Crucial 2012 Annual Report Download - page 68

67
Commitments
As of August 30, 2012, we had commitments of approximately $550 million for the acquisition of property, plant and
equipment. We lease certain facilities and equipment under operating leases. Total rental expense was $48 million, $69 million
and $41 million for 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. We also subleased certain facilities and buildings under operating
leases to Aptina and recognized $4 million and $7 million of rental income in 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of August 30,
2012, minimum future rental commitments are as follows:
As of August 30, 2012
Operating
Lease
Commitments
2013 $ 25
2014 16
2015 9
2016 9
2017 7
2018 and thereafter 24
$ 90
Contingencies
We have accrued a liability and charged operations for the estimated costs of adjudication or settlement of various asserted
and unasserted claims existing as of the balance sheet date, including those described below. We are currently a party to other
legal actions arising from the normal course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our
business, results of operations or financial condition.
Patent Matters
As is typical in the semiconductor and other high technology industries, from time to time, others have asserted, and may
in the future assert, that our products or manufacturing processes infringe their intellectual property rights.
We are engaged in litigation with Rambus, Inc. ("Rambus") relating to certain of Rambus' patents and certain of our claims
and defenses. Our lawsuits with Rambus are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Germany, France, and Italy. On August 28, 2000, we filed a complaint against Rambus
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint alleges, among
other things, various anticompetitive activities and also seeks a declaratory judgment that certain Rambus patents are invalid
and/or unenforceable. Rambus subsequently filed an answer and counterclaim in Delaware alleging, among other things,
infringement of twelve Rambus patents and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. We subsequently added claims
and defenses based on Rambus' alleged spoliation of evidence and litigation misconduct. The spoliation and litigation
misconduct claims and defenses were heard in a bench trial before Judge Robinson in October 2007. On January 9, 2009,
Judge Robinson entered an opinion in our favor holding that Rambus had engaged in spoliation and that the twelve Rambus
patents in the suit were unenforceable against us. Rambus subsequently appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Robinson's finding of spoliation, but vacated the
dismissal sanction and remanded the case to the Delaware District Court for analysis of the remedy based on the Federal
Circuit's decision. On January 13, 2006, Rambus filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging that certain of our DDR2, DDR3, RLDRAM and RLDRAM II products infringe as many as fourteen
Rambus patents and seeking monetary damages, treble damages, and injunctive relief. The Northern District of California
Court stayed the trial of the patent phase of the Northern District of California case upon appeal of the Delaware spoliation
issue to the Federal Circuit.