or EPYCTM processors. On January 31, 2019, the Company filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of certain aspects of the January 17, 2019 class certification order. On May 9, 2019, the parties attended mediation and reached a tentative settlement. The tentative settlement is subject to a final executed agreement and court approval. On June 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Company’s petition seeking appellate review of the January 17, 2019 class certification order.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the tentative settlement will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Quarterhill Inc. Litigation
On July 2, 2018, three entities named Aquila Innovations, Inc. (Aquila), Collabo Innovations, Inc. (Collabo), and Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (Polaris), filed separate patent infringement complaints against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Aquila alleges that the Company infringes two patents (6,239,614 and 6,895,519) relating to power management; Collabo alleges that the Company infringes one patent (7,930,575) related to power management; and Polaris alleges that the Company infringes two patents (6,728,144 and 8,117,526) relating to control or use of dynamic random-access memory, or DRAM. Each of the three complaints seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, fees, expenses, and costs against the Company; Aquila and Collabo also seek enhanced damages. Aquila, Collabo, and Polaris each appear to be related to a patent assertion entity named Quarterhill Inc. (formerly WiLAN Inc.). On November 16, 2018, AMD filed answers in the Collabo and Aquila cases and filed a motion to dismiss in the Polaris case. On January 25, 2019, the Company filed amended answers and counterclaims in the Collabo and Aquila cases. On July 22, 2019, the Company's motion to dismiss in the Polaris case was denied.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Other Legal Matters
The Company is a defendant or plaintiff in various actions that arose in the normal course of business. With respect to these matters, the Company believes that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations .
|