Crucial 2012 Annual Report Download - page 69

68
On March 6, 2009, Panavision Imaging, LLC "(Panavision") filed suit against us and Aptina Imaging Corporation, then a
wholly-owned subsidiary, 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 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 On July 8, 2011, the Court issued an order that rescinded its prior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. On February 3, 2012, the
Court granted our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On March 20, 2012, we executed a settlement
agreement with Panavision pursuant to which the parties agreed to a settlement and release of all claims and a dismissal with
prejudice of the litigation, which did not have a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
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 of our DRAM and image sensor products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs.
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 (Tyler) against us and seven other defendants. On November 16, 2011, Advanced Data Access filed
an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that certain of our DRAM products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks
injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
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 us and Winbond Electronics Corporation of America. The complaint alleges that certain of our
NOR Flash products infringe a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
On December 5, 2011, the Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois filed a patent infringement action against us in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of
ours infringe three U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
On March 26, 2012, Semiconductor Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) against us. The complaint alleges that certain of our DRAM products infringe five U.S.
patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
On March 28, 2012, Technology Partners Limited LLC (“TPL”) filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler) against us. The complaint alleges that certain of our Lexar flash card readers
infringe four U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On March 26, 2012, TPL filed a
parallel complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against us and
numerous other companies alleging infringement of the same patents and seeking an exclusion order preventing the importation
of certain flash card readers. The District Court action has been stayed pending the outcome of the ITC matter. The ITC matter
was scheduled for trial on January 7, 2013. On October 8, 2012, we executed a settlement agreement with TPL pursuant to
which the parties agreed to a settlement and release of all claims and a dismissal with prejudice of the litigation, which did not
have a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
On April 17, 2012, Anu IP, LLC (“Anu”) filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas (Marshall) against us. The complaint alleges that certain of our Lexar USB drives infringe one U.S. patent
and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On April 18, 2012, Anu filed a parallel complaint with the U.S.
International Trade Commission under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against us and numerous other companies alleging
infringement of the same patent and another related patent and seeking an exclusion order preventing the importation of certain
USB drives. The District Court action has been stayed pending the outcome of the ITC matter. On August 27, 2012, we
executed a settlement agreement with Anu pursuant to which the parties agreed to a settlement and release of all claims and a
dismissal with prejudice of the litigation, which did not have a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial
condition.
On April 27, 2012, Semcon Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that our use of a Reflexion CMP polishing system purchased from Applied
Materials infringes a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.