Qualcomm 2014 Annual Report Download - page 78

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 78 of the 2014 Qualcomm 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 105

  • 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

QUALCOMM Incorporated
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
share, respectively. At September 28, 2014 , total unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested purchase rights granted prior to that
date was $22 million . The Company recorded cash received from the exercise of purchase rights of $257 million , $213 million and $177
million during fiscal 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , respectively.
Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings. ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated : On July 20, 2011, ParkerVision filed a complaint against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that certain of the Company’s products infringe seven of
its patents alleged to cover direct down-conversion receivers. ParkerVision’s complaint sought damages and injunctive and other
relief. Subsequently, ParkerVision narrowed its allegations to assert only four patents. On October 17, 2013, the jury returned a verdict finding
all asserted claims of the four at-issue patents to be infringed and finding that none of the asserted claims are invalid. On October 24, 2013, the
jury returned a separate verdict assessing total past damages of approximately
$173 million and finding that the Company’s infringement was
not willful. The Company recorded the verdict amount in fiscal 2013 as a charge in other expenses. Post-verdict motions, including the
Company’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on invalidity and non-infringement and ParkerVision’s motions for
injunctive relief and ongoing royalties, were filed by January 24, 2014. A hearing on these motions was held on May 1, 2014. On June 20, 2014,
the court granted the Company’s motion to overturn the infringement verdict, denied the Company’s motion to overturn the invalidity verdict,
and denied the remaining motions as moot. The court then entered judgment in the Company’s favor. As a result of the court’s judgment, the
Company is not liable for any damages to ParkerVision, and therefore, the Company reversed all recorded amounts related to the damages
verdict in fiscal 2014. On June 25, 2014, ParkerVision filed a notice of appeal with the court. On May 1, 2014, ParkerVision filed another
complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging patent infringement. On August 21,
2014, ParkerVision amended the compliant, now captioned ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc., HTC
Corporation, HTC America, Inc. , Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications
America, LLC
, broadening the allegations. ParkerVision now alleges that the Company infringes 11 additional patents and seeks damages and
injunctive and other relief. The Company was served with the complaint in this second action on August 28, 2014 and has not yet responded.
Nvidia Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated : On September 4, 2014, Nvidia filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware and also with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
against the Company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and other Samsung entities, alleging infringement of seven patents related to graphics
processing. In the ITC complaint, Nvidia seeks an exclusion order barring the importation of the Company’s consumer electronics and display
device products that infringe, induce infringement and/or contribute to the infringement of at least one of the seven asserted graphics processing
patents as well as a cease and desist order preventing the Company from carrying out commercial activities within the United States related to
such products. In the District of Delaware complaint, Nvidia is seeking an award of damages for the infringement of the asserted patents, a
finding that such infringement is willful and treble damages for such willful infringement, and an order permanently enjoining the Company
from infringing the asserted patents. The ITC instituted an investigation into Nvidia’s allegations on October 6, 2014. The evidentiary hearing
for the investigation is set for June 8 to June 15, 2015. The Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge is due October 9, 2015, and
the target date for completion of the investigation by the Commission is set for February 10, 2016. The district court case was stayed on October
23, 2014 pending completion of the ITC investigation including appeals.
Icera Complaint to the European Commission (Commission) : On June 7, 2010, the Commission notified and provided the Company with a
redacted copy of a complaint filed with the Commission by Icera, Inc. (subsequently acquired by Nvidia Corporation) alleging that the Company
has engaged in anticompetitive activity. The Company was asked by the Commission to submit a preliminary response to the portions of the
complaint disclosed to it, and the Company submitted its response in July 2010. Subsequently, the Company has provided and continues to
provide additional documents and information as requested by the Commission. The Company continues to cooperate fully with the
Commission’s preliminary investigation.
European Commission Investigation : On October 15, 2014, the Commission notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation of
the Company relating to Article 101 and/or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 and/or 54 of the
Agreement for the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). The Company understands that the investigation concerns primarily the sale
and/or marketing of the Company’s baseband chipsets, including alleged conditions relating to the provision by the Company of rebates and/or
other financial incentives. If a violation is found, a broad range of remedies is potentially available to the Commission, including imposing a fine
and/or injunctive relief prohibiting or restricting certain business practices. Given that this investigation is in its early stages, it is difficult to
predict the outcome or what remedies, if any, may be imposed by the Commission. The Company continues to cooperate with the Commission
as it conducts its investigation.
F- 22