Contingencies |
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Jun. 27, 2020 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Contingencies | Contingencies 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 their 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 and Louisiana) of consumers who purchased the Company’s processors and/or devices containing AMD processors. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, equitable relief and restitution. Pursuant to the court’s order directing the 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. On May 15, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing the subset of claims currently at issue against the Company.
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.
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. On August 23, 2019, the Court held a claim construction hearing in each case. On May 14, 2020, at the request of Polaris, the Court dismissed all claims related to one of the two patents in suit in the Polaris case. On June 10, 2020, the Court granted AMD’s motions to stay the Polaris and Aquila cases pending the completion of inter partes review of each of the patents-in-suit in those cases by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.
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, based on the management’s current knowledge, 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 financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
|