Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)
|6 Months Ended|
Mar. 26, 2017
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings. ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated: On May 1, 2014, ParkerVision filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that certain of the Company’s products infringe certain ParkerVision patents. On August 21, 2014, ParkerVision amended the complaint, now captioned ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, broadening the allegations. ParkerVision alleged that the Company infringes 11 ParkerVision patents and seeks damages and injunctive and other relief. On September 25, 2015, ParkerVision filed a motion with the court to sever some claims against the Company and all other defendants into a separate lawsuit. In addition, on December 3, 2015, ParkerVision dismissed six patents from the lawsuit and granted the Company and all other defendants a covenant not to assert those patents against any existing products. On February 2, 2016, after agreement among the parties, the District Court stayed the remainder of the case pending the resolution of the complaint filed by ParkerVision against the Company and other parties with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) described below.
On December 14, 2015, ParkerVision filed another complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging patent infringement. Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. were also named defendants. The complaint asserts that certain of the Company’s products infringe four additional ParkerVision patents and seeks damages and other relief. On December 15, 2015, ParkerVision filed a complaint with the ITC pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against the same parties asserting the same four patents. The complaint seeks an exclusion order barring the importation of products that use either of two Company transceivers or one Samsung transceiver and a cease and desist order preventing the Company and the other defendants from carrying out commercial activities within the United States related to such products. On January 13, 2016, the Company served its answer to the District Court complaint. On January 15, 2016, the ITC instituted an investigation. The District Court case was stayed on February 12, 2016 pending completion of the ITC investigation. Subsequently, ParkerVision announced that it had reached a settlement with Samsung which dismissed the Samsung entities from the ITC investigation and related District Court case. On February 2, 2017, the ITC granted ParkerVision’s motion to drop all but one patent and one accused product from the ITC investigation. On March 12, 2017, one day before the ITC hearing was scheduled to begin, ParkerVision moved to withdraw its ITC complaint in its entirety. The Company and the other defendants did not oppose the withdrawal of the complaint. The ITC is expected to formally close the investigation in the coming weeks. ParkerVision has asserted in public statements that it plans to proceed with the related District Court case once the stay is lifted.
The Company believes ParkerVision’s claims are without merit.
BlackBerry Limited (BlackBerry) Arbitration: On April 20, 2016, the Company and BlackBerry entered into an agreement to arbitrate BlackBerry’s allegation that it overpaid royalties on certain past sales of subscriber units based on the alleged effect of specific provisions in its license agreement. The arbitration hearing was held during the week of February 27, 2017 by a three-judge panel under the rules of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services in San Diego, California. On April 11, 2017, the panel provided its decision, finding that the Company must pay to BlackBerry $815 million, plus interest at a rate of 10% from June 2015. The decision was limited to prepayment provisions unique to BlackBerry’s license agreement with the Company and has no impact on agreements with any other licensee. The decision is binding and is not subject to appeal. BlackBerry is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees to be determined by the panel. A hearing regarding attorneys’ fees is scheduled for May 30, 2017. As a result, the Company recorded a reduction to licensing revenues of $974 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2017.
QUALCOMM Incorporated v. Meizu Technology Co., Ltd. et al: On June 23, 2016 and June 29, 2016, the Company filed a series of actions against Meizu Technology Co., Ltd., aka Zhuhai Meizu Technology Co., Ltd. (Meizu) and certain of its distributors in the Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing and Shanghai (China). The first complaint, filed in Beijing on June 23, 2016, requested rulings that the terms of a patent license offered by the Company to Meizu comply with China’s Anti-Monopoly Law and the Company’s applicable fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing commitment. The complaint also sought a ruling that the offered patent license terms should form the basis for a patent license with Meizu for the Company’s fundamental mobile device technologies patented in China, including those relating to 3G (WCDMA and CDMA2000) and 4G (LTE) wireless communications standards, and sought damages for Meizu’s past use of the Company’s patented inventions. On June 29, 2016, the Company filed patent infringement complaints in the Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing and Shanghai alleging infringement of 17 patents by Meizu. The patent infringement actions concerned a broad range of features and technologies used in smartphones, including features relating to 3G (WCDMA and CDMA2000) and 4G (LTE) wireless communications standards, and sought to enjoin Meizu from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale mobile devices that infringe the asserted patents. Meizu also filed actions before China’s Patent Reexamination Board challenging the validity of each of the asserted patents.
On October 14, 2016, the Company filed patent infringement complaints against Meizu in the United States ITC and the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany. The ITC complaint sought an exclusion order enjoining Meizu and certain of its distributors from the importation, sale for importation and sale after importation of Meizu mobile devices that infringe certain of the Company’s patents related to semiconductor, radio frequency and digital camera technologies. The German complaint sought damages and to enjoin Meizu from offering, putting into circulation, using, possessing or importing into Germany mobile devices that infringe one of the Company’s patents related to wireless messaging technology. On the same day, the Company also initiated a seizure action in France pursuant to orders from the Paris District Court to obtain evidence for a possible future infringement action in that country.
On December 26, 2016, the Company and Meizu entered into several agreements whereby the Company granted Meizu a worldwide royalty-bearing patent license to develop, manufacture and sell CDMA2000, WCDMA and 4G LTE (including “3-mode” GSM, TD-SCDMA and LTE-TDD) complete devices. These agreements resolved all of the patent disputes between the Company and Meizu in China, Germany, France and the United States. Accordingly, the Company and Meizu took appropriate steps to terminate or withdraw the foregoing complaints and actions, which had all been formally dismissed by the respective tribunals as of March 14, 2017.
Apple Inc. (Apple) v. Qualcomm Incorporated: On January 20, 2017, Apple filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California seeking declarations with respect to several of the Company’s patents and alleging that the Company breached certain agreements and violated federal antitrust and California state unfair competition laws. In particular, Apple seeks declaratory judgments of non-infringement by Apple of nine of the Company’s patents, or in the alternative, a declaration of royalties Apple must pay for the patents. Apple further seeks a declaration that the Company’s sale of baseband chipsets exhausts the Company’s patent rights for patents embodied in those chipsets. Separately, Apple seeks to enjoin the Company from seeking excessive royalties from Apple and to disgorge royalties paid by Apple’s contract manufacturers that the court finds were not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). Apple also claims that the Company’s refusal to make certain payments to Apple under a Business Cooperation and Patent Agreement (Cooperation Agreement) constitutes a breach of contract in violation of California law and seeks damages in the amount of the unpaid payments, alleged to be approximately $1 billion. In addition, Apple claims that the Company has refused to deal with competitors in contravention of the Company’s agreements with applicable standard setting organizations, has used its market position to impose contractual obligations on Apple that prevented Apple from challenging the Company’s licensing practices, has tied the purchase of the Company’s CDMA-enabled and premium LTE-enabled chipsets to licensing certain of the Company’s patents and has required Apple to purchase baseband chipsets exclusively from the Company as a condition of the Company’s payment to Apple of certain rebates, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Apple seeks injunctive relief with respect to these claims and a judgment awarding its expenses, costs and attorneys’ fees.
On April 10, 2017, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims in response to Apple’s complaint denying Apple’s claims and asserting claims against Apple. The counterclaims against Apple include tortious interference with the Company’s long-standing Subscriber Unit License Agreements (SULAs) with third-party contract manufacturers of Apple devices, causing those contract manufacturers to withhold certain royalty payments owed to the Company; breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing relating to the parties’ Cooperation Agreement; unjust enrichment and declaratory relief relating to the Cooperation Agreement; breach of contract based on Apple’s failure to pay amounts owed to the Company under a Statement of Work relating to a high-speed feature of the Company’s chipsets; breach of the parties’ software agreement; and violation of California Unfair Competition Law based on (i) Apple’s falsely claiming that there was “no discernible difference” between iPhones using the Company’s chipsets and iPhones using Intel Corp.’s chipsets, and (ii) Apple’s threatening the Company to prevent it from promoting the superior performance of the Company’s own chipsets. The Company also seeks declaratory judgments that the Company has satisfied its FRAND commitments with respect to Apple, and that the Company’s SULAs with the contract manufacturers do not violate either competition law or the Company’s FRAND commitments.
On January 23, 2017, an Apple subsidiary in China filed two complaints against the Company in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. On April 1, 2017, the court informed the Company that it had preliminarily granted an application by Apple Inc. to join the actions as a plaintiff, and Apple amended the complaints. One of the complaints alleges a violation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML complaint); the other complaint requests a determination of the terms of a patent license between the Company and Apple (FRAND complaint). In particular, the AML complaint alleges that (i) the Company has abused its dominant position in communication standard-essential patents licensing markets and certain global baseband chipset markets by charging and offering royalty terms that were excessively high; (ii) the Company refused to license certain implementers of standardized technologies, including Apple and baseband chipset manufacturers; (iii) the Company forced Apple to use only the Company’s products and services; and (iv) the Company bundled licenses to standard-essential patents with licenses to non-standard-essential patents and imposed other unreasonable or discriminatory trading terms on Apple in violation of the AML. The AML complaint seeks a decree that the Company cease the alleged abuse of dominance, as well as damages in the amount of 1 billion Chinese Renminbi (approximately $145 million based on the exchange rate on March 26, 2017). The FRAND complaint makes allegations similar to the AML complaint and further alleges that the Company refused to offer licensing terms for the Company’s cellular standard-essential patents consistent with the Company’s FRAND licensing commitments and failed to provide to Apple certain information about the Company’s patents. The FRAND complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the license terms offered to Apple by the Company for its mobile communication standard essential patents are not compliant with FRAND; (ii) an order that the Company cease its actions that allegedly violate the Company’s FRAND obligations, including pricing on unfair, unreasonable and excessive terms, refusing to deal, imposing unreasonable trade conditions and failing to provide information on the Company’s patents; and (iii) a determination of FRAND-compliant license terms for the Company’s Chinese standard-essential patents. Apple also seeks its expenses in each of the cases. On March 3, 2017, the Company filed objections to the court’s jurisdiction in these cases. On April 17, 2017, the Company filed (i) new jurisdictional objections to the April 1, 2017 complaints; and (ii) opinions on Apple Inc.’s application to join the suits as a plaintiff.
On February 16, 2017, Apple and one of its Japanese subsidiaries filed three complaints against the Company in the Tokyo District Court. In the complaints, Apple seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement by Apple of three of the Company’s patents. Apple further seeks a declaration that the Company’s patent rights with respect to those three patents are exhausted by the Company’s SULAs with the contract manufacturers of Apple’s devices as well as the Company’s sale of baseband chipsets. Finally, Apple seeks an award of fees.
On March 2, 2017, the Company learned that Apple and certain of its European subsidiaries issued a Claim Form against the Company in the UK High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court on January 23, 2017. The Claim Form alleges several European competition law claims, including refusal to license competing chipmakers, failure to offer Apple a direct license to the Company’s standard-essential patents on FRAND terms, demanding excessive royalties for the Company’s standard-essential patents, and demanding excessive license fees for the use of the Company’s standard-essential patents in connection with chipsets purchased from the Company. Apple also seeks declarations that it is a willing licensee and that commercial activity in relation to its iPhones and iPads attributable to, implemented by, or using the Company’s chipsets does not infringe any of the Company’s patents because the Company either exhausted its patent rights or granted Apple an implied license.
The Company believes Apple’s claims in the above matters are without merit.
3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al: On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a securities class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety, granting leave to amend. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business outlook and product development between November 19, 2014 and July 22, 2015. The Company intends to move to dismiss that complaint. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.
Securities Class Action Lawsuits: On January 23 and 26, 2017, respectively, two securities class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with certain allegations that the Company is or was engaged in anticompetitive conduct and in connection with the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. On March 24, 2017, four sets of plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.
Consumer Class Action Lawsuits: Since January 18, 2017, more than thirty consumer class action complaints have been filed against the Company in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices. Although the complaints contain certain differences, in general they all allege that the Company violated various federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws by, among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to its competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license the Company’s entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with companies including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with the Company’s commitments to standard setting organizations. The complaints further allege that the Company was unjustly enriched by the foregoing alleged conduct. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs, as well as an order that the Company be enjoined from further unlawful conduct. On April 5, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the Judicial Panel) issued a transfer order transferring two of these cases from the Southern District of California to the Northern District of California. On April 7, 2017, the Judicial Panel issued a conditional transfer order that is expected to result in the transfer of the rest of these cases in the Southern District of California to the Northern District of California. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.
Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) Complaint: The JFTC received unspecified complaints alleging that the Company’s business practices are, in some way, a violation of Japanese law. On September 29, 2009, the JFTC issued a cease and desist order concluding that the Company’s Japanese licensees were forced to cross-license patents to the Company on a royalty-free basis and were forced to accept a provision under which they agreed not to assert their essential patents against the Company’s other licensees who made a similar commitment in their license agreements with the Company. The cease and desist order seeks to require the Company to modify its existing license agreements with Japanese companies to eliminate these provisions while preserving the license of the Company’s patents to those companies. The Company disagrees with the conclusions that it forced its Japanese licensees to agree to any provision in the parties’ agreements and that those provisions violate the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. The Company has invoked its right under Japanese law to an administrative hearing before the JFTC. In February 2010, the Tokyo High Court granted the Company’s motion and issued a stay of the cease and desist order pending the administrative hearing before the JFTC. The JFTC has held hearings on 34 different dates, with the next hearing scheduled for April 24, 2017.
Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) Complaint: On January 4, 2010, the KFTC issued a written decision finding that the Company had violated Korean law by offering certain discounts and rebates for purchases of its CDMA chipsets and for including in certain agreements language requiring the continued payment of royalties after all licensed patents have expired. The KFTC levied a fine, which the Company paid and recorded as an expense in fiscal 2010. The Company appealed to the Seoul High Court, and on June 19, 2013, the Seoul High Court affirmed the KFTC’s decision. On July 4, 2013, the Company filed an appeal with the Korea Supreme Court. There have been no material developments since then with respect to this matter.
Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) Investigation: On March 17, 2015, the KFTC notified the Company that it was conducting an investigation of the Company relating to the Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA). On December 27, 2016, the KFTC announced that it had reached a decision in the investigation, finding that the Company has violated provisions of the MRFTA. On January 22, 2017, the Company received the KFTC’s formal written decision, which finds that the following conducts violate the MRFTA: (i) refusing to license, or imposing restrictions on licenses for, cellular communications standard-essential patents with competing modem chipset makers; (ii) conditioning the supply of modem chipsets to handset suppliers on their execution and performance of license agreements with the Company; and (iii) coercing agreement terms including portfolio license terms, royalty terms and free cross-grant terms in executing patent license agreements with handset makers. The KFTC’s decision orders the Company to: (i) upon request by modem chipset companies, engage in good-faith negotiations for patent license agreements, without offering unjustifiable conditions, and if necessary submit to a determination of terms by an independent third party; (ii) not demand that handset companies execute and perform under patent license agreements as a precondition for purchasing modem chips; (iii) not demand unjustifiable conditions in the Company’s license agreements with handset companies, and upon request renegotiate existing patent license agreements; and (iv) notify modem chipset companies and handset companies of the decision and order imposed on the Company and report to the KFTC new or amended agreements. According to the KFTC’s decision, the foregoing will apply to transactions between the Company and the following enterprises: (i) handset manufacturers headquartered in Korea and their affiliate companies; (ii) enterprises that sell handsets in or to Korea and their affiliate companies; (iii) enterprises that supply handsets to companies referred in (ii) above and the affiliate companies of such enterprises; (iv) modem chipset manufacturers headquartered in Korea and their affiliate companies; and (v) enterprises that supply modem chipsets to companies referred in (i), (ii) or (iii) above and the affiliate companies of such enterprises. The KFTC’s decision also imposes a fine of approximately 1.03 trillion Korean Won (approximately $927 million), which was paid on March 30, 2017. The Company believes that its business practices do not violate the MRFTA, and on February 21, 2017 filed an action in the Seoul High Court to cancel the KFTC’s decision. On the same day, the Company filed an application with the Seoul High Court to stay the decision’s remedial order pending the Seoul High Court’s final judgment on the Company’s action to cancel the KFTC’s decision. The Seoul High Court has not ruled on the Company’s action to cancel the KFTC’s decision or its application to stay the decision’s remedial order.
Icera Complaint to the European Commission (Commission): On June 7, 2010, the Commission notified and provided the Company with a redacted copy of a complaint filed with the Commission by Icera, Inc. (subsequently acquired by Nvidia Corporation) alleging that the Company has engaged in anticompetitive activity. The Company was asked by the Commission to submit a preliminary response to the portions of the complaint disclosed to it, and the Company submitted its response in July 2010. Subsequently, the Company provided additional documents and information as requested by the Commission. On July 16, 2015, the Commission announced that it had initiated formal proceedings in this matter. On December 8, 2015, the Commission announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections expressing its preliminary view that between 2009 and 2011, the Company engaged in predatory pricing by selling certain baseband chipsets to two customers at prices below cost, with the intention of hindering competition. A Statement of Objections informs the subject of the investigation of the allegations against it and provides an opportunity to respond to such allegations. It is not a determination of the final outcome of the investigation. On August 15, 2016, the Company submitted its response to the Statement of Objections. If a violation is found, a broad range of remedies is potentially available to the Commission, including imposing a fine and/or injunctive relief prohibiting or restricting certain business practices. It is difficult to predict the outcome of this matter or what remedies, if any, may be imposed by the Commission. The Company believes that its business practices do not violate the EU competition rules.
European Commission (Commission) Investigation: On October 15, 2014, the Commission notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation of the Company relating to Articles 101 and/or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). On July 16, 2015, the Commission announced that it had initiated formal proceedings in this matter. On December 8, 2015, the Commission announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections expressing its preliminary view that since 2011 the Company has paid significant amounts to a customer on condition that it exclusively use the Company’s baseband chipsets in its smartphones and tablets. This conduct has allegedly reduced the customer’s incentives to source chipsets from the Company’s competitors and harmed competition and innovation for certain baseband chipsets. A Statement of Objections informs the subject of the investigation of the allegations against it and provides an opportunity to respond to such allegations. It is not a determination of the final outcome of the investigation. On June 27, 2016, the Company submitted its response to the Statement of Objections. If a violation is found, a broad range of remedies is potentially available to the Commission, including imposing a fine and/or injunctive relief prohibiting or restricting certain business practices. It is difficult to predict the outcome of this matter or what remedies, if any, may be imposed by the Commission. The Company believes that its business practices do not violate the EU competition rules.
United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. QUALCOMM Incorporated: On September 17, 2014, the FTC notified the Company that it was conducting an investigation of the Company relating to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA). On January 17, 2017, the FTC filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company engaged in anticompetitive conduct and unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTCA by conditioning the supply of baseband processors on the purchaser first agreeing to a license to the Company’s standard-essential patents, paying incentives to purchasers of baseband processors to induce them to accept certain license terms, refusing to license its standard-essential patents to the Company’s competitors and entering into alleged exclusive dealing arrangements with Apple Inc. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the Company’s alleged violations of the FTCA and other unspecified ancillary equitable relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint on April 3, 2017, which is pending. On April 19, 2017, the court set a trial date for January 4, 2019. The Company believes the FTC’s claims are without merit.
Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) Investigation: On December 4, 2015, the TFTC notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation into whether the Company’s patent licensing arrangements violate the Taiwan Fair Trade Act (TFTA). On April 27, 2016, the TFTC specified that the allegations under investigation include whether: (i) the Company jointly licensed its patents rather than separately licensing standard-essential patents and non-standard-essential patents; (ii) the Company’s royalty charges are unreasonable; (iii) the Company unreasonably required licensees to grant it cross-licenses; (iv) the Company failed to provide lists of licensed patents to licensees; (v) the Company violated a FRAND licensing commitment by declining to grant licenses to chipset makers; (vi) the Company declined to sell chipsets to unlicensed potential customers; and (vii) the Company provided royalty rebates to certain companies in exchange for their exclusive use of the Company’s chipsets. If a violation is found, a broad range of remedies is potentially available to the TFTC, including imposing a fine or requiring modifications to the Company’s business practices. At this stage of the investigation, it is difficult to predict the outcome of this matter or what remedies, if any, may be imposed by the TFTC. The Company believes that its business practices do not violate the TFTA. The Company continues to cooperate with the TFTC as it conducts its investigation.
The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in the foregoing matters. However, litigation and investigations are inherently uncertain. Accordingly, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. Other than with respect to the BlackBerry Arbitration and the KFTC Investigation, the Company has not recorded any accrual at March 26, 2017 for contingent losses associated with these matters based on its belief that losses, while possible, are not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company is engaged in numerous other legal actions not described above arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance, believes that the ultimate outcome of these other legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Indemnifications. The Company generally does not indemnify its customers and licensees for losses sustained from infringement of third-party intellectual property rights. However, the Company is contingently liable under certain product sales, services, license and other agreements to indemnify certain customers against certain types of liability and/or damages arising from qualifying claims of patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret infringement by products or services sold or provided by the Company. The Company’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances, the Company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by the Company.
Through March 26, 2017, the Company has received a number of claims from its direct and indirect customers and other third parties for indemnification under such agreements with respect to alleged infringement of third-party intellectual property rights by its products. Reimbursements under indemnification arrangements have not been material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company has not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities at March 26, 2017 associated with these indemnification arrangements based on the Company’s belief that additional liabilities, while possible, are not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
Purchase Obligations. The Company has agreements with suppliers and other parties to purchase inventory, other goods and services and long-lived assets. Obligations under these agreements at March 26, 2017 for the remainder of fiscal 2017 and for each of the subsequent four years from fiscal 2018 through 2021 were $4.0 billion, $1.2 billion, $955 million, $356 million and $117 million, respectively, and $29 million thereafter. Of these amounts, for the remainder of fiscal 2017 and for each of the subsequent four years from fiscal 2018 through 2021, commitments to purchase integrated circuit product inventories comprised $3.3 billion, $918 million, $829 million, $281 million, $76 million, respectively, and there were $28 million purchase commitments thereafter. Integrated circuit product inventory obligations represent purchase commitments for raw materials, semiconductor die, finished goods and manufacturing services, such as wafer bump, probe, assembly and final test. Under the Company’s manufacturing relationships with its foundry suppliers and assembly and test service providers, cancelation of outstanding purchase commitments is generally allowed but requires payment of costs incurred through the date of cancelation, and in some cases, incremental fees related to capacity underutilization.
Operating Leases. The Company leases certain of its land, facilities and equipment under noncancelable operating leases, with terms ranging from less than one year to 21 years and with provisions in certain leases for cost-of-living increases. Future minimum lease payments at March 26, 2017 for the remainder of fiscal 2017 and for each of the subsequent four years from fiscal 2018 through 2021 were $61 million, $107 million, $93 million, $68 million and $53 million, respectively, and $63 million thereafter.
Other Commitments. At March 26, 2017, the Company was committed to fund certain strategic investments up to $305 million. Of this amount, $73 million is expected to be funded in the remainder of fiscal 2017. The remaining commitments represent the maximum amounts that do not have fixed funding dates and/or are subject to certain conditions. Actual funding may be in lesser amounts or not at all.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef