Netgear 2013 Annual Report Download - page 97

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 97 of the 2013 Netgear annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 121

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121

Table of Contents NETGEAR, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Spansion has asserted six patents related to the manufacture, structure, and operation of flash memory cells, as well as security protection systems
for flash memory devices:
Four of the asserted patents, the '416, '625, '124, and '922 patents, were previously asserted by Spansion in the 337-TA-
735 Investigation against
Samsung, Apple, Nokia, PNY, RIM, and Transcend. ITC records indicate the 735 Investigation terminated based on settlement agreements prior to the
hearing on the merits.
The accused products are identified as flash memory chips manufactured and sold by Macronix, as well as downstream products which contain the
accused Macronix flash memory chips. The Complaint specifically identifies the Company WNR1000 wireless router, as an exemplary accused product,
but makes clear that Spansion intends to expand the scope of accused products to include additional products, if any, which contain the accused
Macronix flash memory chips.
In addition, on August 1, 2013, Spansion filed a parallel similar complaint against the same parties in the Northern District of California.
Discovery in the ITC case has commenced and is ongoing, and the Northern District of California case has been stayed pending the outcome of the ITC
case.
It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company because of this litigation matter.
Garnet Digital v. NETGEAR, Inc.
On September 9, 2013, the Company was sued in the Eastern District of Texas by a non-practicing entity named Garnet Digital (“Garnet”)
that is
based in Texas. There is one asserted patent, U.S. Pat. No. 5,379,421, which is directed to an interactive terminal for the access of remote database
information. Garnet is alleging infringement by the Company by its products or systems, such as the NTV200, that are responsive to output signals from
a telephone.
The patent has previously been litigated against Apple, Samsung, RIM, and a number of other wireless companies in Eastern Texas and the ITC.
Garnet’
s lawsuit against the Company is one of multiple cases filed by Garnet in the Eastern District of Texas Other defendants sued by Garnet in the
Eastern District of Texas include: Boxee, D-
Link Systems, Logitech, Roku, TiVo, DirecTV, DISH Network, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Panasonic,
Western Digital, Pioneer, Yamaha, Denon, D&M Holdings, Marantz, and Onkyo. The Company answered the complaint on December 9, 2013 by
asserting various affirmative defenses. In February of 2014, the court consolidated the Company’
s case with the other pending Garnet Digital cases in
the Eastern District of Texas, but the Court has not yet set a scheduling conference.
It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company because of this litigation matter.
Penovia LLC v. NETGEAR, Inc.
On September 27, 2013, a non-practicing entity named Penovia LLC (“Penovia”)
filed suit against the Company in the Eastern District of Texas.
Penovia asserts the Company’s wireless routers infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,822,221 (the “’221 patent”), entitled “Office Machine Monitoring Device.”
Penovia’s complaint specifically names the DGN2000 Wireless-
N product as an example of an infringing product. Penovia admits in the complaint that
the ’
221 patent expired on October 13, 2010, due to a lapse in maintenance fee payments. Consequently, Penovia seeks damages for an approximately
three
year period of time starting six years before the filing date of the complaint, September 27, 2007, and ending on October 13, 2010. Penovia has
asserted the ’221 patent in 22 cases, all in the Eastern District of Texas. Penovia filed nine
cases on May 21, 2013, and filed the remainder on September
27, 2013. The Company filed its answer on November 26, 2014 - asserting various affirmative defenses. On December 23, 2013 received Penovia’
s
infringement contentions.
It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company because of this litigation matter.
94
• US Patent No. 6,369,416 “
Semiconductor Device with Contacts Having a Sloped Profile
• US Patent No. 6,459,625 “Three Metal Process for Optimizing Layout Density”
• US Patent No. 6,731,536 “Password and Dynamic Protection of Flash Memory Data”
• US Patent No. 6,900,124 “
Patterning for Elliptical Vss Contact on Flash Memory
• US Patent No. 7,018,922 “
Patterning for Elongated Vss Contact on Flash Memory
• US Patent No. 7,151,027 “Method and Device for Reducing Interface Area of a Memory Device”