Seagate 2012 Annual Report Download - page 112

Table of Contents
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
Minimizing Unwanted Dynamics in a Physical System" (the '267 patent), misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims.
In the complaint, the plantiffs requested injunctive relief, $800 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages, including
for willful infringement and willful and malicious misappropriation. On January 16, 2002, Convolve filed an amended complaint, alleging
defendants infringe US Patent No. 6,314,473, "System for Removing Selected Unwanted Frequencies in Accordance with Altered Settings in a
User Interface of a Data Storage Device," (the '473 patent"). The '635 patent expired on September 12, 2008. The court ruled in 2010 that the
'267 patent was out of the case.
On August 16, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary
judgment in favor of the Company on all patent infringement claims and on 11 of the 15 remaining alleged trade secrets. The court also denied
Convolve's request for enhanced damages as moot and dismissed Convolve's request for injunctive relief. Following this ruling, the parties
entered into a stipulation to conditionally dismiss without prejudice the remaining claims in order to facilitate an appeal of the August 16, 2011
order by Convolve to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pursuant to this stipulation, the court entered a final judgment on
October 4, 2011. Convolve filed its notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 3, 2011. The Court of
Appeals issued its ruling on July 1, 2013; the Court of Appeals: 1) affirmed the district court's summary judgment rulings that Seagate did not
misappropriate any of the alleged trade secrets and that the asserted claims of the '635 patent are invalid; 2) reversed and vacated the district
court's summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the '473 patent; and 3) remanded the case for further proceedings on the '473
patent. On July 16, 2013, Convolve filed a petition for panel rehearing at the Court of Appeals; that petition was denied on July 31, 2013. In
view of the district court's August 16, 2011 ruling and the Court of Appeals' July 1, 2013 ruling and the uncertainty regarding the amount of
damages, if any, that could be awarded Convolve in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a
reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.
Alexander Shukh v. Seagate Technology —On February 12, 2010, Alexander Shukh filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging, among other things, employment discrimination based on his Belarusian national origin
and wrongful failure to name him as an inventor on several patents and patent applications. Mr. Shukh's employment was terminated as part of a
company-wide reduction in force in fiscal year 2009. He seeks damages in excess of $75 million. The Company believes the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. A date for the start of trial has not yet been scheduled. In view of the uncertainty regarding the
amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a
reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.
Rembrandt Data Storage, LP v. Seagate Technology LLC —
On November 10, 2010, Rembrandt Data Storage, LP filed suit against Seagate
Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,342 C1, "Thin
Film Heads Having Solenoid Coils," and U.S. Patent No. 6,195,232, "Low-Noise Toroidal Thin Film Head With Solenoidal Coil." The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, enhanced damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 2, 2012, the
district court granted Seagate's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered judgment in favor of Seagate. On March 7, 2012,
Rembrandt appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 10, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's judgment in favor of Seagate. In view of the Court of Appeals' December 10, 2012 ruling, the Company does not expect this matter will
result in a loss.
104