Contingencies |
9 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep. 25, 2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments
The Company’s purchase commitments primarily include the Company’s obligations to purchase wafers and substrates from third parties and future payments related to certain software and technology licenses and IP licenses.
Total future unconditional purchase commitments as of September 25, 2021 were as follows:
Contingencies
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 May 14, 2020, at the request of Polaris, the Court dismissed all claims related to one of the two patents in suite 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 Appeal Board. On February 22, 2021, February 26, 2021, and March 10, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued final written decisions in inter partes reviews invalidating all asserted claims of the remaining Polaris and Aquila patents. On May 10, 2021, Aquila filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the IPR decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,895,519. On April 30, 2021, Polaris filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the IPR decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,117,526. On May 14, 2021, AMD filed a notice of cross-appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the IPR decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,117,526. Appellate briefing is underway.
Monterey Research Litigation
On November 15, 2019, Monterey Research, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case. No. 1:19-cv-02149). Monterey Research alleges that the Company infringes six U.S. patents: 6,534,805 (related to SRAM cell design); 6,629,226 (related to read interface protocols); 6,651,134 (related to memory devices); 6,765,407 (related to programmable digital circuits); 6,961,807 (related to integrated circuits and associated memory systems); and 8,373,455 (related to output buffer circuits). Monterey Research seeks unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, costs, and injunctive relief against the Company. On January 22, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss part of Monterey Research’s complaint. On February 5, 2020, Monterey Research filed an amended complaint. On February 19, 2020, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss part of Monterey Research’s complaint. On October 13, 2020, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company’s renewed motion to dismiss. On October 27, 2020, the Company filed its answer to Monterey’s complaint and also filed counterclaims based on Monterey’s breach of the parties’ pre-suit non-disclosure agreement. On December 1, 2020, Monterey filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims. On January 5, 2021, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay the litigation pending inter partes review of the patents-in-suit by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.
On August 12, 2021, Monterey filed two patent infringement complaints in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case. No. 6:21-cv-00839 and Case. No. 6:21-cv-00840). In the first complaint, Monterey alleges that the Company infringes two patents (8,694,776 and 9,767,303) related to memory controllers, three patents (8,572,297, 7,609,799, and 7,899,145) related to circuit designs, and one patent (6,979,640) related to semiconductor processing. In the second complaint, Monterey alleges that the Company infringes one patent (6,680,516) related to semiconductor processing. In both complaints, Monterey Research seeks unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, costs, and injunctive relief against the Company. On October 22, 2021, Monterey Research filed an amended complaint in Case. No. 6:21-cv-00840 withdrawing its infringement claims for the ’776 and ’303 patents, and asserting an additional infringement claim for a patent related to circuit design (8,103,497).
City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System Litigation
On September 29, 2020, the City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System, an AMD shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the “Complaint”) against AMD and the members of its Board of Directors (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. Caldwell, et al., No. 5:20-cv-6794 (N.D. Cal.). The Complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and were unjustly enriched by misrepresenting the Company’s commitment to diversity, particularly with respect to the composition of the membership of AMD’s Board of Directors and senior leadership team. On December 18, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on March 12, 2021, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On July 1, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On August 2, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the court approved the joint stipulation on August 3, 2021.
Future Link Systems Litigation
On December 21, 2020, Future Link Systems, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Future Link Systems alleges that the Company infringes three U.S. patents: 7,983,888 (related to simulated PCI express circuitry); 6,363,466 (related to out of order data transactions); and 6,622,108 (related to interconnect testing). Future Link Systems seeks unspecified
monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, costs, and injunctive relief against the Company. On March 22, 2021, the Company filed its answer to Future Link Systems’ complaint and also filed counterclaims based on Future Link Systems’ breach of the parties’ pre-suit non-disclosure agreement. On April 12, 2021, Future Link Systems filed its answer to the Company’s counterclaims. On October 12, 2021, the Court granted AMD’s motion to transfer the case to Austin, Texas. On October 14, 2021, the Court issued an order construing certain terms in the asserted patents.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability of the above listed legal proceedings, 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||