Contingencies |
6 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 25, 2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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, technology and IP licenses. Purchase commitments include obligations made under noncancellable purchase orders and contractual obligations requiring minimum purchases or for which cancellation would lead to significant penalties.
Total future unconditional purchase commitments as of June 25, 2022 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 (IPR) 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 (PTAB) issued final written decisions in IPR 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 12, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision. 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. On July 18, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s decision.
On February 8, 2022, Polaris filed a lawsuit against Xilinx, Inc. alleging infringement of four patents related to memory chips and memory interfaces. On February 22, 2022, the Company was served with the complaint. On April 14, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 28, 2022, Polaris filed an amended complaint. On May 12, 2022, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint.
On June 1, 2022, Polaris filed two lawsuits against the Company and Hewlett-Packard GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH in the Hamburg and Munich Courts in Germany, alleging infringement of two patents related to memory chips and memory interfaces. On July 15, 2022, Polaris filed a lawsuit against the Company, ASUSTeK Computer Inc., and ASUS Computer GmbH, alleging infringement of a patent related to memory chips and memory interfaces.
Analog Devices Litigation
On December 5, 2019, Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) filed a lawsuit against Xilinx alleging infringement of eight patents related to switching circuits, comparators, analog to digital convertors, signal conditioners, and switched capacitors. On January 21, 2020, Xilinx filed its answer and counterclaims alleging infringement by ADI of eight patents related to digital to analog converters, serializing data paths, transceivers, networks on chip, termination circuits, and data transmitters. On April 3, 2020, Xilinx filed amended counterclaims.
Between July 17 and December 4, 2020, Xilinx filed nine IPR petitions challenging the patentability of seven ADI asserted patents. Between August 31 and September 15, 2020, ADI filed eight IPR petitions challenging eight Xilinx asserted patents. Between January 5 and March 15, 2021, the USPTO entered decisions granting institution of IPR on six ADI asserted patents. On June 10, 2021, the USPTO entered a decision denying institution of IPR on one ADI asserted patent. Between April 8 and May 7, 2021, the USPTO entered decisions granting institution of IPR on all eight Xilinx asserted patents. On May 8, 2020, Xilinx filed a motion to strike ADI’s affirmative defense of inequitable conduct, which the Court granted on February 9, 2021. On February 22, 2021, the Court issued an order staying the case until the issuance of the USPTO’s Final Written Decision on the last-instituted of the parties’ pending IPRs.
Between January 10 and March 11, 2022, the USPTO issued Final Written Decisions (FWDs) finding all challenged claims unpatentable in two ADI patents; finding some challenged claims unpatentable in three ADI patents and finding no challenged claims unpatentable in one ADI patent. Between April 1 and April 5, 2022, the USPTO issued three FWDs finding some challenged claims unpatentable in three Xilinx patents and finding no challenged claims unpatentable in one Xilinx patent. Between March 15, 2022 and April 11, 2022, ADI and the Company filed notices of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding adverse IPR decisions. On May 11, 2022, the Court continued the stay until July 14, 2022. Subsequently, the Court stayed the case until August 3, 2022.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||