Crucial 2011 Annual Report Download - page 68

On March 6, 2009, Panavision Imaging, LLC filed suit against us and Aptina Imaging Corporation, then a wholly-owned subsidiary
("Aptina"), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that certain of our and Aptina's image sensor
products infringed four Panavision Imaging U.S. patents and sought injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On February 7, 2011, the
Court ruled that one of the four patents in suit was invalid for indefiniteness. On March 10, 2011, claims relating to the remaining three patents in
suit were dismissed with prejudice. Panavision subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision regarding invalidity of the
first patent, and we filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of such patent. On July 8, 2011, the Court issued an order that
rescinded its prior indefiniteness decision, and held that the disputed term does not render the claims in suit indefinite. A hearing on motions for
summary judgment regarding infringement and validity is scheduled for April 2, 2012.
On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware against us and seventeen other defendants. The complaint alleges that certain Company DRAM and image
sensor products infringe two U.S. patents.
On September 9, 2011, Advanced Data Access LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas against the Company and seven other defendants. The complaint alleges that certain Company DRAM products infringe a single U.S.
patent.
On September 14, 2011, Smart Memory Solutions LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware against the Company and Winbond Electronics Corporation of America. The complaint alleges that certain NOR Flash products
infringe a single U.S. patent.
Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to certain of our SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR2 SDRAM, DDR3 SDRAM, RLDRAM,
NOR Flash and image sensor products, which account for a significant portion of our net sales.
We are unable to predict the outcome of assertions of infringement made against us and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss.
A court determination that our products or manufacturing processes infringe the intellectual property rights of others could result in significant
liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products and/or manufacturing processes. Any of the foregoing could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
Securities Matters
On February 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed against us and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Four substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the same Court. The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class
of purchasers of our stock during the period February 24, 2001 to February 13, 2003. The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006. The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among
other things, claimed misstatements or omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On December 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class but reducing the class period to
purchasers of our stock during the period from February 24, 2001 to September 18, 2002. On August 24, 2010, we executed a settlement
agreement resolving these purported class-action cases. Subject to certain conditions, including final court approval of the class settlement, we
agreed to pay $6 million as our contribution to the settlement. On April 28, 2011, the Court entered final approval of the class settlement.
Commercial Matters
On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda AG ("Qimonda") insolvency proceedings, filed suit against us and
Micron Semiconductor B.V., our Netherlands subsidiary, in the District Court of Munich, Civil Chamber. The complaint seeks to void under
Section 133 of the German Insolvency Act a share purchase agreement between us and Qimonda in fall 2008 pursuant to which we purchased all
of Qimonda's shares of Inotera Memories, Inc. and seeks an order requiring us to retransfer the Inotera shares to the Qimonda estate. The
complaint also seeks to terminate under Sections 103 or 133 of the German Insolvency Code a patent cross license between us and Qimonda
entered into at the same time as the share purchase agreement. A hearing is scheduled to begin on November 9, 2011.
We are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this
lawsuit could result in the loss of the Inotera shares or equivalent monetary damages and the termination of the patent cross license, which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial condition.
65