Crucial 2013 Annual Report Download - page 82

81
Commitments
As of August 29, 2013, we had commitments of approximately $775 million for the acquisition of property, plant and
equipment. We lease certain facilities and equipment under operating leases. Total rental expense was $41 million, $48 million
and $69 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of August 29, 2013, minimum future rental commitments are as
follows:
As of August 29, 2013
Operating
Lease
Commitments
2014 $ 22
2015 14
2016 12
2017 11
2018 10
2019 and thereafter 37
$ 106
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 related to patent matters 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 2, 2013, Judge Robinson entered a new opinion in our favor holding that
Rambus had engaged in spoliation, that Rambus' spoliation was done in bad faith, that the spoliation prejudiced us, and that the
appropriate sanction was to declare the twelve Rambus patents in the suit unenforceable against us. On March 27, 2013,
Rambus filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Separately, 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.