|• 10-Q • EX-31.1 • EX-31.2 • EX-32.1 • EX-32.2 • XBRL INSTANCE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION SCHEMA DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT|
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
x QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission File Number: 000-22339
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
1050 Enterprise Way, Suite 700, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (408) 462-8000
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x
The number of shares outstanding of the registrants Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, was 110,409,906 as of March 31, 2012.
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Quarterly Report) contains forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, predictions regarding the following aspects of our future:
· Success in the markets of our or our licensees products;
· Sources of competition;
· Research and development costs and improvements in technology;
· Sources, amounts and concentration of revenue, including royalties;
· Success in renewing license agreements;
· Technology product development;
· Outcome and effect of current and potential future intellectual property litigation and other significant litigation;
· Acquisitions, mergers or strategic transactions and our related integration efforts;
· Pricing policies of our licensees;
· Deterioration of financial health of commercial counterparties and their ability to meet their obligations to us;
· Engineering, marketing and general and administration expenses;
· Contract revenue;
· Operating results;
· International licenses and operations;
· Effects of changes in the economy and credit market on our industry and business;
· Ability to identify, attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel;
· Growth in our business;
· Methods, estimates and judgments in accounting policies;
· Adoption of new accounting pronouncements;
· Effective tax rates;
· Realization of deferred tax assets/release of deferred tax valuation allowance;
· Trading price of our Common Stock;
· Internal control environment;
· Corporate governance;
· The level and terms of our outstanding debt;
· Resolution of the governmental agency matters involving us;
· Litigation expenses;
· Protection of intellectual property;
· Terms of our licenses and amounts owed under licensing agreements;
· Indemnification and technical support obligations;
· Issuances of our securities, which could involve restrictive covenants or be dilutive to our existing stockholders; and
· Likelihood of paying dividends or repurchasing securities.
You can identify these and other forward-looking statements by the use of words such as may, future, shall, should, expects, plans, anticipates, believes, estimates, predicts, intends, potential, continue, projecting or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements also include the assumptions underlying or relating to any of the foregoing statements.
Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those set forth under Item 1A, Risk Factors. All forward-looking statements included in this document are based on our assessment of information available to us at this time. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.
See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
1. Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Rambus Inc. (Rambus or the Company) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. Investments in entities with less than 20% ownership or in which the Company does not have the ability to significantly influence the operations of the investee are being accounted for using the cost method and are included in other assets.
In the opinion of management, the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring items) necessary to state fairly the financial position and results of operations for each interim period presented. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.
The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) applicable to interim financial information. Certain information and Note disclosures included in the financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been omitted in these interim statements pursuant to such SEC rules and regulations. The information included in this Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto in Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Certain prior year balances were reclassified to conform to the current years presentation. None of these reclassifications had an impact on reported net income (loss) for any of the periods presented.
2. Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-11, Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. ASU 2011-11 will require the Company to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. The new guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. The disclosures are to be applied retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. The Company does not expect that this guidance will have an impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows as it is disclosure-only in nature.
In September 2011, the FASB amended its guidance to simplify how an entity tests goodwill for impairment. The amendment will allow an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test. An entity no longer will be required to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit unless the entity determines, based on a qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. The amendment became effective for the Companys interim period ended March 31, 2012. The Company will apply this guidance in its fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 at the time it performs its annual goodwill test and does not expect that this guidance will materially impact the Companys financial position or results of operations.
In May 2011, the FASB amended its guidance to converge fair value measurement and disclosure guidance about fair value measurement under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). IFRS is a comprehensive series of accounting standards published by the International Accounting Standards Board. The amendment changes the wording used to describe many of the requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. For many of the requirements, the FASB does not intend for the amendment to result in a change in the application of the requirements in the current authoritative guidance. The amendment became effective prospectively for the Companys interim period ended March 31, 2012. The Company adopted this guidance and the adoption did not have a material impact on the Companys financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
3. Settlement Agreement with Samsung
On January 19, 2010, the Company, Samsung and certain related entities of Samsung entered into a Settlement Agreement (the Settlement Agreement) to release all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them and certain other potential claims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company and Samsung entered into a Semiconductor Patent License Agreement on January 19, 2010 (the License Agreement), under which Samsung licenses from the Company non-exclusive rights to certain Rambus patents and has agreed to pay the Company cash amounts equal to approximately $25.0 million per quarter, subject to certain adjustments and conditions related to their DRAM revenue. These payments commenced in the first quarter of 2010 and will conclude in the last quarter of 2014.
The settlement with Samsung is a multiple element arrangement for accounting purposes. For a multiple element arrangement, the Company is required to determine the fair value of the elements. The Company considered several factors in determining the accounting fair value of the elements of the settlement with Samsung which included a third party valuation using an income approach, the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model and a residual approach (collectively the Fair Value). The total gain from settlement related to the settlement with Samsung of $133.0 million was recognized as of the end of the first quarter of 2011, of which $6.2 million was recognized in the first quarter of 2011. The gain from settlement represents the Fair Value of the cash consideration allocated to the resolution of the antitrust litigation settlement and the residual value of other elements.
Unity Semiconductor Corporation
On February 3, 2012, the Company completed its acquisition of a privately-held company, Unity Semiconductor Corporation (Unity), by acquiring all issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Unity. Pursuant to the merger agreement on February 3, 2012, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company merged with and into Unity, with Unity as the surviving corporation. Under the terms of the merger agreement, the purchase price is $35.0 million subject to certain adjustments, of which the Company has paid approximately $31.3 million in cash and will pay the balance in the second quarter of 2012. Of the purchase price, approximately $5.5 million in cash was deposited into an escrow account until August 3, 2013, subject to any claims, to fund any indemnification obligations to the Company following the consummation of the merger. The Company acquired Unitys technology and a portfolio of non-volatile solid state memory patents. The solid state memory technology is intended to replace NAND in the growing non-volatile memory market. This memory technology has been designed to accelerate the commercialization of the Terabit generation of non-volatile memories. Devices using this technology are expected to achieve higher density, faster performance, lower manufacturing costs and greater data reliability than NAND Flash. Unity is part of the Semiconductor Business Group (SBG) reportable segment. The Company incurred approximately $0.6 million in direct acquisition costs in connection with the acquisition which were expensed as incurred.
In addition to the purchase consideration, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $5.0 million in retention bonuses to certain Unity employees over the next three years. The retention bonus payouts are subject to the condition of employment, and therefore, will be treated as compensation and expensed as incurred on a graded attribution basis.
The purchase price allocation for the business acquired is based on managements estimate of the fair value for purchase accounting purposes at the date of acquisition. The fair value of the assets acquired has been determined primarily by using valuation methods that discount the expected future cash flows to present value using estimates and assumptions determined by management, which is a level three fair value measurement. The Company performed a valuation of the net assets acquired as of the February 3, 2012 closing date. The purchase price from the business combination was allocated as follows:
The goodwill arising from the acquisition is primarily attributed to synergies related to the combination of new and complementary technologies of the Company and the assembled workforce of Unity. This goodwill is not expected to be deductible for tax purposes.
The identified intangible assets assumed in the acquisition of Unity were recognized as existing technology based upon their fair values as of the acquisition date. The purchased intangible assets have an estimated average useful life of 10 years from the date of acquisition.
Other Acquisition Activities
In the first quarter of 2012, the Company entered into one additional business combination and a patent acquisition for $12.8 million, which resulted in approximately $8.1 million of goodwill, $3.7 million of intangible assets (weighted average useful life of 6 years) and $1.0 million of other assets and has an additional payment of $1.0 million due in the second quarter of 2012. These acquisitions are part of the All Other reportable segment.
The condensed consolidated financial statements include the operating results of these businesses from the date of acquisition. The acquired assets did not generate any revenue during the reported periods. Pro forma results of operations for these business combinations have not been presented because their effects were not significant to the Companys financial results.
5. Equity Incentive Plans and Stock-Based Compensation
Stock Option Plans
As of March 31, 2012, 359,315 shares of the 14,900,000 shares approved under the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the 2006 Plan) remain available for grant. The 2006 Plan is now the Companys only plan for providing stock-based incentive awards to eligible employees, executive officers, non-employee directors and consultants; however, the 1997 Stock Option Plan (the 1997 Plan) and the 1999 Non-statutory Stock Option Plan (the 1999 Plan) will continue to govern awards previously granted under those plans.
A summary of shares available for grant under the Companys plans is as follows:
(1) For purposes of determining the number of shares available for grant under the 2006 Plan against the maximum number of shares authorized, each restricted stock granted reduces the number of shares available for grant by 1.5 shares and each restricted stock forfeited increases shares available for grant by 1.5 shares.
General Stock Option Information
The following table summarizes stock option activity under the 1997 Plan, 1999 Plan and 2006 Plan for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and information regarding stock options outstanding, exercisable, and vested and expected to vest as of March 31, 2012.
The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pre-tax intrinsic value for in-the-money options at March 31, 2012, based on the $6.45 closing stock price of Rambus Common Stock on March 30, 2012 on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, which would have been received by the option holders had all option holders exercised their options as of that date. The total number of in-the-money options outstanding and exercisable as of March 31, 2012 was 250,967 and 250,967, respectively.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
No purchases were made under the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPP) during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 respectively. As of March 31, 2012, 313,964 shares under the ESPP remain available for issuance.
For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company maintained stock plans covering a broad range of potential equity grants including stock options, nonvested equity stock and equity stock units and performance based instruments. In addition, the Company sponsors an ESPP, whereby eligible employees are entitled to purchase Common Stock semi-annually, by means of limited payroll deductions, at a 15% discount from the fair market value of the Common Stock as of specific dates.
During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, Rambus granted 1,937,002 and 1,633,701 stock options, respectively, with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $7.5 million and $17.7 million, respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, Rambus recorded stock-based compensation related to stock options of $4.3 million and $5.2 million, respectively.
As of March 31, 2012, there was $38.1 million of total unrecognized compensation cost, net of expected forfeitures, related to unvested stock-based compensation arrangements granted under the stock option plans. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 3.4 years. The total fair value of shares vested as of March 31, 2012 was $148.8 million.
The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $39 thousand and $2.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Intrinsic value is the total value of exercised shares based on the price of the Companys common stock at the time of exercise less the cash received from the employees to exercise the options.
During the three months ended March 31, 2012, net proceeds from employee stock option exercises totaled approximately $54 thousand.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company recorded compensation expense related to the ESPP of $0.7 million and $0.4 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2012 there was $0.2 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to share-based compensation arrangements granted under the ESPP. This cost is expected to be recognized over one month.
There were no tax benefits realized as a result of employee stock option exercises, stock purchase plan purchases, and vesting of equity stock and stock units for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 calculated in accordance with accounting for share-based payments.
The fair value of stock awards is estimated as of the grant date using the Black-Scholes-Merton (BSM) option-pricing model assuming a dividend yield of 0% and the additional weighted-average assumptions as listed in the following tables:
No grants were made under the ESPP during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
Nonvested Equity Stock and Stock Units
The Company grants nonvested equity stock units to officers, employees and directors. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company granted nonvested equity stock units totaling 423,371 shares under the 2006 Plan. These awards have a service condition, generally a service period of four years, except in the case of grants to directors, for which the service period is one year. The nonvested equity stock units were valued at the date of grant giving them a fair value of approximately $3.1 million. The Company occasionally grants nonvested equity stock units to its employees with vesting subject to the achievement of certain performance conditions. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the achievement of certain performance conditions for certain performance equity stock units was considered probable, and as a result, the Company recognized stock-based compensation expense related to these performance stock units for both periods; the aggregate amounts were not significant.
For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense of approximately $1.8 million and $1.7 million, respectively, related to all outstanding nonvested equity stock grants. Unrecognized stock-based compensation related to all nonvested equity stock grants, net of estimated forfeitures, was approximately $9.5 million at March 31, 2012. This is expected to be recognized over a weighted average of 2.5 years.
The following table reflects the activity related to nonvested equity stock and stock units for the three months ended March 31, 2012:
6. Marketable Securities
Rambus invests its excess cash and cash equivalents primarily in U.S. government sponsored obligations, commercial paper, corporate notes and bonds, money market funds and municipal notes and bonds that mature within three years. As of March 31, 2012, all of the Companys cash equivalents and marketable securities had a remaining maturity of less than one year.
All cash equivalents and marketable securities are classified as available-for-sale. Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities are summarized as follows:
Available-for-sale securities are reported at fair value on the balance sheets and classified as follows:
The Company continues to invest in highly rated, highly liquid debt securities. As of March 31, 2012, these securities had a remaining maturity of less than one year. The Company holds all of its marketable securities as available-for-sale, marks them to market and regularly reviews its portfolio to ensure adherence to its investment policy and to monitor individual investments for risk analysis, proper valuation and unrealized losses that may be other than temporary. As of March 31, 2012, certain marketable debt securities with a fair value of $39.6 million, which mature within one year, had insignificant unrealized losses. The unrealized loss, net, at March 31, 2012 was insignificant in relation to the Companys total available-for-sale portfolio. The unrealized loss, net, can be primarily attributed to a combination of market conditions as well as the demand for and duration of the corporate notes and bonds. The Company has no intent to sell, there is no requirement to sell and the Company believes that it can recover the amortized cost of these investments. The Company has found no evidence of impairment due to credit losses in its portfolio. Therefore, these unrealized losses were recorded in other comprehensive income (loss). However, the Company cannot provide any assurance that its portfolio of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will not be impacted by adverse conditions in the financial markets, which may require the Company in the future to record an impairment charge for credit losses which could adversely impact its financial results.
The estimated fair value of cash equivalents and marketable securities classified by date of contractual maturity and the length of time that the securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss, net, position at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 are as follows:
See Note 14, Fair Value of Financial Instruments, for discussion regarding the fair value of the Companys cash equivalents and marketable securities.
7. Commitments and Contingencies
As of March 31, 2012, the Companys material contractual obligations are (in thousands):
Rent expense was approximately $0.8 million and $0.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Deferred rent of $0.5 million as of March 31, 2012 was included primarily in other long-term liabilities. Deferred rent of $0.5 million as of December 31, 2011 was included primarily in other long-term liabilities.
The Company enters into standard license agreements in the ordinary course of business. Although the Company does not indemnify most of its customers, there are times when an indemnification is a necessary means of doing business. Indemnifications cover customers for losses suffered or incurred by them as a result of any patent, copyright, or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Companys products. The maximum amount of indemnification the Company could be required to make under these agreements is generally limited to fees received by the Company.
Several securities fraud class actions, private lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts against certain of the Companys current and former officers and directors related to the stock option granting actions. As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby its officers and directors are indemnified for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at the Companys request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officers or directors term in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company has a director and officer insurance policy that reduces the Companys exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of future amounts to be paid. As a result of these indemnification agreements, the Company continues to make payments on behalf of current and former officers. As of March 31, 2012, the Company had made cumulative payments of approximately $31.9 million on their behalf, including $30.0 thousand in the quarter ended March 31, 2012. As of March 31, 2011, the Company had made cumulative payments of approximately $16.9 million on their behalf, including $1.2 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2011. These payments were recorded under costs of restatement and related legal activities in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.
8. Stockholders Equity
Share Repurchase Program
During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company did not repurchase any shares of its Common Stock under its share repurchase program. As of March 31, 2012, the Company had repurchased a cumulative total of approximately 26.3 million shares of its Common Stock with an aggregate price of approximately $428.9 million since the commencement of the program in 2001. As of March 31, 2012, there remained an outstanding authorization to repurchase approximately 5.2 million shares of the Companys outstanding Common Stock.
The Company records stock repurchases as a reduction to stockholders equity. The Company records a portion of the purchase price of the repurchased shares as an increase to accumulated deficit when the price of the shares repurchased exceeds the average original proceeds per share received from the issuance of Common Stock.
9. Income Taxes
During the quarter ended March 31, 2012, the Company calculated its interim tax provision to record taxes incurred by the U.S. entity on a discrete basis because the Company is projecting losses in which a tax benefit cannot be recognized in accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification 740, Income Taxes. The Company recorded a provision for income taxes of $3.9 million and $6.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The provision for income taxes of $3.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 is primarily comprised of withholding taxes and other foreign taxes based upon income earned during the period with no tax benefit recorded for the loss jurisdictions.
During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company paid withholding taxes of $4.4 million. As the Company continues to maintain a valuation allowance against its U.S. deferred tax assets, the Companys tax provision is based primarily on the withholding taxes, other foreign taxes and current state taxes.
As of March 31, 2012, the Companys condensed consolidated balance sheets included net deferred tax assets, before valuation allowance, of approximately $149.3 million, which consists of net operating loss carryovers, tax credit carryovers, depreciation and amortization, employee stock-based compensation expenses and certain liabilities, partially reduced by deferred tax liabilities associated with the convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion, including partial cash settlements. As of March 31, 2012, a full valuation allowance has been recorded against the U.S. deferred tax assets. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company did not significantly change its deferred tax assets. Management periodically evaluates the realizability of the Companys net deferred tax assets based on all available evidence, both positive and negative. The realization of net deferred tax assets is solely dependent on the Companys ability to generate sufficient future taxable income during periods prior to the expiration of tax statutes to fully utilize these assets. The Company intends to maintain the valuation allowance until sufficient positive evidence exists to support its reversal.
The Company maintains liabilities for uncertain tax positions within its long-term income taxes payable accounts. These liabilities involve judgment and estimation and are monitored by management based on the best information available including changes in tax regulations, the outcome of relevant court cases and other information.
As of March 31, 2012, the Company had approximately $16.0 million of unrecognized tax benefits, including $7.0 million recorded as a reduction of long-term deferred tax assets and $9.0 million in long-term income taxes payable. If recognized, approximately $2.2 million would be recorded as an income tax benefit. No benefit would be recorded for the remaining unrecognized tax benefits as the recognition would require a corresponding increase in the valuation allowance. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had $16.6 million of unrecognized tax benefits, including $7.0 million recorded as a reduction of long-term deferred tax assets and $9.6 million in long-term income taxes payable.
Although it is possible that some of the unrecognized tax benefits could be settled within the next 12 months, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the outcome at this time.
The Company recognizes interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as a component of the income tax provision. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, an insignificant amount of interest and penalties are included in long-term income taxes payable.
Rambus files U.S. federal income tax returns as well as income tax returns in various states and foreign jurisdictions. The Company is subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for tax years ended 2009 through 2011. The Company is also subject to examination by the State of California for tax years ended 2008 through 2011. In addition, any research and development credit carry forward or net operating loss carry forward generated in prior years and utilized in these or future years may also be subject to examination by the IRS and the State of California. The Company is also subject to examination in various other foreign jurisdictions, including India, for various periods.
The Companys future effective tax rates could be adversely affected by earnings being higher than anticipated in countries where the Company has higher statutory rates or lower than anticipated in countries where it has lower statutory rates, by changes in valuation of its deferred tax assets and liabilities or by changes in tax laws or interpretations of those laws.
10. Earnings (Loss) Per Share
Basic earnings (loss) per share is calculated by dividing the net income (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings (loss) per share is calculated by dividing the earnings (loss) by the weighted average
number of common shares and potentially dilutive securities outstanding during the period. Potentially dilutive common shares consist of incremental common shares issuable upon exercise of stock options, employee stock purchases, restricted stock and restricted stock units and shares issuable upon the conversion of convertible notes. The dilutive effect of outstanding shares is reflected in diluted earnings per share by application of the treasury stock method. This method includes consideration of the amounts to be paid by the employees, the amount of excess tax benefits that would be recognized in equity if the instrument was exercised and the amount of unrecognized stock-based compensation related to future services. No potential dilutive common shares are included in the computation of any diluted per share amount when a net loss is reported. For the first eight months of 2011, the Company reported approximately 4.8 million shares issued to Samsung as contingently redeemable common stock (CRCS) due to the contractual put rights associated with those shares. As such, the Company used the two-class method for reporting earnings per share for 2011.
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted loss per share:
* CRCS Contingently Redeemable Common Stock
** Other CS Common Stock other than CRCS
For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, options to purchase approximately 16.1 million and 7.8 million shares, respectively, were excluded from the calculation because they were anti-dilutive after considering proceeds from exercise, taxes and related unrecognized stock-based compensation expense. For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, an additional 5.4 million and 3.0 million, respectively, potentially dilutive shares have been excluded from the weighted average dilutive shares because there was a net loss for the period.
11. Business Segments and Major Customers
For the three months ended March 31, 2012, only SBG was considered a reportable segment as it met the quantitative thresholds for disclosure as a reportable segment. The results of the remaining immaterial operating segments were combined and shown under All Other.
The Company evaluates the performance of its segments based on segment direct operating income (loss). Segment direct operating income (loss) does not include the allocation of any corporate support functions (including human resources, facilities, legal, finance, information technology, corporate development, general administration, corporate licensing and marketing expenses, advanced technology development, and cost of restatement) to the segments. Additionally, certain expenses are not allocated to the operating segments because they are managed at the corporate level and they are not considered in evaluating the segments operating performance. Such unallocated corporate level expenses include stock-based compensation expenses, depreciation and amortization expenses, and certain bonus and acquisition expenses. The Reconciling Items category includes these unallocated corporate support function expenses as well as corporate level expenses. The presentation of the three months ended March 31, 2011 segment data has been updated accordingly to conform with the 2012 segment direct operating income (loss) definition.
The table below presents reported segment revenues and reported segment direct operating income (loss).
The Companys chief operating decision authority resides with the senior executive management team, which does not review information regarding assets on an operating segment basis. Additionally, the Company does not record intersegment revenue or expense.
Customers A, C and E accounted for 37%, 13% and 10%, respectively, of revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2012. Customers A, B, C and D accounted for 31%, 14%, 11% and 11%, respectively, of revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2011.
Rambus licenses its technologies and patents to customers in multiple geographic regions. Revenue from customers in the following geographic regions was recognized as follows:
12. Amortizable Intangible Assets and Goodwill
Amortizable Intangible Assets
The components of the Companys intangible assets as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 were as follows:
Amortization expense for intangible assets for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was $7.6 million and $2.0 million, respectively.
During the first quarter of 2012, the Company acquired Unity. As part of the acquisition, the Company acquired existing technology with a fair value of $19.3 million determined as of the acquisition date. Also during the first quarter of 2012, the Company acquired intangible assets which resulted in existing technology with a fair value of $3.7 million, of which $1.0 million will be due in the second quarter of 2012.
The estimated future amortization expense of intangible assets as of March 31, 2012 was as follows (amounts in thousands):
The following table presents goodwill balances and adjustments to those balances for each of the reportable segments for the three months ended March 31, 2012 (in thousands):
(1) The addition to goodwill resulted from two business combinations in the first quarter of 2012. See Note 4, Acquisitions for further details.
No goodwill was impaired as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
13. Litigation and Asserted Claims
U.S District Court of the Northern District of California
On August 29, 2000, Hynix (formerly Hyundai) and various subsidiaries filed suit against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, as amended and narrowed through motion practice, asserts claims for fraud, violations of federal antitrust laws and deceptive practices in connection with Rambus participation in a standards setting organization called JEDEC, and seeks a declaratory judgment that the Rambus patents-in-suit are unenforceable, invalid and not infringed by Hynix, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys fees. Rambus denied Hynixs claims and filed counterclaims for patent infringement against Hynix.
The case was divided into three phases. In the first phase, Hynix tried its unclean hands defense beginning on October 17, 2005 and concluding on November 1, 2005. In its January 4, 2006 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the court held that Hynixs unclean hands defense failed. Among other things, the court found that Rambus did not adopt its document retention policy in bad faith, did not engage in unlawful spoliation of evidence, and that while Rambus disposed of some relevant documents pursuant to its document retention policy, Hynix was not prejudiced by the destruction of Rambus documents.
The second phase of the Hynix-Rambus trial on patent infringement, validity and damages began on March 15, 2006, and was submitted to the jury on April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus on all issues and awarded Rambus a total of approximately $307 million in damages, excluding prejudgment interest. The damages award was later remitted to approximately $134 million.
The third phase of the Hynix-Rambus case, involving Hynixs affirmative JEDEC-related antitrust and fraud allegations, was part of a coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya. It began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims submitted to the jury. On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanyas equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial.
On March 10, 2009, the court entered final judgment against Hynix in the amount of approximately $397 million as follows: approximately $134 million for infringement through December 31, 2005; approximately $215 million for infringement from January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2009; and approximately $48 million in pre-judgment interest (with post-judgment interest to accrue at the statutory rate). The court denied Rambuss request for an injunction against Hynix but awarded costs to Rambus in the amount of approximately $0.76 million. Pursuant to the judgment, Hynix paid into an escrow account the awarded costs plus royalties on net sales for U.S. infringement after January 31, 2009 and before April 18, 2010 of 1% for SDR SDRAM and 4.25% for DDR DDR2, DDR3, GDDR, GDDR2 and GDDR3 SDRAM memory devices. Hynix posted a bond in the full amount of the judgment plus accrued post-judgment interest.
On April 6, 2009, Hynix filed its notice of appeal. On April 17, 2009, Rambus filed its notice of cross appeal. Oral argument was coordinated with the appeal in the Micron Delaware case (discussed below) and held on April 5, 2010. Oral argument was reheard by an expanded panel of five judges on October 6, 2010. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion (1) concluding that the district court erred in applying too narrow a standard of reasonable foreseeability and vacating the district courts findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding spoliation; (2) affirming the district courts decisions on Hynixs JEDEC-related waiver and estoppel defenses; (3) affirming the district courts claim construction order; (4) affirming the district courts order denying Hynixs motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial on the basis of written description; (5) affirming the district courts order denying Hynixs motion for a new trial on the basis of obviousness; and (6) affirming the district courts grant of Hynixs motion for summary judgment for the claims at issue in Rambuss cross-appeal. The Federal Circuit vacated the district courts final judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuits opinions in the Micron and Hynix cases. On July 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit denied the parties petitions for rehearing. On February 21, 2012, the United States Supreme Court denied Hynixs petition seeking review of the Federal Circuit decision.
On remand, the parties filed briefs on issues related to unclean hands, costs awarded to Hynix by the Federal Circuit, the bond Hynix posted in the amount of the now-vacated judgment, and the escrowed funds. A hearing on these issues was held on December
16, 2011. In an order dated January 11, 2012, the court released Hynixs obligation to maintain a supersedeas bond and denied Hynixs request to lift Hynixs obligations with respect to escrowed funds. On March 21, 2012, the court issued an order taxing Rambus approximately $8.1 million for Hynixs bond premiums, filing fees, and transcript costs. On April 25, 2012, the court issued an order releasing the funds Hynix had paid into the aforementioned escrow account. No decision on unclean hands has issued to date.
U.S District Court in Delaware: Case No. 00-792-SLR
On August 28, 2000, Micron filed suit against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for Delaware. The suit asserts violations of federal antitrust laws, deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Rambus participation in JEDEC. Micron seeks a declaration of monopolization by Rambus, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys fees, a declaratory judgment that eight Rambus patents are invalid and not infringed, and the award to Micron of a royalty-free license to the Rambus patents. Rambus has filed an answer and counterclaims disputing Microns claims and asserting infringement by Micron of 12 U.S. patents.
This case has been divided into three phases in the same general order as in the Hynix 00-20905 action: (1) unclean hands; (2) patent infringement; and (3) antitrust, equitable estoppel, and other JEDEC-related issues. A bench trial on Microns unclean hands defense began on November 8, 2007 and concluded on November 15, 2007. The court ordered post-trial briefing on the issue of when Rambus became obligated to preserve documents because it anticipated litigation. A hearing on that issue was held on May 20, 2008. The court ordered further post-trial briefing on the remaining issues from the unclean hands trial, and a hearing on those issues was held on September 19, 2008.
On January 9, 2009, the court issued an opinion in which it determined that Rambus had engaged in spoliation of evidence by failing to suspend general implementation of a document retention policy after the point at which the court determined that Rambus should have known litigation was reasonably foreseeable. The court issued an accompanying order declaring the 12 patents in suit unenforceable against Micron (the Delaware Order). On February 9, 2009, the court stayed all other proceedings pending appeal of the Delaware Order. On February 10, 2009, judgment was entered against Rambus and in favor of Micron on Rambus patent infringement claims and Microns corresponding claims for declaratory relief. On March 11, 2009, Rambus filed its notice of appeal. Rambus filed its opening brief on July 2, 2009. On August 28, 2009, Micron filed its answering brief. On October 14, 2009, Rambus filed its reply brief. Oral argument was coordinated with the appeal in the Hynix case (discussed above) and held on April 5, 2010. Oral argument was reheard by an expanded panel of five judges on October 6, 2010. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion affirming the district courts determination that Rambus spoliated documents, vacating the district courts dismissal sanction (including the district courts determination of bad faith and prejudice), and remanding the case to the district court for further consideration consistent with its opinion. On June 27, 2011, Rambus filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to the issues of spoliation, bad faith, and prejudice. On July 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit denied Rambuss petition.
On remand, the parties filed simultaneous briefs on November 9 and December 21, 2011, on the unclean hands-related issues of bad faith, prejudice, and sanction. A hearing on these issues was held on January 26, 2012. No decision has issued to date.
U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California
On January 13, 2006, Rambus filed suit against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Rambus alleges that 14 Rambus patents are infringed by Microns DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3, and other advanced memory products. Rambus seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys fees, and injunctive relief.
As explained above, the court ordered a coordinated trial (without Samsung) of certain common JEDEC-related claims and defenses asserted in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims. On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanyas equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial.
On July 10, 2008, the court issued its claim construction order relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents in suit and denied Hynix, Micron, Nanya, and Samsungs (collectively, the Manufacturers) motions for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity based on their proposed claim construction. The court issued claim construction orders relating to the Ware patents in suit on July 25 and August 27, 2008, and denied the Manufacturers motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of certain claims. On September 4, 2008, at the courts direction, Rambus elected to proceed to trial on 12 patent claims, each from the Farmwald/Horowitz family. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against the Manufacturers under the Ware patents in suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897), and each partys claims relating to those patents were dismissed with prejudice. On November 21, 2008, the court entered an order clarifying certain aspects of its July 10, 2008, claim construction order. On November 24, 2008, the court granted Rambus motion for summary judgment of direct infringement with respect to claim 16 of Rambus U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 by the Manufacturers DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 memory chip products (except for Nanyas DDR3 memory chip products). In the same order, the court denied the remainder of Rambus motion for summary judgment of infringement.
On January 19, 2009, Micron filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed an opposition to Microns motion on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court entered a stay of this action pending resolution of Rambus appeal of the Delaware Order.
European Patent Infringement Cases
In 2001, Rambus filed suit against Micron in Mannheim, Germany, for infringement of European patent, EP 1 022 642. That suit has not been active. Two proceedings in Italy remain active. One relates to Rambuss claim that Micron is infringing European patent, EP 1 004 956. The court in this proceeding has found the 956 patent valid but not infringed. The court also dismissed Microns claims for unfair competition based on JEDEC as well as abuse of process. Any appeals are due by December 27, 2012. The second case in Italy involves Microns purported claim resulting from a seizure of evidence in Italy in 2000 carried out by Rambus pursuant to a court order. The court in this proceeding dismissed Microns claim. Micron has appealed this decision to the Italian Supreme Court.
DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 Litigation (DDR2)
U.S District Court in the Northern District of California
On January 25, 2005, Rambus filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California court against Hynix, Infineon, Nanya, and Inotera. Infineon and Inotera were subsequently dismissed from this litigation as was Samsung which had been added as a defendant. Rambus alleges that certain of its patents are infringed by certain of the defendants SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 and other advanced memory products. Hynix and Nanya have denied Rambus claims and asserted counterclaims against Rambus for, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws, unfair trade practices, equitable estoppel, and fraud in connection with Rambus participation in JEDEC.
As explained above, the court ordered a coordinated trial (without Samsung) of certain common JEDEC-related claims and defenses asserted in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims.
On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanyas equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial.
In these cases (except for the Hynix 00-20905 action), a hearing on claim construction and the parties cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity was held on June 4 and 5, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the court issued its claim construction order relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents in suit and denied the Manufacturers motions for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity based on their proposed claim construction. The court issued claim construction orders relating to the Ware patents in suit on July 25 and August 27, 2008, and denied the Manufacturers motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of certain claims. On September 4, 2008, at the courts direction, Rambus elected to proceed to trial on 12 patent claims, each from the Farmwald/Horowitz family. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against the Manufacturers under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897, and each partys claims relating to those patents were
dismissed with prejudice. On November 21, 2008, the court entered an order clarifying certain aspects of its July 10, 2008, claim construction order. On November 24, 2008, the court granted Rambuss motion for summary judgment of direct infringement with respect to claim 16 of Rambuss U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 by the Manufacturers DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 memory chip products (except for Nanyas DDR3 memory chip products). In the same order, the court denied the remainder of Rambuss motion for summary judgment of infringement.
On January 19, 2009, Nanya and Hynix filed motions for summary judgment on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed opposition briefs to these motions on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court entered a stay of this action pending resolution of Rambus appeal of the Delaware Order.
European Commission Competition Directorate-General
On or about April 22, 2003, Rambus was notified by the European Commission Competition Directorate-General (Directorate) (the European Commission) that it had received complaints from Infineon and Hynix. Rambus answered the ensuing requests for information prompted by those complaints on June 16, 2003. Rambus obtained a copy of Infineons complaint to the European Commission in late July 2003, and on October 8, 2003, at the request of the European Commission, filed its response. On August 1, 2007, Rambus received a statement of objections from the European Commission. The statement of objections alleges that through Rambus participation in the JEDEC standards setting organization and subsequent conduct, Rambus violated European Union competition law. Rambus filed a response to the statement of objections on October 31, 2007, and a hearing was held on December 4 and 5, 2007.
On December 9, 2009, the European Commission announced that it had reached a final settlement with Rambus to resolve the pending case. Under the terms of the settlement, the Commission made no finding of liability, and no fine will be assessed against Rambus. Rambus commits to offer licenses with maximum royalty rates for certain memory types and memory controllers on a forward-going basis (the Commitment). The Commitment is expressly made without any admission by Rambus of the allegations asserted against it. The Commitment also does not resolve any existing claims of infringement prior to the signing of any license with a prospective licensee, nor does it release or excuse any of the prospective licensees from damages or royalty obligations through the date of signing a license. Rambus offers licenses with maximum royalty rates for five-year worldwide licenses of 1.5% for DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4 SDRAM memory types. Qualified licensees will enjoy a royalty holiday for SDR and DDR DRAM devices, subject to compliance with the terms of the license. In addition, Rambus offers licenses with maximum royalty rates for five-year worldwide licenses of 1.5% per unit for SDR memory controllers through April 2010, dropping to 1.0% thereafter, and royalty rates of 2.65% per unit for DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4 memory controllers through April 2010, then dropping to 2.0%. The Commitment to license at the above rates remains valid for a period of five years from December 9, 2009. All royalty rates are applicable to future shipments only and do not affect liability, if any, for damages or royalties that accrued up to the time of the license grant.
On March 25, 2010, Hynix filed appeals with the General Court of the European Union purporting to challenge the settlement and the European Commissions rejection of Hynixs complaint. No decision has issued to date on Hynixs appeal.
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco
On May 5, 2004, Rambus filed a lawsuit against Micron, Hynix, Infineon and Siemens in San Francisco Superior Court (the San Francisco court) seeking damages for conspiring to fix prices (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seq.), conspiring to monopolize under the Cartwright Act (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seq.), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.). This lawsuit alleges that there were concerted efforts beginning in the 1990s to deter innovation in the DRAM market and to boycott Rambus and/or deter market acceptance of Rambus RDRAM product. Subsequently, Infineon and Siemens were dismissed from this action (as a result of a settlement with Infineon) and three Samsung-related entities were added as defendants and later dismissed (as a result of a settlement with Samsung).
A jury trial against Micron and Hynix began on June 20, 2011. On September 21, 2011, the jury began deliberations. On November 16, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hynix and Micron and against Rambus by a tally of 9-3. Judgment was entered by the Court on February 15, 2012. Rambus filed a notice of appeal on April 3, 2012.
On February 15, 2012, Micron and Hynix filed memoranda of costs seeking to recover approximately $1.6 million and $3.0 million, respectively, in alleged costs from Rambus. On April 2, 2012, Rambus filed motions to tax approximately $4.1 million of
these costs. Hynixs and Microns oppositions are due on May 2, 2012. Rambuss reply is due on May 17, 2012. A hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2012.
Stock Option Investigation Related Claims
On May 30, 2006, the Audit Committee commenced an internal investigation of the timing of past stock option grants and related accounting issues. Several class action, derivative, and private shareholder suits were subsequently filed, all of which (with one exception described below) have been dismissed or settled.
On March 1, 2007, a pro se lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California by two alleged Rambus shareholders against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Kelley et al. v. Rambus, Inc. et al. C-07-01238-JF (N.D. Cal.)). This action was consolidated with a substantially identical pro se lawsuit filed by another purported Rambus shareholder against the same parties. The consolidated complaint against Rambus alleges violations of federal and state securities laws, and state law claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. On April 17, 2008, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice except for plaintiffs claims under sections 14(a) and 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as to which leave to amend was granted. On June 2, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing substantially the same allegations as the prior complaint although limited to claims under sections 14(a) and 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On December 9, 2008, the court granted Rambus motion and entered judgment in favor of Rambus. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 15, 2008. On June 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the judgment in favor of Rambus.
On September 11, 2008, the same pro se plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Kelley et al. v. Rambus, Inc. et al., Case No. 1-08-CV-122444). The complaint alleges violations of certain California state securities statues as well as fraud and negligent misrepresentation based on substantially the same underlying factual allegations contained in the pro se lawsuit filed in federal court. On October 31, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On December 2, 2010, Rambus filed a demurrer to plaintiffs second amended complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, among other things. On May 12, 2011, the court sustained Rambus demurrer without leave to amend. Judgment in favor of Rambus was entered on June 15, 2011. On August 10, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Briefing is ongoing and no date has been set for oral argument.
U.S District Court in the Northern District of California
On July 10, 2008, Rambus filed suit against NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that NVIDIAs products with memory controllers for SDR, DDR, DDRx, GDDR, and GDDRy (where DDRx and GDDRy includes at least DDR2, DDR3 and GDDR3) technologies infringe 17 patents. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against NVIDIA under two of the patents in suitU.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897. On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed suit against NVIDIA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that NVIDIAs products with certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express and DisplayPort peripheral interfaces, infringe six patents from the Dally family of patents which are owned by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and exclusively licensed by Rambus. On February 7, 2012, Rambus and NVIDIA entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed to release all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them, including these district court cases. On February 14, 2012, all pending claims and counterclaims in this action were dismissed.
International Trade Commission 2008 Investigation
On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint with the U. S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) requesting the commencement of an investigation pertaining to NVIDIA products. The complaint seeks an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of products that infringe nine Rambus patents from the Ware and Barth families of patents. The accused products include NVIDIA products that incorporate DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers, including graphics processors, and media and communications processors. The complaint names NVIDIA as a proposed respondent, as well as companies whose products incorporate accused NVIDIA products and are imported into the United States. Additional respondents include: Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International, BFG Technologies, Biostar Microtech and Biostar Microtech International Corp., Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corp., G.B.T. Inc. and Giga-Byte Technology
Co., Hewlett-Packard, MSI Computer Corp. and Micro-Star International Co., Palit Multimedia Inc. and Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, and Sparkle Computer Co.
On December 4, 2008, the ITC instituted the investigation. On June 5, 2009, Rambus moved to withdraw from the investigation four of the asserted patents and certain claims of a fifth asserted patent in order to simplify the investigation, streamline the final hearing, and conserve Commission resources. A final hearing before the administrative law judge was held October 13-20, 2009, and the parties submitted two rounds of post-hearing briefs.
On January 22, 2010, the administrative law judge issued a final initial determination holding that the importation of the accused NVIDIA products violates section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 because they infringe seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents. The administrative law judge recommended that the ITC issue (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of accused products by any respondent; and (2) a cease and desist order prohibiting domestic respondents from engaging in certain activities in the United States with respect to the accused products. On February 12, 2010, the parties filed petitions asking the full Commission to review certain aspects of the final initial determination.
On March 25, 2010, the ITC determined to review certain obviousness findings regarding the Barth patents and certain obviousness and anticipation findings regarding the Ware patents. On May 26, 2010, the ITC requested further briefing on the impact of the license between Rambus and Samsung on the administrative law judges findings and conclusions, particularly on the issue of patent exhaustion. On June 22, 2010, the ITC requested additional briefing to discuss the relevance and effect with respect to the issue of patent exhaustion of a decision issued on May 27, 2010, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case captioned Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun.
On July 26, 2010, the ITC issued its final determination affirming the administrative law judges initial determination with certain modifications to provide further analysis of issues related to obviousness. The ITC found that respondents failed to demonstrate that Rambus patent rights are exhausted with respect to accused products that incorporate Samsung memory. The ITC issued (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation by any respondent of memory controller products and products incorporating a memory controller that infringe one or more of the seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents; and (2) a cease and desist order prohibiting respondents with commercially significant inventories of infringing products in the United States from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, memory controller products and products incorporating a memory controller that infringe one or more of the seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents, in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The ITC determined that the amount of the bond to permit importation during the sixty-day Presidential review period was 2.65 percent of the entered value of the subject imports. The ITC denied respondents request for stay and terminated the investigation.
On February 7, 2012, Rambus and NVIDIA entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed to release all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them, including this ITC investigation. On February 10, 2012, the appeals filed by NVIDIA and Rambus were dismissed by the Federal Circuit. On February 13, 2012, Rambus filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Circuit appeal filed by the additional named respondents as moot due to the settlement with NVIDIA. The only party that indicated it would oppose this motion was Hewlett Packard. On February 17, 2012, the ITC filed a response stating that it agreed with Rambus to the extent that Hewlett Packard was seeking an advisory opinion and asked the Federal Circuit to remand the case if Hewlett Packard was disputing the coverage of the license. Hewlett Packard filed a responsive brief on February 27, 2012. Rambus filed its reply on March 5, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the Federal Circuit granted Rambuss motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and remanded the case to the ITC with instructions to vacate the exclusion orders at issue in the appeal.
International Trade Commission 2010 Investigation
On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed a complaint with the ITC requesting the commencement of an investigation and seeking an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of, among other things, NVIDIA products with certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express and DisplayPort peripheral interfaces, that Rambus alleges infringe three patents from the Dally family. The complaint names, among others, NVIDIA as a respondent, as well as companies whose products incorporate accused NVIDIA products and are imported into the United States, including Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International Inc., Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp., Biostar Microtech International Corp., Elitegroup Computer Systems, EVGA Corp., Galaxy Microsystems Ltd., G.B.T. Inc., Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd., Gracom Technologies LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, Jaton Corp., Jaton Technology TPE, Micro-Star International Co., MSI Computer Corp., Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd., Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd., Zotac International (MCO) Ltd. and Zotac USA Inc. On December 29, 2010,
the ITC instituted the investigation. A final hearing before the administrative law judge was held October 12-20, 2011. On February 22, 2012, Rambuss complaint against NVIDIA was dismissed pursuant to the parties settlement agreement.
Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek, and STMicroelectronics Litigation
International Trade Commission 2010 Investigation
On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed a complaint with the ITC requesting the commencement of an investigation and seeking an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of products that incorporate at least DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, LPDDR2, mobile DDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics that infringe patents from the Barth family of patents, and products having certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express interfaces, DisplayPort interfaces, and certain Serial AT Attachment (SATA) and Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) interfaces, from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI and STMicroelectronics that infringe patents from the Dally family of patents. The complaint names, among others, Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics as respondents, as well as companies whose products incorporate those companies accused products and are imported into the United States, including Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International Inc., Audio Partnership Plc, Cisco Systems, Garmin International, G.B.T. Inc., Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd., Gracom Technologies LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, Hitachi GST, Motorola, Inc., Oppo Digital, Inc., and Seagate Technology. As described more fully above, the complaint also names NVIDIA and certain companies whose products incorporate accused NVIDIA products with certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express and DisplayPort peripheral interfaces, and seeks to bar their importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation. On December 29, 2010, the ITC instituted the investigation. On June 20, 2011, the administrative law judge granted a joint motion by Rambus and Freescale to terminate the investigation as to Freescale pursuant to the parties settlement agreement. A final hearing before the administrative law judge was held October 12-20, 2011. On January 17, 2012, the administrative law judge granted a joint motion by Rambus and Broadcom to terminate the investigation as to Broadcom pursuant to the parties settlement agreement. On March 16, 2012, Rambus and MediaTek filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to MediaTek pursuant to the parties settlement agreement. On March 29, 2012, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations responded supporting the joint motion. To date, the Commission has not ruled on the motion.
On March 2, 2012, the administrative law judge issued an initial determination that there was no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. As a threshold matter, the administrative law judge determined that: a licensing-based domestic industry existed for the asserted Dally and Barth patents; that the accused LSI, STMicro, MediaTek products literally infringe all asserted claims of each asserted Barth patent, and that LSI, STMicro, and MediaTek induce infringement and contribute to the infringement of the asserted Barth claims; that the accused LSI and STMicro patents products literally infringe all asserted claims of both asserted Dally patents that are still in suit, and that LSI and STMicro induce infringement and contribute to the infringement of the asserted Dally claims; the Barth patents and the Dally patents are not invalid for failure to satisfy the written description or definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, nor are they unenforceable due to prosecution laches or patent misuse; Rambus had standing to assert the Dally patents; Rambus was not equitably estopped from asserting the Dally patents and the Barth patents; the asserted Barth patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and not invalid for failure to satisfy the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the asserted patents are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness; and the Barth patents are unenforceable due to unclean hands. On March 19, 2012, the parties filed petitions asking the full Commission to review certain aspects of the initial determination. The full Commission is expected to determine whether to review any issues raised in these petitions sometime around May 2, 2012.
U.S District Court in the Northern District of California
On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed complaints against Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that 1) products that incorporate at least DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, LPDDR2, mobile DDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics infringe patents from the Barth family of patents; 2) those same products and products from those companies that incorporate SDR memory controllers infringe patents from the Farmwald-Horowitz family; and 3) products having certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express, DisplayPort, and certain SATA and SAS interfaces, from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI and STMicroelectronics infringe patents from the Dally family of patents. On June 7, 2011, Rambuss complaint against Freescale was dismissed pursuant to the parties settlement agreement. On January 24, January 26, and March 1, 2011, LSI, Broadcom, and STMicroelectronics filed their respective answers denying Rambuss allegations and asserting counterclaims seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity, and unenforceability with respect to at least certain of the patents in suit. Rambus filed answers denying the allegations in LSIs, Broadcoms, and STMicroelectronicss counterclaims on February 14, February 16, and March 22,
2011, respectively. On March 7, 2011, MediaTek filed an answer denying Rambuss allegations. Broadcom, MediaTek, STMicroelectornics, and LSI filed motions to stay their respective actions. On June 13, 2011, the Court granted in part the motions to stay and denied them as to certain patents not overlapping with patents asserted in the ITC 2010 investigation. On December 29, 2011, Rambuss complaint against Broadcom was dismissed pursuant to the parties settlement agreement. On March 20, 2011, Rambuss complaint against MediaTek was dismissed pursuant to the parties settlement agreement. Discovery is ongoing and a claim construction hearing is currently scheduled for August 29, 2012.
Potential Future Litigation
In addition to the litigation described above, companies continue to adopt Rambus technologies into various products. Rambus has notified many of these companies of their use of Rambus technology and continues to evaluate how to proceed on these matters.
There can be no assurance that any ongoing or future litigation will be successful. Rambus spends substantial company resources defending its intellectual property in litigation, which may continue for the foreseeable future given the multiple pending litigations. The outcomes of these litigations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect Rambus ability to license its intellectual property in the future.
The Company records a contingent liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount is reasonably estimable in accordance with accounting for contingencies. A reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is not significant to the financial statements.
14. Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The Company tests the pricing inputs by obtaining prices from two different sources for the same security on a sample of its portfolio. The Company has not adjusted the pricing inputs it has obtained. The following table presents the financial instruments that are carried at fair value and summarizes the valuation of its cash equivalents and marketable securities by the above pricing levels as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
The Company monitors the investment for other-than-temporary impairment and records appropriate reductions in carrying value when necessary. The Company made an investment of $2.0 million in a non-marketable equity security of a private company during the third quarter of 2009. The Company evaluated the fair value of the investment in the non-marketable security as of March 31, 2012 and determined that there were no events that caused a decrease in its fair value below the carrying cost.
The following table presents the financial instruments that are measured and carried at cost on a nonrecurring basis as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, there were no transfers of financial instruments between different categories of fair value.
The following table presents the financial instruments that are not carried at fair value but which require fair value disclosure as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
The fair value of the convertible notes at each balance sheet date is determined based on recent quoted market prices for these notes which is a level two measurement. As of March 31, 2012, the convertible notes are carried at face value of $172.5 million less any unamortized debt discount. The carrying value of other financial instruments, including cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and other payables, approximates fair value due to their short maturities.
The Company monitors its investments for other than temporary losses by considering current factors, including the economic environment, market conditions, operational performance and other specific factors relating to the business underlying the investment, reductions in carrying values when necessary and the Companys ability and intent to hold the investment for a period of time which may be sufficient for anticipated recovery in the market. Any other than temporary loss is reported under Interest and other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company has not incurred any impairment loss on its investments.
15. Convertible Notes
The Companys convertible notes are shown in the following table:
Interest expense related to the notes for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was as follows:
This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These statements relate to our expectations for future events and time periods. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed to be forward-looking statements, including any statements regarding trends in future revenue or results of operations, gross margin or operating margin, expenses, earnings or losses from operations, synergies or other financial items; any statements of the plans, strategies and objectives of management for future operations; any statements concerning developments, performance or industry ranking; any statements regarding future economic conditions or performance; any statements regarding pending investigations, claims or disputes; any statements of expectation or belief; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. Generally, the words anticipate, believes, plans, expects, future, intends, may, should, estimates, predicts, potential, continue, projecting and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, forecasts and assumptions and are subject to risks, uncertainties and changes in condition, significance, value and effect. As a result of the factors described herein, and in the documents incorporated herein by reference, including, in particular, those factors described under Risk Factors, we undertake no obligation to publicly disclose any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring subsequent to filing this report with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Rambus, RDRAMTM, XDRTM, FlexIOTM and FlexPhaseTM are trademarks or registered trademarks of Rambus Inc. Other trademarks that may be mentioned in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q are the property of their respective owners.
Industry terminology, used widely throughout this report, has been abbreviated and, as such, these abbreviations are defined below for your convenience:
From time to time we will refer to the abbreviated names of certain entities and, as such, have provided a chart to indicate the full names of those entities for your convenience.
We are a premier intellectual property and technology licensing company focusing on the creation, design, development and licensing of patented innovations, technologies and architectures that are foundational to nearly all digital electronics products and systems. Our mission is to continuously enrich the end-user experience of electronic systems through groundbreaking innovations and technologies designed to improve the performance, power efficiency, time-to-market and cost-effectiveness of the products, components and systems offered by market-leading companies in semiconductors, computing, tablets, handheld devices, mobile applications, gaming and graphics, high definition televisions and displays, general lighting, cryptography and data security. Our inventors and engineering teams focus on creating innovations designed to address the most challenging demands of each target market and industry. We believe we have established an unparalleled licensing platform and business model that will continue to foster the development of new foundational technologies. By continuing to build upon this platform, our goal is to create additional licensing opportunities, and thereby perpetuate strong company operating performance and long-term stockholder value.
While we have historically focused our efforts in the development of technologies for electronics memory and chip interfaces, we have been expanding our portfolio of inventions and solutions to address additional markets in lighting, displays, chip and system security, digital media, as well as new areas within the semiconductor industry, such as imaging and non-volatile memory. We intend to continue our growth into new technology fields, consistent with our mission to create great value through our innovations and to make those technologies available through our licensing business model. Key to our efforts, both in our current businesses and in any new area of diversification, will be hiring and retaining world-class inventors, scientists and engineers to lead the development of inventions and technology solutions for these fields of focus, and the management and business support personnel necessary to execute our plans and strategies.
We have two business groups: SBG which focuses on the design, development and licensing of technology that is semiconductor based, and NBG which focuses on the design, development and licensing of technologies for lighting, displays, chip and system security, anti-counterfeiting, digital media and other markets. As of March 31, 2012, only SBG was considered a reportable segment because it was the only business group that met the quantitative thresholds for disclosure as a reportable segment. As such, segment information is not separately discussed below. For additional information concerning segment reporting, see Note 11, Business Segments and Major Customers, of Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q.
The key elements of our strategy are as follows:
Innovate: Develop and patent our innovative technology to provide fundamental competitive advantage when incorporated into semiconductors and digital electronics products and systems.
Drive Adoption: Communicate the advantages of our patented innovations and technologies to the industry and encourage its adoption through demonstrations and incorporation in the products of select customers.
Monetize: License our patented inventions and technology solutions to customers for use in their semiconductor and system products.
As of March 31, 2012, our semiconductor, lighting, display, security and other technologies are covered by 1,597 U.S. and foreign patents. Additionally, we have 1,202 patent applications pending. Some of the patents and pending patent applications are derived from a common parent patent application or are foreign counterpart patent applications. We have a program to file applications for and obtain patents in the United States and in selected foreign countries where we believe filing for such protection is appropriate and would further our overall business strategy and objectives. In some instances, obtaining appropriate levels of protection may involve prosecuting continuation and counterpart patent applications based on a common parent application. We believe that our patented innovations provide our customers means to achieve improved performance, lower risk, greater cost-effectiveness and other benefits in their products and services.
Our patented inventions and technology solutions are offered to our customers through either a patent license or a solutions license. Our revenues are primarily derived from patent licenses, through which we provide our customers a license to use some specified portion of our broad portfolio of patented inventions. The patent license provides our customers with a defined right to use our patented innovations in the customers own digital electronics products, systems or services, as applicable. The patent licenses may also define the specific field of use where our customers may use or employ our inventions in their products. Patent license agreements are structured with fixed, variable or a hybrid of fixed and variable royalty payments over certain defined periods.
We also offer our customers solutions licenses to support the implementation and adoption of our technology in their products or services. Our solutions license offerings include a range of solutions developed by Rambus, which include leadership solutions (which are Rambus-proprietary solutions widely licensed to our customers) and industry-standard solutions that we provide to our customers under license for incorporation into our customers digital electronics products and systems. We offer a range of services as part of our solutions licenses which can include know-how and technology transfer, product design and development, system integration, supply chain consulting and other services. These solutions license agreements may have both a fixed price (non-recurring) component and ongoing royalties. Further, under solutions licenses, our customers typically receive licenses to our patents necessary to implement these solutions in their products with specific rights and restrictions to the applicable patents elaborated in their individual contracts with us.
Royalties represent a substantial majority of our total revenue. We derive the majority of our royalty revenue by licensing our broad portfolio of patents for chip interfaces to our customers. These licenses may cover part or all of our patent portfolio across our breadth of technologies. Leading semiconductor and system companies such as AMD, Broadcom, Elpida, Freescale, Fujitsu, GE, Intel, Panasonic, Renesas, Samsung and Toshiba have licensed our patents for use in their own products.
We also derive additional revenue by licensing a range of technology solutions including our leadership and industry-standard solutions to customers for use in their digital electronics products and systems. Our customers include leading companies such as Elpida, GE, IBM, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony and Toshiba. Due to the often complex nature of implementing our technologies, we provide engineering services under certain of these licenses to help our customers successfully integrate our technology solutions into their semiconductor and system products. Licensees may also receive, in addition to their solutions license agreements, patent licenses as necessary to implement the technology in their products with specific rights and restrictions to the applicable patents elaborated in their individual contracts.
The remainder of our revenue is contract services revenue which includes license fees and engineering services fees. The timing and amounts invoiced to customers can vary significantly depending on specific contract terms and can therefore have a significant impact on deferred revenue or account receivables in any given period.
We intend to continue making significant expenditures associated with engineering, marketing, general and administration including litigation expenses, and expect that these costs and expenses will continue to be a significant percentage of revenue in future periods. Whether such expenses increase or decrease as a percentage of revenue will be substantially dependent upon the rate at which our revenue or expenses change.
During the first quarter of 2012, we signed patent license agreements with NVIDIA and MediaTek. As a result of the patent license agreements with both NVIDIA and MediaTek, we settled all outstanding claims with them, including resolution of past use of our patented innovations. Additionally, during the quarter, we acquired Unity Semiconductor Corporation (Unity), an innovative memory technology company, for $35.0 million in cash, of which $31.3 million has been paid as of March 31, 2012. We expect that this acquisition will expand the breadth of our breakthrough memory technologies and will open up new markets for licensing. See Note 4, Acquisitions, of Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q for further discussion.
Research and development continues to play a key role in our efforts to maintain product innovations. Our engineering expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2012 increased $19.1 million as compared to the same period in 2011 primarily due to increased headcount related costs of $3.4 million from additional employees to support our development efforts, increased amortization expense related to intangible assets acquired during 2011 of $5.0 million and the accrual of retention bonuses related to acquisitions from the past twelve months of $6.9 million. Marketing, general and administrative expenses in aggregate increased $2.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 primarily due to higher consulting costs of $1.8 million, accrual of the retention bonuses related to acquisitions from the past twelve months of $1.6 million and increased headcount related costs of $1.2 million from the increase in employees to support our business, offset by the decrease in litigation expenses related to ongoing major cases of $5.1 million.
There are a number of trends that may or will have a material impact on us in the future, including but not limited to, the evolution of memory technology, adoption of LEDs in general lighting, and global economic conditions with the resulting impact on sales of consumer electronic systems.
We have a high degree of revenue concentration, with our top five licensees for each reporting period representing approximately 74% of our revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. As a result of our license agreement with Samsung in 2010, Samsung is expected to account for a significant portion of our ongoing licensing revenue. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, revenue from NVIDIA, Renesas and Samsung each accounted for 10% or more of our total revenue. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, revenue from Elpida, NVIDIA, Samsung and Toshiba accounted for 10% or more of our total revenue. We expect to continue to experience significant revenue concentration for the foreseeable future.
The particular licensees which account for revenue concentration have varied from period to period as a result of the addition of new contracts, expiration of existing contracts, renewals of existing contracts, industry consolidation and the volumes and prices at which the licensees have recently sold licensed semiconductors to system companies. These variations are expected to continue in the foreseeable future.
The semiconductor industry is intensely competitive and highly cyclical, limiting our visibility with respect to future sales. To the extent that macroeconomic fluctuations negatively affect our principal licensees, the demand for our technology may be significantly and adversely impacted and we may experience substantial period-to-period fluctuations in our operating results. In February 2012, Elpida, one of our top 10% licensees by revenue for the past two years, commenced bankruptcy proceedings in Japan as a result of debt loads, competition and declining prices for memory chips, among other reasons.
The royalties we receive from our semiconductor business are partly a function of the adoption of our technologies by system companies. Many system companies purchase semiconductors containing our technologies from our licensees and do not have a direct contractual relationship with us. Our licensees generally do not provide us with details as to the identity or volume of licensed semiconductors purchased by particular system companies. As a result, we face difficulty in analyzing the extent to which our future revenue will be dependent upon particular system companies. System companies face intense competitive pressure in their markets, which are characterized by extreme volatility, frequent new product introductions and rapidly shifting consumer preferences.
The display industry is intensely competitive and highly cyclical. Since LED backlighting solutions are increasingly pervasive in LCDs for computers, smartphones, tablets, game systems, high definition televisions and any user interface incorporating an active display, the trend towards higher resolution displays across these products requires more LEDs per system. The increased usage of LEDs is thereby creating a need for increased power efficiency since the LED backlight is the primary source of power consumption in many consumer electronics products, including smartphones. Our LDT group has numerous patents in edge lit LED lightguide technology, and we plan to license our technology to key companies that use LED edge lit display products.
The highly fragmented general lighting industry is undergoing a fundamental shift from incandescent technology to cold cathode fluorescent lights and LED driven technology by the need to reduce energy consumption and to comply with government mandates. LED lighting typically saves energy costs as compared to existing installed lighting. Our LDT groups patents in LED edge lit lightguide technology also can be applied in the design of next generation LED lighting products. Our goal is to be a major player in the general lighting industry with our technology, and we have established a technology center in Brecksville, Ohio.
Our revenue from companies headquartered outside of the United States accounted for approximately 74% and 78% of our total revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. We expect that revenue derived from international licensees will continue to represent a significant portion of our total revenue in the future. To date, all of the revenue from international licensees have been denominated in U.S. dollars. However, to the extent that such licensees sales to their customers are not denominated in U.S. dollars, any royalties that we receive as a result of such sales could be subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. In addition, if the effective price of licensed semiconductors sold by our foreign licensees were to increase as a result of fluctuations in the exchange rate of the relevant currencies, demand for licensed semiconductors could fall, which in turn would reduce our royalties. We do not use financial instruments to hedge foreign exchange rate risk.
For additional information concerning international revenue, see Note 11, Business Segments and Major Customers, of Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q.
Engineering costs in the aggregate and as a percentage of revenue increased for the three months ended March 31, 2012 as compared to the same period in the prior year. In the near term, we expect engineering costs to be higher than in 2011 as we intend to continue to make investments in the infrastructure and technologies required to maintain our product innovations in semiconductor, lighting, security and other technologies.
Marketing, general and administrative expenses in the aggregate and as a percentage of revenue increased for the three months ended March 31, 2012 as compared to the same period in the prior year. Historically, we have been involved in litigation stemming from the unlicensed use of our inventions. Our litigation expenses have been high and difficult to predict and future litigation expenses could be significant, volatile and difficult to predict. If we are successful in the litigation and/or related licensing, our revenue could be substantially higher in the future; if we are unsuccessful, our revenue may not grow or may decrease. Furthermore, our success in litigation matters pending before courts and regulatory bodies that relate to our intellectual property rights have impacted and will likely continue to impact our ability and the terms upon which we are able to negotiate new or renegotiate existing licenses for our technology. We expect to continue to pursue litigation against those companies that have infringed our patented technologies, which in turn will cause litigation expenses to remain significant until such litigation is resolved.
Our continued pursuit of litigation and investment in research and development projects, combined with any lower revenue from our licensees in the future, will negatively affect our cash from operations.
Results of Operations
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the percentage of total revenue represented by certain items reflected in our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations:
Our patent royalties increased approximately $6.7 million to $57.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 from $51.0 million for the same period in 2011. The increase was primarily due to complete allocation of Samsungs quarterly license payment to revenue since the second quarter of 2011 and revenue recognized from various new patent license agreements signed in the past year as well as patent license agreements acquired from the CRI acquisition, offset by lower royalties reported by certain licensees and expiration of a patent license agreement in the second quarter of 2011.
We are in negotiations with prospective licensees as well as existing licensees regarding renewals. We expect patent royalties will continue to vary from period to period based on our success in renewing existing license agreements and adding new licensees, as well as the level of variation in our licensees reported shipment volumes, sales price and mix, offset in part by the proportion of licensee payments that are fixed or hybrid in nature.
Royalties from solutions licenses decreased approximately $3.8 million to $4.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 from $8.2 million for the same period in 2011. The decrease was primarily due to lower royalties from XDRTM DRAM associated with decreased shipments of the Sony PLAYSTATION®3 product.
In the future, we expect solutions royalties will continue to vary from period to period based on our licensees shipment volumes, sales prices,