XNAS:TSRA Tessera Technologies Inc Quarterly Report 10-Q Filing - 6/30/2012

Effective Date 6/30/2012

XNAS:TSRA Fair Value Estimate
Premium
XNAS:TSRA Consider Buying
Premium
XNAS:TSRA Consider Selling
Premium
XNAS:TSRA Fair Value Uncertainty
Premium
XNAS:TSRA Economic Moat
Premium
XNAS:TSRA Stewardship
Premium
 
Table of Contents

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

 

 

FORM 10-Q

 

 

(Mark One)

x QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012

OR

 

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number: 000-50460

 

 

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

 

 

 

Delaware   16-1620029

(State or Other Jurisdiction of

Incorporation or Organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

3025 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California   95134
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)   (Zip Code)

(408) 321-6000

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

 

 

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  ¨

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter time period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

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 definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer  x    Accelerated filer  ¨    Non-accelerated filer  ¨    Smaller reporting company  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act)    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of July 19, 2012, 51,949,755 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.

 

 

 


Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

FORM 10-Q — QUARTERLY REPORT

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

           Page  
   PART I   

Item 1.

   Financial Statements (unaudited)      3   
   Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets – June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011      3   
   Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations – Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011      4   
  

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) – Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

     5   
   Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows – Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011      6   
   Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements      7   

Item 2.

   Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations      22   

Item 3.

   Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk      32   

Item 4.

   Controls and Procedures      32   
   PART II   

Item 1.

   Legal Proceedings      33   

Item 1A.

   Risk Factors      43   

Item 2.

   Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds      58   

Item 3.

   Defaults Upon Senior Securities      58   

Item 4.

   Mine Safety Disclosures      58   

Item 5.

   Other Information      58   

Item 6.

   Exhibits      58   
Signatures      59   
Exhibit Index   

 

2


Table of Contents

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements (unaudited)

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except for par value)

(unaudited)

 

     June 30,
2012
    December 31,
2011
 

ASSETS

    

Current assets:

    

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 115,438      $ 55,758   

Short-term investments

     359,357        436,687   

Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $43 at each period end

     5,456        8,599   

Inventories

     2,765        1,574   

Short-term deferred tax assets

     1,891        1,892   

Other current assets

     18,417        13,664   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current assets

     503,324        518,174   

Property and equipment, net

     49,462        36,319   

Intangible assets, net

     131,683        141,326   

Goodwill

     3,566        —     

Long-term deferred tax assets

     19,336        18,223   

Other assets

     11,616        2,484   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total assets

   $ 718,987      $ 716,526   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

    

Current liabilities:

    

Accounts payable

   $ 9,280      $ 7,203   

Accrued legal fees

     8,225        6,110   

Accrued liabilities

     18,820        20,824   

Deferred revenue

     3,165        2,610   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current liabilities

     39,490        36,747   

Long-term deferred tax liabilities

     4,083        4,083   

Other long-term liabilities

     5,258        5,017   

Commitments and contingencies (Note 13)

    

Stockholders’ equity:

    

Preferred stock: $0.001 par value; 10,000 shares authorized and no shares issued and outstanding

     —          —     

Common stock: $0.001 par value; 150,000 shares authorized; 52,592 and 52,221 shares issued, respectively, and 51,945 and 51,576 shares outstanding, respectively

     52        52   

Additional paid-in capital

     475,740        462,697   

Treasury stock at cost: 646 and 645 shares of common stock at each period end, respectively

     (10,528     (10,505

Accumulated other comprehensive income

     170        24   

Retained earnings

     204,722        218,411   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity

     670,156        670,679   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

   $ 718,987      $ 716,526   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

3


Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

 

     Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended  
     June 30,     June 30,      June 30,     June 30,  
     2012     2011      2012     2011  

Revenues:

         

Royalty and license fees

   $ 58,185      $ 65,402       $ 101,449      $ 127,660   

Product and service revenues

     3,239        5,328         6,648        10,843   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenues

     61,424        70,730         108,097        138,503   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating expenses:

         

Cost of revenues

     5,597        5,361         11,357        10,873   

Research, development and other related costs

     24,870        18,785         48,315        37,398   

Selling, general and administrative

     24,437        22,775         49,048        42,239   

Litigation expense

     6,724        7,208         10,216        13,204   

Restructuring charges

     —          —           —          2,059   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     61,628        54,129         118,936        105,773   

Operating income (loss)

     (204     16,601         (10,839     32,730   

Other income and expense, net

     987        726         1,655        1,334   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) before taxes

     783        17,327         (9,184     34,064   

Provision for (benefit from) income taxes

     1,192        5,741         (687     11,266   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss)

   $ (409   $ 11,586       $ (8,497   $ 22,798   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Basic and diluted net income (loss) per share:

         

Net income (loss) per share-basic

   $ (0.01   $ 0.23       $ (0.16   $ 0.45   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss) per share-diluted

   $ (0.01   $ 0.23       $ (0.16   $ 0.44   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash dividends declared per share

   $ —        $ —         $ 0.10      $ —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average number of shares used in per share calculations-basic

     51,881        51,106         51,765        50,965   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average number of shares used in per share calculations-diluted

     51,881        51,442         51,765        51,386   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

4


Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

 

     Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
    June 30,
2011
     June 30,
2012
    June 30,
2011
 

Net income (loss)

   $ (409   $ 11,586       $ (8,497   $ 22,798   

Other comprehensive income (loss):

         

Net unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale-securities, net of tax

     (113     105         146        252   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Other comprehensive income (loss):

     (113     105         146        252   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Comprehensive income (loss)

   $ (522   $ 11,691       $ (8,351   $ 23,050   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

5


Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

 

     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
    June 30.
2011
 

Cash flows from operating activities:

    

Net income (loss)

   $ (8,497   $ 22,798   

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:

    

Depreciation and amortization of property and equipment

     5,525        4,992   

Amortization of intangible assets

     12,717        8,237   

Loss (gain) on property and equipment

     10        (4

Stock-based compensation expense

     9,269        14,891   

Deferred income tax, net

     1        2   

Amortization of premium/discount on investments

     653        —     

Changes in operating assets and liabilities, net of acquisition:

    

Accounts receivable, net

     3,143        4,691   

Inventories

     (799     75   

Other assets

     (3,707     3,361   

Accounts payable

     2,077        (2,040

Accrued legal fees

     2,115        1,266   

Accrued liabilities

     (2,113     (5,531

Deferred revenue

     555        (3,242

Other liabilities

     241        1,042   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

     21,190        50,538   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash flows from investing activities:

    

Purchases of property and equipment

     (6,505     (2,419

Proceeds from sale of property and equipment

     23        2,166   

Purchases of short-term available-for-sale investments

     (134,647     (195,184

Proceeds from maturities and sales of short-term and and long-term investments

     211,470        151,187   

Purchases of intangible assets

     (3,237     (3,459

Acquisition, net of cash acquired

     (27,173     —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

     39,931        (47,709
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash flows from financing activities:

    

Dividend paid

     (5,192     —     

Repurchase of common stock

     (23     —     

Proceeds from exercise of stock options

     1,749        2,546   

Proceeds from employee stock purchase program

     2,025        2,443   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

     (1,441     4,989   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents

     59,680        7,818   

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

     55,758        69,268   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

   $ 115,438      $ 77,086   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

6


Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(unaudited)

NOTE 1 – THE COMPANY AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Tessera Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) is a holding company with operating subsidiaries in two segments: Intellectual Property (formerly Micro-electronics) and DigitalOptics (formerly Imaging and Optics). The Intellectual Property business, comprised of engineering, licensing, account administration and litigation teams, generates revenue from patented innovations through license agreements with semiconductor companies and outsourced semiconductor assembly and test companies. The DigitalOptics business delivers innovation in imaging and optics with products and capabilities that enable expanded functionality in increasingly smaller devices. DigitalOptics’ miniaturized camera module solutions provide cost-effective, high-quality camera features, including extended depth of field, zoom, image enhancement, optical image stabilization and Micro-Electro Mechanical Systems (“MEMS”) based auto-focus. These technologies can be applied to mobile phones and other consumer electronic products.

The accompanying interim unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, and for the three and six months then ended, have been prepared by the Company in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in the United States (“U.S.”) for interim financial information. The amounts as of December 31, 2011 have been derived from the Company’s annual audited financial statements. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP have been condensed or omitted in accordance with such rules and regulations. In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments necessary (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) to state fairly the financial position of the Company and its results of operations and cash flows as of and for the periods presented. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the annual audited financial statements and notes thereto as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, filed on February 17, 2012 (the “Form 10-K”).

The results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full year ended December 31, 2012 or any future period and the Company makes no representations related thereto.

Reclassification

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period balances in order to conform to current period’s presentation.

NOTE 2 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

There have been no significant changes in the Company’s significant accounting policies with the exception of those described below during the six months ended June 30, 2012, as compared to the significant accounting policies described in the Form 10-K.

Property and equipment

Property and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives. Equipment held under capital lease is stated at the fair market value of the related asset at the time of lease origination and is amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The Company held no significant equipment under capital lease agreements in the periods presented. Repair and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred.

The depreciation and amortization useful life periods for property and equipment are as follows:

 

Furniture and office equipment    One to five years
Production equipment    Five to ten years
Buildings    Seven, eight and 39 years
Leasehold improvements    Shorter of five years or the remaining term of the lease

Variable Interest Entity

In October 2011, a subsidiary of the Company entered into a limited liability company agreement (“Agreement”) to form a new entity (“Entity”), with the Entity’s primary objective to define strategies and related business plans to accelerate the development and commercialization of the Company’s current and future advanced packaging and interconnect technology. The subsidiary of the Company is the sole contributor of capital to the Entity and has contributed $4.0 million of the total possible capital contribution of up to $5.0 million, as of June 30, 2012. In accordance with the Agreement, all net profits and losses are allocated to such subsidiary of the Company since it is the sole contributor of capital. The Entity has net assets of approximately $2.4 million as of June 30, 2012 which are consolidated with the Company’s operating results.

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company may be involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably

 

7


Table of Contents

estimated. Management reviews these estimates in each accounting period as additional information becomes known and adjusts the loss provision when appropriate. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If a loss is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the loss contingency and an estimate of possible loss or range of loss (unless such an estimate cannot be made). The Company does not recognize gain contingencies until they are realized. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. See Note 13, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for further information regarding the Company’s pending litigation.

NOTE 3 – RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

Adopted

In June 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and International Accounting Standards Board issued an update to the authoritative guidance for fair value measurement. This update does not extend the use of fair value accounting, but provides guidance on how it should be applied where its use is already required or permitted by other standards within U.S. GAAP or International Financial Reporting Standards. This update changes the wording used to describe many requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. Additionally, this update clarifies the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurements. This update is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011 and shall be applied prospectively. The adoption of this guidance did not have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Issued

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosure about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities, which requires an entity to include additional disclosures about financial instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position, as well as financial instruments subject to a master netting agreement or similar arrangement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. The adoption of this ASU is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.

NOTE 4 – COMPOSITION OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL STATEMENT CAPTIONS

Accounts receivable, net consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

                               
     June 30,
2012
    December 31,
2011
 

Trade and other receivables

   $ 5,499      $ 8,642   

Allowance for doubtful accounts

     (43     (43
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
   $ 5,456      $ 8,599   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Inventories consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

                               
     June 30,
2012
     December 31,
2011
 

Raw materials

   $ 1,638       $ 516   

Work in process

     463         435   

Finished goods

     664         623   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 2,765       $ 1,574   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

Property and equipment, net consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

                                 
     June 30,
2012
    December 31,
2011
 

Furniture and office equipment

   $ 34,836      $ 37,371   

Production equipment

     32,249        11,589   

Land and buildings

     21,315        21,314   

Leasehold improvements

     5,777        5,460   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
     94,177        75,734   

Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization

     (44,715     (39,415
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
   $ 49,462      $ 36,319   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

8


Table of Contents

Accrued liabilities consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

     June 30,
2012
     December 31,
2011
 

Employee compensation and benefits

   $ 11,643       $ 11,852   

Other

     7,177         8,972   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 18,820       $ 20,824   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

     June 30,
2012
     December 31,
2011
 

Unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities, net of tax

   $ 170       $ 24   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

   $ 170       $ 24   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

NOTE 5 – FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

The following is a summary of marketable securities at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

 

     June 30, 2012  
            Gross      Gross     Estimated  
            Unrealized      Unrealized     Fair  
     Cost      Gains      Losses     Values  

Available-for-sale securities

          

Corporate bonds and notes

   $ 185,258       $ 181       $ (104   $ 185,335   

Municipal bonds and notes

     104,009         93         (12     104,090   

Treasury and agency notes and bills

     44,178         18         (7     44,189   

Commercial paper

     37,729         4         (2     37,731   

Money market funds

     16,820         —           —          16,820   

Certificate of deposit

     1,011         —           (1     1,010   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total available-for-sale securities

   $ 389,005       $ 296       $ (126   $ 389,175   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Reported in:

          

Cash and cash equivalents

           $ 29,818   

Short-term investments

             359,357   
          

 

 

 

Total marketable securities

           $ 389,175   
          

 

 

 

 

     December 31, 2011  
            Gross      Gross     Estimated  
            Unrealized      Unrealized     Fair  
     Cost      Gains      Losses     Values  

Available-for-sale securities

          

Municipal bonds and notes

   $ 151,887       $ 203       $ (15   $ 152,075   

Treasury and agency notes and bills

     87,684         84         (14     87,754   

Corporate bonds and notes

     168,294         99         (322     168,071   

Commercial paper

     30,899         7         (15     30,891   

Money market funds

     13,269         —           —          13,269   

Certificate of deposit

     9,820         3         (6     9,817   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total available-for-sale securities

   $ 461,853       $ 396       $ (372   $ 461,877   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Reported in:

          

Cash and cash equivalents

           $ 25,190   

Short-term investments

             436,687   
          

 

 

 

Total marketable securities

           $ 461,877   
          

 

 

 

 

9


Table of Contents

At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had $474.8 million and $492.4 million, respectively, in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. The majority of these amounts were held in marketable securities, as shown above. The remaining balance of $85.6 million and $30.5 million at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, was cash held in operating accounts not included in the tables above.

The gross realized gains and losses on sales of marketable securities were not significant during each of the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.

Net unrealized gains of $0.2 million, net of tax, as of June 30, 2012, were related to a temporary increase in value of the remaining available-for-sale securities and were due primarily to changes in interest rates and market and credit conditions of the underlying securities. Certain investments with a temporary decline in value are not considered to be other-than-temporarily impaired as of June 30, 2012 because the Company has the ability to hold these investments to allow for recovery, does not anticipate having to sell these securities with unrealized losses and continues to receive interest at the maximum contractual rate. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, the Company did not record any impairment charges.

The following table summarizes the fair value and gross unrealized losses related to individual available-for-sale securities at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, which have been in a continuous unrealized loss position, aggregated by investment category and length of time (in thousands):

 

June 30, 2012

   Less Than 12 Months     12 Months or More      Total  
     Fair Value      Gross
Unrealized
Losses
    Fair
Value
     Gross
Unrealized
Losses
     Fair Value      Gross
Unrealized
Losses
 

Corporate bonds and notes

   $ 75,009       $ (104   $ —         $ —         $ 75,009       $ (104

Municipal bonds and notes

     25,293         (12     —           —           25,293         (12

Treasury and agency notes and bills

     10,522         (7     —           —           10,522         (7

Commercial Paper

     18,494         (2     —           —           18,494         (2

Certificate of deposit

     1,010         (1           1,010         (1
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 130,328       $ (126   $ —         $ —         $ 130,328       $ (126
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

December 31, 2011

   Less Than 12 Months     12 Months or More      Total  
     Fair Value      Gross
Unrealized
Losses
    Fair
Value
     Gross
Unrealized
Losses
     Fair Value      Gross
Unrealized
Losses
 

Corporate bonds and notes

   $ 96,895       $ (322   $ —         $ —         $ 96,895       $ (322

Municipal bonds and notes

     21,610         (15     —           —           21,610         (15

Commercial Paper

     16,402         (15     —           —           16,402         (15

Treasury and agency notes and bills

     14,391         (14     —           —           14,391         (14

Certificate of deposit

     3,514         (6           3,514         (6
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 152,812       $ (372   $ —         $ —         $ 152,812       $ (372
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

The estimated fair value of marketable securities by contractual maturity at June 30, 2012 is shown below (in thousands). Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because issuers may have the right to call or prepay obligations without call or prepayment penalties.

 

     Estimated
Fair Value
 

Due in one year or less

   $ 267,799   

Due in one to two years

     121,376   
  

 

 

 

Total

   $ 389,175   
  

 

 

 

NOTE 6 – BUSINESS COMBINATION

Vista Point Technologies

On June 28, 2012, DigitalOptics Corporation, a subsidiary of Tessera Technologies, Inc., completed its acquisition of certain assets of Vista Point Technologies, a Tier One qualified camera module manufacturing business, from Flextronics International Ltd. for consideration of $28.1 million, net of $11.9 million cash acquired. Approximately $7.6 million of the consideration has been placed in escrow, of which, approximately $7.0 million is subject to delivery of certain additional assets by Flextronics International Ltd. no later than March 31, 2013. The Company intends to use the acquired assets to help build the DigitalOptics segment into a leading supplier of integrated camera modules in the mobile phone market.

 

10


Table of Contents

As part of the acquisition, DigitalOptics Corporation Technology Zhuhai Limited (formally known as Vista Point Electronic Technologies (Zhuhai) Co. Ltd.), a company organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, was acquired from Flextronics International Ltd. and became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. The business combination transaction was accounted for using the purchase method of accounting, with the results of the acquisition included in the DigitalOptics segment as of the acquisition date. This contributed to a purchase price in excess of the fair value of the underlying net assets and identified intangible assets acquired from Flextronics International Ltd. and, as a result, the Company has recorded goodwill in connection with this transaction.

Preliminary purchase price allocation

In accordance with the accounting guidance on business combinations, the total purchase price is allocated to the tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values. The preliminary allocation of the purchase price was based upon a preliminary valuation and the estimates and assumptions used are subject to change. Based upon the fair values acquired, the purchase price allocation is as follows (in thousands):

 

     Amount      Estimated
Useful Life
(Years)
 

Net tangible assets:

     

Property and equipment, net

   $ 11,196         1-7   

Inventory

     392         N/A   

Other current assets

     870         N/A   

Long-term deferred tax assets

     1,113         N/A   

Other assets

     9,127         N/A   
  

 

 

    
     22,698      

Identified intangible assets:

     

Patents/core technology

     900         14   

Customer relationships

     900         3   

Goodwill

     3,566         N/A   
  

 

 

    
     5,366      
  

 

 

    

Total purchase price

   $ 28,064      
  

 

 

    

Approximately $22.7 million has been allocated to acquired net tangible assets consisting of property and equipment delivered, $7.0 million of property and equipment (included in other assets) to be delivered and various assumed value-added tax receivable and deferred tax assets. Approximately $1.8 million has been allocated to amortizable intangible assets acquired.

Pro forma results of operations have not been presented because the impact of the acquisition in the current and prior period results was not considered material.

NOTE 7 – FAIR VALUE

The Company follows the authoritative guidance for fair value measurements and the fair value option for financial assets and financial liabilities. The guidance for fair value measurements establishes a consistent framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure requirements about fair value measurements. The guidance for the fair value option for financial assets and financial liabilities provides companies the irrevocable option to measure many financial assets and liabilities at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in earnings.

Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability, or an exit price, in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The established fair value hierarchy requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. The guidance describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:

 

Level 1    Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets.
Level 2    Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets.
Level 3    Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets. Level 3 assets and liabilities include financial instruments whose value is determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, as well as instruments for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation.

 

11


Table of Contents

The following is a list of the Company’s assets required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis and where they were classified within the hierarchy as of June 30, 2012 (in thousands):

 

     Fair Value      Quoted
Prices in
Active Markets
for Identical
Assets
(Level 1)
     Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
     Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
 

Assets

           

Marketable Securities

           

Money market funds (1)

   $ 16,820       $ 16,820          $ —     

Corporate bonds and notes (2)

     185,335         —           185,335         —     

Municipal bonds and notes (2)

     104,090         —           104,090         —     

Treasury and agency notes and bills (2)

     44,189         —           44,189         —     

Certificate of deposit (2)

     1,010         —           1,010         —     

Commercial paper (3)

     37,731         —           37,731         —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total Assets

   $ 389,175       $ 16,820       $ 372,355       $ —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

The following footnotes indicate where the noted items were recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2012:

 

(1) Reported as cash and cash equivalents.
(2) Reported as short-term investments.
(3) Reported as either cash and cash equivalents or short-term investments

The following is a list of the Company’s assets required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis and where they were classified within the hierarchy as of December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

 

     Fair Value      Quoted
Prices in
Active Markets
for Identical
Assets
(Level  1)
     Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
     Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
 

Assets

           

Marketable Securities

           

Money market funds (1)

   $ 13,270       $ 13,270       $ —         $ —     

Corporate bonds and notes (2)

     168,071         —           168,071         —     

Municipal bonds and notes (2)

     152,075         —           152,075         —     

Treasury and agency notes and bills (2)

     87,754         —           87,754         —     

Certificate of deposit (2)

     9,817         —           9,817         —     

Commercial paper (3)

     30,890         —           30,890         —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total Assets

   $ 461,877       $ 13,270       $ 448,607       $ —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

The following footnotes indicate where the noted items were recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2011:

 

(1) Reported as cash and cash equivalents.
(2) Reported as short-term investments.
(3) Reported as either cash and cash equivalents or short-term investments

Nonrecurring Fair Value Measurements

The Company measures certain assets at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. These assets include property and equipment and intangible assets that were valued at fair value as part of a business combination that closed on June 28, 2012. The fair value for these property and equipment was determined using a cost approach based on the condition, market and functionality of these assets, including physical depreciation and certain obsolescence adjustments. The fair value for these acquired intangible assets was determined to be $1.8 million using the cost approach and discounted cash flow method and all of these intangible assets were classified as level 3.

 

12


Table of Contents

NOTE 8 – GOODWILL AND IDENTIFIED INTANGIBLE ASSETS

Goodwill is recorded as the difference, if any, between the aggregate consideration paid for an acquisition and the fair value of the net tangible and identified intangible assets acquired under a business combination. Identified intangible assets consist of acquired patents/core technology, existing technology, trade names, assembled workforce and non-compete agreements resulting from business combinations, and acquired patents under asset purchase agreements. Except for intangible assets used in in-process research and development which have indefinite useful lives until the completion or abandonment of the associated research and development efforts, identified intangible assets are amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, ranging from two to 15 years.

The carrying value for goodwill was $3.6 million and zero at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. All of the goodwill balance was allocated to the DigitalOptics segment. There was no impairment of long-lived assets for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. The Company has incurred significant operating losses from the DigitalOptics segment. If the anticipated future results of the DigitalOptics segment do not materialize as expected, then the related goodwill and intangible assets could be subject to an impairment charge in the future. See Note 14 — “Segment and Geographic Information” for additional detail.

Identified intangible assets consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

          June 30, 2012      December 31, 2011  
     Average
Life
(Years)
   Gross
Assets
     Accumulated
Amortization
    Net      Gross
Assets
     Accumulated
Amortization
    Net  

Acquired patents/ core technology

   3-15    $ 134,728       $ (30,312   $ 104,416       $ 132,553       $ (21,901   $ 110,652   

Existing technology

   5-10      54,196         (35,491     18,705         54,196         (32,032     22,164   

Customer contracts

   3-9      12,800         (7,481     5,319         11,900         (6,808     5,092   

Trade name

   4-10      3,620         (2,277     1,343         3,620         (2,102     1,518   

In-process research and development

   Indefinite      1,900         —          1,900         1,900         —          1,900   

Non-competition agreements

   2      1,400         (1,400     —           1,400         (1,400     —     

Assembled workforce

   4      300         (300     —           300         (300     —     
     

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 
      $ 208,944       $ (77,261   $ 131,683       $ 205,869       $ (64,543   $ 141,326   
     

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Amortization expense for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 amounted to $6.3 million and $4.2 million, respectively. Amortization expense for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 amounted to $12.7 million and $8.2 million, respectively.

As of June 30, 2012, the estimated future amortization expense of intangible assets, excluding the in-process research and development, is as follows (in thousands):

 

2012 (remaining 6 months)

   $ 12,343   

2013

     24,430   

2014

     22,620   

2015

     21,287   

2016

     17,442   

Thereafter

     31,661   
  

 

 

 
   $ 129,783   
  

 

 

 

 

13


Table of Contents

NOTE 9 – NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per share (in thousands, except per share amounts):

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
    June 30,
2011
    June 30,
2012
    June 30,
2011
 

Numerator:

        

Net income (loss)

   $ (409   $ 11,586      $ (8,497   $ 22,798   

Denominator:

        

Weighted average common shares outstanding

     51,913        51,162        51,799        51,035   

Less: Unvested common shares subject to repurchase

     (32     (56     (34     (70
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total common shares-basic

     51,881        51,106        51,765        50,965   

Effect of dilutive securities:

        

Stock awards

     —          114        —          132   

Restricted stock awards and units

     —          222        —          289   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total common shares-diluted

     51,881        51,442        51,765        51,386   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss) per common share-basic

   $ (0.01   $ 0.23      $ (0.16   $ 0.45   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss) per common share-diluted

   $ (0.01   $ 0.23      $ (0.16   $ 0.44   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Basic net income (loss) per share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period, excluding any unvested restricted stock awards that are subject to repurchase. Diluted net income (loss) per share is computed using the treasury stock method to calculate the weighted average number of common shares and, if dilutive, potential common shares outstanding during the period. Potential dilutive common shares include unvested restricted stock awards and units and incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options, less shares from assumed proceeds. The assumed proceeds calculation includes actual proceeds to be received from the employee upon exercise, the average unrecognized stock compensation cost during the period and any tax benefits that will be credited upon exercise to additional paid in capital.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, all 5.3 million and 6.5 million shares, respectively, subject to stock options and restricted stock awards and units were excluded from the computation of diluted net income per share as they were anti-dilutive.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, approximately 5.6 million and 5.3 million shares of common stock, respectively, subject to stock options, restricted stock awards and units were excluded from the computation of diluted net income per share as they were anti-dilutive.

NOTE 10 – STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Stock Repurchase Programs

In August 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors (“the Board”) authorized a plan to repurchase up to a maximum total of $100.0 million of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock dependent on market conditions, share price and other factors. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had repurchased a total of approximately 645,000 shares of common stock since inception of the plan, at an average price of $16.26 per share for a total cost of $10.5 million. The shares repurchased are recorded as treasury stock and are accounted for under the cost method. No expiration date has been specified for this plan. As of June 30, 2012, the total amount available for repurchase was $89.5 million. The Company may continue to execute authorized repurchases from time to time under the plan.

Stock Option Plans

The 1996 Plan and the 1999 Plan

In December 1996, the Board adopted the 1996 Stock Option Plan (“1996 Plan”). In February 1999, the Board adopted the 1999 Stock Option Plan (“1999 Plan”) which was approved by the stockholders in May 1999. Under the 1996 Plan and the 1999 Plan, incentive stock options may be granted to the employees of the Company or its subsidiaries at an exercise price of no less than 100% of the fair value on the date of grant, and nonstatutory stock options may be granted to the employees of the Company or its subsidiaries, non-employee directors and consultants at an exercise price of no less than 85% of the fair value. In both cases, when the optionees own stock representing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of stock of the Company, the exercise price shall be no less than 110% of the fair value on the date of grant. For options granted with an exercise price below fair market value, a stock-based compensation charge has been determined. Options granted under these plans generally have a term of ten years from the date of grant and vest over a four-year period. Shares issued in connection with the exercise of unvested options are subject to repurchase by the Company until such options vest. After February 1999, no further options were granted from the 1996 Plan. After December 2000, no further options were granted from the 1999 Plan. The Company has no intention of issuing additional grants under these plans. As of June 30, 2012, there were no shares reserved for grant under these plans and only cancellations under the 1999 Plan are recorded as available for grant. Based on a Board decision, cancellations under the 1996 Plan are not considered available for grant.

 

14


Table of Contents

The 2003 Plan

In February 2003, the Board adopted and the Company’s stockholders approved the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (“2003 Plan”). Under the 2003 Plan, incentive stock options may be granted to the employees of the Company or its subsidiaries at an exercise price of no less than 100% of the fair value on the date of grant, and nonstatutory stock options may be granted to the employees of the Company or its subsidiaries, non-employee directors and consultants at an exercise price of no less than 85% of the fair value. In both cases, when the optionees own stock representing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of stock of the Company, the exercise price shall be no less than 110% of the fair value on the date of grant. Options, restricted stock awards, and restricted stock units granted under this plan generally have a term of ten years from the date of grant and vest over a four-year period. Restricted stock, performance awards, dividend equivalents, deferred stock, stock payments and stock appreciation rights may also be granted under the 2003 Plan either alone, in addition to, or in tandem with any options granted thereunder. Restricted stock awards and units are full-value awards that reduce the number of shares reserved for grant under this plan by one and one-half shares for each share granted. The vesting criteria for restricted stock awards and units is generally the passage of time or meeting certain performance-based objectives, and continued employment through the vesting period generally over four years. As of June 30, 2012, there were 5,617,000 shares reserved for future grant under this plan.

A summary of the stock option activity is presented below (in thousands, except per share amounts):

 

     Shares Outstanding  
     Number of
Shares
    Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price Per
Share
 

Balance at December 31, 2011

     6,819      $ 20.16   

Options granted

     550        16.89   

Options exercised

     (118     14.85   

Options cancelled / forfeited / expired

     (1,036     25.48   
  

 

 

   

Balance at June 30, 2012

     6,215      $ 19.09   
  

 

 

   

Information with respect to outstanding restricted stock awards and units as of June 30, 2012 is as follows (in thousands, except per share amounts):

 

     Restricted Stock  
     Number of Shares
Subject to Time-
based Vesting
    Number of Shares
Subject to
Performance-
based Vesting
    Total Number
of Shares
    Weighted Average
Grant Date Fair
Value Per Share
 

Balance at December 31, 2011

     730        261        991      $ 17.60   

Awards and units granted

     84        132        216      $ 18.35   

Awards and units vested / earned

     (79     (30     (109   $ 18.87   

Awards and units cancelled / forfeited

     (49     (227     (276   $ 19.98   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

Balance at June 30, 2012

     686        136        822      $ 16.83   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

Performance Awards and Units

Performance awards and units may be granted to employees or consultants based upon, among other things, the contributions, responsibilities and other compensation of the particular employee or consultant. The value and the vesting of such performance awards and units are generally linked to one or more performance goals or other specific performance goals determined by the Company, in each case on a specified date or dates or over any period or periods determined by the Company, and range from zero to 100 percent of the grant.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

In August 2003, the Board adopted the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which was approved by the Company’s stockholders in September 2003. The Company initially reserved 200,000 shares of common stock for issuance under the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The reserve will automatically increase on the first day of each fiscal year during the term of the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan by an amount equal to the lesser of (1) 200,000 shares, (2) 1.0% of the Company’s outstanding shares on such date or (3) a lesser amount determined by the Board. Subsequently, the Board adopted the International Employee Stock Purchase Plan in June 2008 which reserves 200,000 shares of common stock for issuance under this plan. The 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the International Employee Stock Purchase Plan (collectively, “ESPP”) are designed to allow eligible employees residing in the U.S. or internationally to purchase shares of common stock, at semi-annual intervals, with their accumulated payroll deductions.

The ESPP has a series of consecutive, overlapping 24-month offering periods. The first offering period commenced February 1, 2004, the effective date of the ESPP, as determined by the Board.

 

15


Table of Contents

Individuals who own less than 5% of the Company’s voting stock, are scheduled to work more than 20 hours per week and whose customary employment is for more than five months in any calendar year may join an offering period on the first day of the offering period or the beginning of any semi-annual purchase period within that period. Individuals who become eligible employees after the start date of an offering period may join the ESPP at the beginning of any subsequent semi-annual purchase period.

Participants may contribute up to 20% of their cash earnings through payroll deductions, and the accumulated deductions will apply to the purchase of shares on each semi-annual purchase date. The purchase price per share will equal 85% of the fair market value per share on the participant’s entry date into the offering period or, if lower, 85% of the fair market value per share on the semi-annual purchase date.

An eligible employee’s right to buy shares of the Company’s common stock under the ESPP may not accrue at a rate in excess of $25,000 of the fair market value of such shares per calendar year for each calendar year of an offering period.

If the fair market value per share of the Company’s common stock on any purchase date is less than the fair market value per share on the start date of the 24-month offering period, then that offering period will automatically terminate and a new 24-month offering period will begin on the next business day. All participants in the terminated offering will be transferred to the new offering period.

In the event of a proposed sale of all or substantially all of the Company’s assets, or merger with or into another company, the outstanding rights under the ESPP will be assumed or an equivalent right substituted by the successor company or its parent or subsidiary. If the successor company or its parent refuses to assume the outstanding rights or substitute an equivalent right, then all outstanding purchase rights will automatically be exercised prior to the effective date of the transaction. The purchase price will equal 85% of the market value per share on the participant’s entry date into the offering period in which an acquisition occurs or, if lower, 85% of the fair market value per share on the date the purchase rights are exercised.

The ESPP will terminate no later than the tenth anniversary of the ESPP’s initial adoption by the Board.

As of June 30, 2012, there were approximately 438,000 shares reserved for grant under the ESPP.

NOTE 11 – STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION EXPENSE

The effect of recording stock-based compensation expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 is as follows (in thousands):

 

     Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
     June 30,
2011
     June 30,
2012
     June 30,
2011
 

Cost of revenues

   $ 248       $ 129       $ 398       $ 272   

Research, development and other related costs

     1,952         2,408         3,664         4,854   

Selling, general and administrative

     3,013         6,290         5,207         9,765   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total stock-based compensation expense

   $ 5,213       $ 8,827       $ 9,269       $ 14,891   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Stock-based compensation expense categorized by various equity components for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 is summarized in the table below (in thousands):

 

     Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
     June 30,
2011
     June 30,
2012
     June 30,
2011
 

Employee stock options

   $ 3,148       $ 5,825       $ 5,910       $ 9,172   

Restricted stock awards and units

     1,613         2,456         2,403         4,630   

Employee stock purchase plan

     452         546         956         1,089   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total stock-based compensation expense

   $ 5,213       $ 8,827       $ 9,269       $ 14,891   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

The Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the estimated fair value of stock-based awards. The fair value of each option grant is determined on the date of grant and the expense is recorded on a straight-line basis. The assumptions used in the model include expected life, volatility, risk-free interest rate, and dividend yield. The Company’s determinations of these assumptions are outlined below.

Expected life – The expected life assumption is based on analysis of the Company’s historical employee exercise patterns. The expected life of options granted under the ESPP represents the offering period of two years.

Volatility – Volatility is calculated using the historical volatility of the Company’s common stock for a term consistent with the expected life. Historical volatility of the Company’s common stock is also utilized for the ESPP.

Risk-free interest rate – The risk-free interest rate assumption is based on the U.S. Treasury rate for issues with remaining terms similar to the expected life of the options.

 

16


Table of Contents

Dividend yield – Expected dividend yield is calculated by annualizing the cash dividend declared by the Board for the current quarter and dividing that result by the average closing price of the Company’s common stock for the quarter. Cash dividends are not paid on options, restricted stock units or unvested restricted stock awards.

In addition, the Company estimates forfeiture rates. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of grant and revised in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Historical data is used to estimate pre-vesting option forfeitures and record stock-based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest.

The following assumptions were used to value the options granted:

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
    June 30,
2011
    June 30,
2012
    June 30,
2011
 

Expected life (in years)

     3.70        3.70        3.70        3.70   

Risk-free interest rate

     0.6     1.3     0.6 - 0.8     1.3 - 1.8

Dividend yield

     2.7     0.0     2.2 - 2.7     0.0

Expected volatility

     63.0     76.3     63.0 - 66.4     76.3 - 76.7

NOTE 12 – INCOME TAXES

The provision for income taxes for the three months ended June 30, 2012 was $1.2 million and the benefit from income taxes for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was $0.7 million, which were comprised of domestic income tax and foreign income and withholding taxes. The provision for income taxes for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was $5.7 million and $11.3 million, respectively, and was comprised of domestic income tax and foreign income and withholding taxes. The Company’s provision for income taxes is based on its worldwide estimated annualized effective tax rate, except for jurisdictions for which a loss is expected for the year and no benefit can be realized for those losses, and the tax effect of discrete items occurring during the period. The tax for jurisdictions for which a loss is expected for the year is based on actual withholding tax for the quarter. The decrease in the income tax provision for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the same periods of the prior year is largely attributable to the loss incurred in the current year.

As of June 30, 2012, unrecognized tax benefits approximated $3.8 million, of which $2.5 million would affect the effective tax rate if recognized. At December 31, 2011, unrecognized tax benefits were $3.8 million of which $2.5 million would affect the effective tax rate if recognized. It is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits may decrease by a range of $0.1 million to $0.2 million in the next 12 months due to the expected lapse of a foreign statute of limitation relating to tax incentives and the conclusion of a foreign tax examination.

It is the Company’s policy to classify accrued interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in the provision for income taxes. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized an insignificant amount of interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company has accrued $0.3 million and $0.3 million, respectively, of interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits.

At June 30, 2012, the Company’s 2007 through 2011 tax years were open and subject to potential examination in one or more jurisdictions. In addition, in the U.S., any net operating losses or credits that were generated in prior years but utilized in an open year may also be subject to examination. The Company is currently under Internal Revenue Service examination related to its 2008 and 2009 tax returns and under review in Israel on a 2007 subsidiary liquidation. The Company is not currently under state income tax examination.

NOTE 13 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease and Purchase Commitments

The Company and its subsidiaries lease office and research facilities and office equipment under operating leases which expire at various dates through 2016. Under lease agreements that contain escalating rent provisions, lease expense is recorded on a straight-line basis over the lease term. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries have agreements containing non-cancelable, non-refundable payment terms with third parties to purchase services. Rent expense for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, was $0.9 million and $0.8 million, respectively. Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, was $1.7 million and $1.6 million, respectively.

As of June 30, 2012, future minimum lease payments and purchase obligations are as follows (in thousands):

 

     Lease
Obligations
     Purchase
Obligations
     Total  

2012 (remaining 6 months)

   $ 1,767       $ 200       $ 1,967   

2013

     3,360         —           3,360   

2014

     2,590         —           2,590   

2015

     1,318         —           1,318   

2016

     246         —           246   

Thereafter

     244         —           244   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 9,525       $ 200       $ 9,725   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

17


Table of Contents

Contingencies

The Company cannot predict the outcome of any of the proceedings described below. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm the Company’s business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-00945 (N.D. Cal.) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case No. 2010-1489

On March 5, 2010, Powertech Technology Inc. (“PTI”) filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On March 22, 2010, the case was related to Siliconware Precision Industries, Co., Ltd v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03667 (N.D. Cal.), and assigned to the judge presiding over that action.

On April 1, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 1, 2010, the judge granted Tessera, Inc.’s motion, and dismissed the action.

On June 29, 2010, PTI filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the June 1, 2010 order dismissing the action. On August 3, 2010, PTI’s motion was denied.

On August 6, 2010, PTI filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 30, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding the case to the district court, determining that there was declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Tessera, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing on November 14, 2011. The Federal Circuit denied Tessera, Inc.’s petition for rehearing on January 5, 2012. On January 19, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its judgment and the case was remanded to the district court. On December 15, 2011, the district court case was related to Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-06121 (N.D. Cal.), discussed below.

The district court held a Case Management Conference on January 4, 2012. The court issued a Minute Order and Case Management Order dated January 4, 2012, setting, among other things, a fact discovery cut-off date of January 18, 2013, and a trial date of April 7, 2014.

On May 16, 2012, the Court entered an order that denied PTI’s motion to strike as to one of Tessera, Inc.’s affirmative defenses, granted PTI’s motion to strike with leave to amend as to several other affirmative defenses asserted by Tessera, Inc., and granted PTI’s motion to strike as to one of Tessera, Inc.’s affirmative defense, stating that Tessera, Inc. may move to amend to add that defense if circumstances change. Tessera, Inc. filed an amended answer on May 29, 2012.

On June 29, 2012, PTI sent a letter to Tessera, Inc. purporting to terminate the TCC License Agreement as of June 30, 2012.

Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-06121 (N.D. Cal.)

On December 6, 2011, PTI filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PTI’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that PTI has the right to terminate its license with Tessera, Inc. as of December 6, 2011. The complaint also seeks damages for breach of contract in the amount of all royalties paid to Tessera, Inc. since December 7, 2007, purportedly totaling at least $200 million, in addition to an accounting of PTI’s damages, an accounting of Tessera, Inc.’s revenue from PTI, prejudgment interest, costs and fees, and other relief deemed proper. Tessera, Inc. disagrees with the assertions made by PTI in the complaint regarding breach of contract, and believes the likelihood that Tessera, Inc. will be required to return already-paid royalties is remote.

On December 15, 2011, the case was related to Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-00945 (N.D. Cal.), discussed above.

On December 30, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and a special motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Court denied Tessera, Inc.’s motions on May 21, 2012.

The district court held a Case Management Conference on January 4, 2012. The court issued a Minute Order and Case Management Order dated January 4, 2012, setting, among other things, a fact discovery cut-off date of January 18, 2013 and a trial date of April 7, 2014.

On June 3, 2012, PTI filed an amended complaint against Tessera, Inc., adding claims for fraud and deceit, patent misuse, and a declaratory judgment interpreting PTI’s license agreement with Tessera, Inc. In addition to the damages sought by PTI’s original complaint, the amended complaint seeks punitive damages for fraud, termination of the Tessera, Inc. license as of September 24, 2010, recovery of all royalties paid on wBGA products since September 24, 2010, and an order “enjoining Tessera, Inc. and directing that Tessera, Inc. may not proceed against any party, . . . under any Tessera Patent as defined by Exhibit A to the TCC License with all amendments, supplements, and additions through September 28, 2010 until Tessera has first paid PTI all of the royalties paid on wBGA products by PTI since September 24, 2010, presently estimated to be $40 million.” Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss PTI’s claim for patent misuse and to strike portions of PTI’s claim for fraud on June 19, 2012.

On June 29, 2012, PTI sent a letter to Tessera, Inc. purporting to terminate the TCC License Agreement as of June 30, 2012.

Other Litigation Matters

In addition to the foregoing matters, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved in other litigation matters and claims in the normal course of business. In the past, the Company and its subsidiaries have litigated to enforce their respective patents and other intellectual property rights, to

 

18


Table of Contents

enforce the terms of license agreements, to protect trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others and to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. The Company expects it or its subsidiaries will be involved in similar legal proceedings in the future, including proceedings regarding infringement of its patents and proceedings to ensure proper and full payment of royalties by licensees under the terms of its license agreements.

These existing and any future legal actions may harm either or both of the Company’s business segments, and may hinder the Company’s ability to independently optimize each business segment. For example, they could cause an existing licensee or strategic partner to cease making royalty or other payments to the Company, or to challenge the validity and enforceability of patents owned by the Company’s subsidiaries or the scope of license agreements with the Company’s subsidiaries, and could significantly damage the Company’s relationship with such licensee or strategic partner and, as a result, prevent the adoption of the Company’s other Intellectual Property or DigitalOptics technologies by such licensee or strategic partner. Litigation could also severely disrupt or shut down the business operations of licensees or strategic partners of the Company’s subsidiaries, which in turn would significantly harm ongoing relations with them and cause the Company to lose royalty revenues.

The costs associated with legal proceedings are typically high, relatively unpredictable and not completely within the Company’s control. These costs may be materially higher than expected, which could adversely affect the Company’s operating results and lead to volatility in the price of its common stock. Whether or not determined in the Company’s favor or ultimately settled, litigation diverts managerial, technical, legal and financial resources from the Company’s business operations. Furthermore, an adverse decision in any of these legal actions could result in a loss of the Company’s proprietary rights, subject the Company to significant liabilities, require the Company to seek licenses from others, limit the value of the Company’s licensed technology or otherwise negatively impact the Company’s stock price or its business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 14 – SEGMENT AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

The Company has two reportable segments: Intellectual Property and DigitalOptics. In addition to these reportable segments, the Corporate Overhead category includes certain operating amounts that are not allocated to the reportable segments because these operating amounts are not considered in evaluating the operating performance of the Company’s business segments.

In 2011, the Company appointed a new President and Chief Executive Officer who is also the Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”) as defined by the authoritative guidance on segment reporting. Also in 2011, the Company appointed a new President of DigitalOptics Corporation and a new President of Tessera Intellectual Property Corp. At the end of 2011, the Company reorganized its reporting units to align with how the Company’s management views and evaluates the Company’s operations, such as the inclusion of development and product commercialization efforts related to the silent air cooling technology in the DigitalOptics segment instead of the Intellectual Property segment. Prior year amounts have been recast to conform to current year presentation.

The Intellectual Property segment is managed by Tessera Intellectual Property Corp., including managing the patent, licensing and litigation portfolios of Tessera, Inc. and Invensas Corporation. The Company’s Intellectual Property segment, comprised of reverse engineering, licensing, account administration and legal teams, generates revenue from patented innovations through license agreements with semiconductor companies and outsourced semiconductor assembly and test companies. Included in the Intellectual Property segment are a number of advanced technology research and development programs.

The DigitalOptics segment is operated by DigitalOptics Corporation and its subsidiaries (“DOC”). DOC delivers innovation in imaging and optics with products and capabilities that enable expanded functionality in increasingly smaller devices. DOC’s miniaturized camera module solutions provide cost-effective, high-quality camera features, including MEMS based auto-focus, extended depth of field, zoom, image enhancement and optical image stabilization. These technologies can be applied to consumer electronic products. The segment also offers customized micro-optic lenses from diffractive and refractive optical elements to integrated micro-optical subassemblies and will be offering silent air cooling products.

The Company does not identify or allocate assets by reportable segment, nor does the CODM evaluate reportable segments using discrete asset information. Reportable segments do not record inter-segment revenues and accordingly there are none to report. The Company does not allocate other income and expense to reportable segments. Although the CODM uses operating income to evaluate reportable segments, operating costs included in one segment may benefit other segments.

 

19


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the Company’s segment revenues, operating expenses and operating income (loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,     June 30,  
     2012     2011     2012     2011  

Revenues:

        

Intellectual Property Segment

        

Royalty and license fees

   $ 52,974      $ 60,487      $ 92,002      $ 114,102   

Product and service revenues

     —          —          —          —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Intellectual Property revenues

     52,974        60,487        92,002        114,102   

DigitalOptics:

        

Royalty and license fees

     5,211        4,915        9,447        13,558   

Product and service revenues

     3,239        5,328        6,648        10,843   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total DigitalOptics revenues

     8,450        10,243        16,095        24,401   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenues

     61,424        70,730        108,097        138,503   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating expenses:

        

Intellectual Property Segment

     23,234        18,505        43,325        35,533   

DigitalOptics Segment

     26,622        21,394        51,274        45,107   

Corporate Overhead

     11,772        14,230        24,337        25,133   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     61,628        54,129        118,936        105,773   

Operating income (loss):

        

Intellectual Property Segment

     29,740        41,982        48,677        78,569   

DigitalOptics Segment

     (18,172     (11,151     (35,179     (20,706

Corporate Overhead

     (11,772     (14,230     (24,337     (25,133
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating income (loss)

   $ (204   $ 16,601      $ (10,839   $ 32,730   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

A significant portion of the Company’s revenues is derived from licensees domiciled outside of the U.S., principally in Asia and Europe, and it is expected that these revenues will continue to account for a significant portion of total revenues in future periods. The table below is prepared by reference to the domicile of the customer. Geographic revenue information for the periods indicated (in thousands, except for percentages) is presented below:

 

     Three Months Ended June 30,     Six Months Ended June 30,  
     2012     2011     2012     2011  

U.S.

   $ 27,041         44   $ 17,357         25   $ 45,022         42   $ 36,906         27

Korea

     13,097         21     19,302         27     19,479         18     25,524         19

Taiwan

     7,732         13     17,654         25     18,126         17     39,763         29

Japan

     7,695         13     7,738         11     13,958         13     18,462         13

Other Asia

     4,300         7     4,598         7     7,654         7     8,897         6

Europe and other

     1,559         2     4,081         5     3,858         3     8,951         6
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 61,424         100   $ 70,730         100   $ 108,097         100   $ 138,503         100
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

For the three months ended June 30, 2012, four customers each accounted for 10% or more of total revenues. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, three customers each accounted for 10% or more of total revenues. For the three months ended June 30, 2011, three customers each accounted for 10% or more of total revenues. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, two customers each accounted for 10% or more of total revenues.

As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, property and equipment, net, by geographical area are presented below (in thousands):

 

     June 30,
2012
     December 31,
2011
 

U.S.

   $ 36,183       $ 35,082   

China

     11,169         —     

Romania

     751         605   

Other

     1,359         632   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 49,462       $ 36,319   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

20


Table of Contents

NOTE 15 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION

Since 2008, Tessera, Inc. has engaged 3LP Advisors LLC (“3LP”) to assist with the identification and acquisition of patents. In 2011 and 2012, 3LP expanded its advisory services by providing strategic advice to Invensas Corporation and Tessera Intellectual Property Corp. as well. A managing partner of 3LP, Mr. Kevin G. Rivette, is a member of the Board and has a 33.3% ownership interest in 3LP. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized operating expense of $0.9 million and $0.3 million, respectively, related to these engagements. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized operating expense of $1.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively, related to these engagements. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the accounts payable balance due to 3LP was $0.4 million and $2.0 million, respectively.

NOTE 16 – RESTRUCTURING AND OTHER CHARGES

In January 2011, the Company announced a reorganization of its DigitalOptics segment to focus on key growth opportunities including extended depth of field, zoom and MEMS-based auto-focus and a reduction of DigitalOptics employees by up to 15% of the Company’s worldwide employee base along with certain headquarters support functions. Total restructuring and other charges related to the reorganization was $2.1 million, all of which were expensed in the six months ended June 30, 2011.

NOTE 17 – SUBSEQUENT EVENT

On July 25, 2012, the Board declared a cash dividend of $0.10 per share of common stock for the third quarter, payable on September 13, 2012, for the stockholders of record at the close of business on August 23, 2012.

 

21


Table of Contents

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the attached unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, and with our audited financial statements and notes thereto for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 17, 2012.

This Quarterly Report contains forward-looking statements, which are subject to the safe harbor provisions created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “intends,” “targets” and similar expressions or variations of such words are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report. The identification of certain statements as “forward-looking” is not intended to mean that other statements not specifically identified are not forward-looking. All statements other than statements about historical facts are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements that relate to our future revenues, product development, demand, acceptance and market share, growth rate, competitiveness, gross margins, levels of research, development and other related costs, expenditures, the outcome or effects of and expenses related to litigation and administrative proceedings related to our patents, our intent to enforce our intellectual property, our ability to license our intellectual property, our ability to become a leading supplier of integrated camera modules in the mobile phone market, tax expenses, cash flows, our ability to liquidate and recover the carrying value of our investments, our management’s plans and objectives for our current and future operations, management’s plans for repurchasing our common stock pursuant to the authorization of our Board of Directors, the levels of customer spending or research and development activities, general economic conditions, and the sufficiency of financial resources to support future operations and capital expenditures.

Although forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report reflect the good faith judgment of our management, such statements can only be based on facts and factors currently known by us. Consequently, forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks, uncertainties, and changes in condition, significance, value and effect, including those discussed below under the heading “Risk Factors” within Part II, Item 1A of this Quarterly Report and other documents we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), such as our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and our current reports on Form 8-K. Such risks, uncertainties and changes in condition, significance, value and effect could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed herein and in ways not readily foreseeable. Readers are urged not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Quarterly Report and are based on information currently and reasonably known to us. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any event or circumstance that may arise after the date of this Quarterly Report. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made in this Quarterly Report, which attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

 

22


Table of Contents

Corporate Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 3025 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California 95134. Our telephone number is (408) 321-6000. We maintain a website at www.tessera.com. The reference to our website address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on this website.

Tessera, the Tessera logo, µBGA, OptiML, DigitalOptics Corporation, the DigitalOptics Corporation logo, Invensas, the Invensas logo and SHELLCASE are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Company or its affiliated companies in the United States (“U.S.”) and other countries. All other company, brand and product names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

In this Quarterly Report, the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Tessera Technologies, Inc., which operates its business through its subsidiaries. Unless specified otherwise, the financial results in this Quarterly Report are those of the Company and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.

Business Overview

Tessera Technologies, Inc. is a holding company with operating subsidiaries in two segments: Intellectual Property and DigitalOptics.

Our Intellectual Property segment is managed by Tessera Intellectual Property Corp., including managing the patent and licensing portfolios of our subsidiaries, Tessera, Inc. and Invensas Corporation (“Invensas”). Our Intellectual Property business, comprised of reverse engineering, licensing, account administration and litigation teams, generates revenue from patented innovations through license agreements with semiconductor companies and outsourced semiconductor assembly and test companies. Included in the Intellectual Property segment are a number of advanced technology research and development programs.

Our DigitalOptics segment is operated by DigitalOptics Corporation and its subsidiaries (“DOC”). DOC delivers innovation in imaging and optics with products and capabilities that enable expanded functionality in increasingly smaller devices. DOC’s miniaturized camera module solutions provide cost-effective, high-quality camera features, including Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (“MEMS”)-based auto-focus, extended depth of field (“EDoF”), zoom, image enhancement and optical image stabilization. These technologies can be applied to mobile phones and other consumer electronic products. DOC also offers customized micro-optic lenses from diffractive and refractive optical elements to integrated micro-optical subassemblies.

Our segments were determined based upon the manner in which our management viewed and evaluated our operations for the period reported. As our business grows and evolves, our management may change their views of our business operations. Segment information in Note 14 — “Segment and Geographic Information” in the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements is incorporated herein by reference and is presented per the authoritative guidance for segment reporting. At the end of 2011, we renamed our segments in and have recast our segment results to reflect the inclusion of our silent air cooling program in our DigitalOptics segment. Prior to that time, that program was included in our Intellectual Property segment.

Intellectual Property Segment

Research and development by our Tessera, Inc. subsidiary led to significant innovations in semiconductor packaging technology. Semiconductor packaging creates the mechanical and electrical connection between semiconductor chips and systems such as computers and communication equipment, often via connection to printed circuit boards. Tessera, Inc. patented these innovations, often referred to as chip-scale packaging, which were widely adopted in the industry. We have developed significant capabilities in licensing, technical analysis, reverse engineering, license administration and litigation as we have sought reasonable royalties from companies that adopted Tessera, Inc.’s technologies.

DigitalOptics Segment

DigitalOptics offers mobile camera module solutions in three main categories: actuator technologies, image enhancement solutions and wafer-level optics. DOC’s solutions help meet growing consumer demand for smaller size, lower cost and greater functionality in mobile phones and other consumer electronic products.

Actuator technologies:

DOC’s silicon solutions improve image quality and enhance, extend and simplify picture taking for mobile and portable camera devices. One example is DOC’s MEMS solutions, which offer superior auto-focus and shutter capabilities in a low power, small form factor solution for continuous focus video, saving time and money. MEMS Auto-Focus (AF) actuator uses MEMS technology to precisely position and move a lens inside the camera optics to focus. Positioning precision and repeatability capabilities are achieved through DOC’s unique and proprietary MEMS silicon designs.

DOC’s zoom solution eliminates certain drawbacks of conventional zoom technologies while significantly advancing what is possible in a mobile device. By combining a custom lens design with innovative image processing, it enables 3X zoom capabilities.

Image Enhancement Solutions:

DOC licenses software solutions for digital and video photography image enhancement. Examples include:

 

   

Face Tools, which provide face-oriented imaging technology such as face tracking/detection, smile/blink detection, face recognition and face beautification. When combined with our hardware acceleration technology, the performance of these applications for both video and still images is enhanced.

 

23


Table of Contents
   

Portrait Enhancement, which brings professional photo capabilities to all camera or video-enabled products without requiring separate, post-editing software. It works in real time, with either still images or video.

 

   

Panorama, which enables users to easily and automatically create panoramic images in a single step, without using a PC or editing software.

 

   

Video Tools, which combine image enhancement software and hardware acceleration to provide real-time video image stabilization and face beautification.

Wafer Level Optics:

DOC uses the latest semiconductor manufacturing techniques to develop and deliver its micro-optic lenses, including Diffractive Optical Elements (“DOEs”), Refractive Optical Elements (“ROEs”) and Integrated Micro-Optical Subassemblies (“IMOS”). DOC uses wafer-level processing to fabricate the DOEs and/or ROEs on one or two sides of the wafer, resulting in high-precision, high-efficiency, cost effective products. The products are manufactured in DOC’s state-of-the-art ISO-registered facility.

Results of Operations

Acquisitions

We have grown our business partly through acquisitions. On June 28, 2012, DOC acquired from Flextronics International Ltd. (“Flextronics”) all the outstanding equity interests in DigitalOptics Corporation Technology Zhuhai Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Vista Point Electronic Technologies (Zhuhai) Co. Ltd.), a company organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China (the “Zhuhai Entity”), and acquired certain other assets from Flextronics related to its camera module business (collectively, the “Zhuhai Transaction”). The costs incurred related to the Zhuhai Transaction during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 have been included in the following discussion. As a result of the Zhuhai Transaction, we anticipate that we will need to make substantial additional capital expenditures and employ additional working capital in order to succeed in our business plans for the DigitalOptics segment. We also anticipate that we will incur greater operating expenses in future periods, due to the manufacturing operations and additional personnel acquired with the Zhuhai Entity.

Revenues

Our revenues are generated from royalty and license fees, past production payments, and product and service revenues. Royalty and license fees include revenues from license fees and royalty payments generated from licensing the right to use our technologies or intellectual property. Licensees generally report shipment information 30 to 60 days after the end of the quarter in which such activity takes place. Since there is no reliable basis on which we can estimate our royalty revenues prior to obtaining these reports from the licensees, we recognize royalty revenue on a one quarter lag. The timing of revenue recognition and the amount of revenue actually recognized for each type of revenues depends upon a variety of factors, including the specific terms of each arrangement, our ability to derive fair value of the element and the nature of our deliverables and obligations. In addition, our royalty revenues will fluctuate based on a number of factors such as: (a) the timing of receipt of royalty reports; (b) the rate of adoption and incorporation of our technology by licensees; (c) the demand for products incorporating semiconductors that use our licensed technology; (d) the cyclicality of supply and demand for products using our licensed technology; and (e) the impact of economic downturns.

From time to time we enter into license agreements that have fixed expiration dates. Upon expiration of such agreements, we need to renew or replace these agreements in order to maintain our revenue base. We may not be able to continue licensing customers on terms favorable to us, under the existing terms or at all, which would harm our results of operations. For example, our license agreement with Micron Technology, Inc. expired in May 2012. Micron Technology, Inc. accounted for 10% or more of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011 and has since announced that it intends to acquire Elpida Memory Inc., a leading dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”) manufacturer. If we fail to replace the expired Micron Technology, Inc. license agreement it will have a negative impact on our revenue and our results of operations.

Tessera, Inc. is in litigation with Powertech Technology Inc. (“PTI”), a customer representing 10% or more of our revenue in 2011, as described in Part II, Item 1 — Legal Proceedings. In June 2012, PTI notified Tessera, Inc. of its purported termination of its license agreement with Tessera, Inc. and that PTI will make a final payment under the license agreement in July 2012. If we are not able to replace the revenue from PTI or if we receive an adverse determination in the litigation with PTI, it could have a substantial adverse impact on our royalty revenue in the near term.

In the past, we or our subsidiaries have engaged in litigation and arbitration proceedings to directly or indirectly enforce our intellectual property rights and the terms of our license agreements, including proceedings to ensure proper and full payment of royalties by our current licensees and by third parties whose products incorporate our intellectual property rights. We believe that similar future proceedings may result in fluctuations in our revenue and expenses.

 

24


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth our operating results for the periods indicated as a percentage of revenues:

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,     June 30,     June 30,     June 30,  
     2012     2011     2012     2011  

Revenues:

        

Royalty and license fees

     95     92     94     92

Product and service revenues

     5        8        6        8   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenues

     100        100        100        100   

Operating expenses:

        

Cost of revenues

     9        8        11        8   

Research, development and other related costs

     40        27        45        27   

Selling, general and administrative

     40        32        45        31   

Litigation expense

     11        10        9        10   

Restructuring charges

     —          —          —          1   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     100        77        110        77   

Operating income (loss)

     —          23        (10     23   

Other income and expense, net

     2        1        1        1   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) before taxes

     2        24        (9     24   

Provision for (benefit from) income taxes

     3        8        (1     8   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss)

     (1 )%      16     (8 )%      16
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

The following table sets forth our revenues by type (in thousands, except for percentages):

 

     Three Months Ended  
     June 30,     June 30,     Increase     %  
     2012     2011     (Decrease)     Change  

Royalty and license fees

   $ 58,185         95   $ 65,402         92   $ (7,217     (11 )% 

Product and service revenues

     3,239         5        5,328         8        (2,089     (39
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenues

   $ 61,424         100   $ 70,730         100   $ (9,306     (13 )% 
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,     June 30,     Increase     %  
     2012     2011     (Decrease)     Change  

Royalty and license fees

   $ 101,449         94   $ 127,660         92   $ (26,211     (21 )% 

Product and service revenues

     6,648         6        10,843         8        (4,195     (39
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenues

   $ 108,097         100   $ 138,503         100   $ (30,406     (22 )% 
  

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

Total revenue for the second quarter of 2012 was $61.4 million, compared to $70.7 million of total revenue in the second quarter of the prior year. Intellectual Property revenue for the second quarter of 2012 was $53.0 million, compared to $60.5 million in the second quarter of the prior year, which included a nonrecurring $1.0 million license fee. The decrease was primarily due to the timing of a renewed contract with a major DRAM customer which resulted comparatively in lower revenues of $6.1 million and lower unit volumes reported by customers totaling $9.8 million, offset by audit payments in the second quarter of 2012 of approximately $9.4 million.

DigitalOptics revenue for the second quarter of 2012 was $8.4 million, compared to $10.2 million in the second quarter of the prior year. The decrease was due primarily to an EDoF customer whose reported units were lower than the prior year and weaker demand for the Company’s Micro-Optics products.

For the six months ended June 30, 2012, revenues were $108.1 million as compared to $138.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, a decrease of $30.4 million, or 22%. Intellectual Property revenue for the first half of 2012 was $92.0 million, compared to $114.1 million in the first half of the prior year, which included a nonrecurring $1.0 million license fee. The overall decrease in revenues in the six months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 was primarily due to the timing of a renewed contract with a major DRAM customer which resulted comparatively in lower revenues of $6.1 million and lower unit volumes reported by customers totaling $24.4 million, offset by audit payments in the second quarter of 2012 of approximately $9.4 million.

 

25


Table of Contents

DigitalOptics revenue for the for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was $16.1 million, compared to $24.4 million in the first half of the prior year. The decrease was due primarily to lower revenues related to Wafer Level Packaging, an EDoF customer whose reported units were lower than the prior year and weaker demand for the Company’s Micro-Optics products.

Cost of Revenues

Cost of revenues primarily consists of direct compensation, materials, amortization of intangible assets related to acquired technologies, supplies and depreciation expense. Amortization of certain acquired intangible assets and depreciation expense of property and equipment are generally classified as a component of cost of revenues from research, development and other related costs when an in-process development project reaches commercialization. Excluding amortization of acquired intangible assets, cost of revenues relates primarily to product and service revenues. For each associated period, cost of revenues as a percentage of total revenues varies based on the rate of adoption of our technologies, the product and service revenues component of total revenues, the mix of product sales to semiconductor, optics and communications industries and the timing of property and equipment being placed in service. We anticipate our cost of revenues will increase as our product mix includes more products and services as we grow our DigitalOptics business through the manufacturing operations we acquired in June 2012 and the investments we are making in our lens design and manufacturing capability.

Cost of revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2012 was $5.6 million, as compared to $5.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, an increase of $0.2 million, or 4%. Cost of revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was $11.4 million, as compared to $10.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, an increase of $0.5 million, or 5%. The slight increase as compared to the same periods in 2011 resulted from increases in depreciation and amortization of acquired intangible assets which were mostly offset by lower personnel related costs and material costs on lower product sales.

Research, Development and Other Related Costs

Research, development and other related costs consist primarily of compensation and related costs for personnel, as well as costs related to patent applications and examinations, amortization of intangible assets, materials, supplies and equipment depreciation. Research and development is conducted primarily in-house and targets development of chip-scale, circuitry design, 3D architecture, wafer-level packaging technology, high-density substrate, thermal management technology, image sensor packaging, image enhancement technology, including MEMS-based products, and micro-optic lens solutions such as diffractive and refractive optical elements to integrated micro-optical subassemblies. All research, development and other related costs are expensed as incurred.

Research, development and other related costs for the three months ended June 30, 2012 were $24.9 million, as compared to $18.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, an increase of $6.1 million, or 32%. The increase was primarily due to increases in personnel related expenses of $2.2 million, material costs of $1.4 million, consulting fees of $1.2 million and amortization of intangible assets of $0.6 million, offset by lower stock-based compensation expense of $0.5 million. Research, development and other related costs for the six months ended June 30, 2012 were $48.3 million, as compared to $37.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, an increase of $10.9 million, or 29%. The increase was primarily due to increases in personnel related expenses of $2.9 million, material costs of $2.8 million, consulting fees of $2.1 million and amortization of intangible assets of $1.2 million, offset by lower stock-based compensation expense of $1.2 million.

We believe that a significant level of research and development expenses will be required for us to remain competitive in the future.

Selling, General and Administrative

Selling expenses consist primarily of compensation and related costs for sales and marketing personnel, reverse engineering personnel and services, marketing programs, public relations, promotional materials, travel, trade show expenses, and stock-based compensation expense. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of compensation and related costs for general management, information technology, finance and accounting personnel, legal fees and expenses, facilities costs, stock-based compensation expense, and professional services. Our general and administrative expenses, other than facilities related expenses, are not allocated to other expense line items.

Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2012 were $24.4 million, as compared to $22.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, an increase of $1.6 million, or 7%. The increase was primarily attributable to increases in outside service and legal fees of $2.6 million which were related to our acquisition activities, amortization of intangible assets of $1.3 million, and facility and insurance expense of $0.5 million, offset by a decrease in stock-based compensation expense of $3.3 million. SG&A expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2012 were $49.0 million, as compared to $42.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, an increase of $6.8 million, or 16%. The increase was primarily attributable to increases in outside service and legal fees of $6.2 million which were related to our acquisition activities and amortization of intangible assets of $2.7 million, offset by a decrease in stock-based compensation expense of $4.6 million.

Litigation Expense

Litigation expense for the three months ended June 30, 2012 was $6.7 million, as compared to $7.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, a decrease of $0.5 million, or 7%. Litigation expense for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was $10.2 million, as compared to $13.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, a decrease of $3.0 million, or 23%. The decreases were primarily attributable to the decrease in case activities in our docket of legal proceedings. The case management orders in a number of proceedings have delayed the timing of costs that will be incurred in those proceedings until the second half of 2012, 2013 and 2014.

We expect that litigation expense will continue to be a material portion of our operating expenses in future periods, and may fluctuate significantly in some periods, because of our ongoing litigation, as described in Part II, Item 1 — Legal Proceedings, and because of litigation initiated from time to time in the future in order to enforce and protect our intellectual property and contract rights.

 

26


Table of Contents

Upon expiration of the current terms of our customers’ licenses, if those licenses are not renewed, litigation may become a necessary element of a campaign to secure payment of reasonable royalties for the use of our patented technology. If we initiate such litigation, our future litigation expenses would significantly increase.

Stock-based Compensation Expense

The following table sets forth our stock-based compensation expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):

 

     Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
     June 30,
2011
     June 30,
2012
     June 30,
2011
 

Cost of revenues

   $ 248       $ 129       $ 398       $ 272   

Research, development and other related costs

     1,952         2,408         3,664         4,854   

Selling, general and administrative

     3,013         6,290         5,207         9,765   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total stock-based compensation expense

   $ 5,213       $ 8,827       $ 9,269       $ 14,891   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Stock-based compensation expense categorized by various equity components for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 is summarized in the table below (in thousands):

 

     Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended  
     June 30,      June 30,      June 30,      June 30,  
     2012      2011      2012      2011  

Employee stock options

   $ 3,148       $ 5,825       $ 5,910       $ 9,172   

Restricted stock awards and units

     1,613         2,456         2,403         4,630   

Employee stock purchase plan

     452         546         956         1,089   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total stock-based compensation expense

   $ 5,213       $ 8,827       $ 9,269       $ 14,891   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Stock-based compensation awards included employee stock options, restricted stock awards and units and employee stock purchases. Stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $5.2 million and $8.8 million, respectively. Stock-based compensation expense for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $9.3 million and $14.9 million, respectively. The overall decrease from the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was primarily related to decreases resulting from fully amortized expense as shares become vested, cancellations of restricted stock awards and units, and lower expenses related to modification of stock awards. Future stock-based compensation expense will vary due to volatility in our stock price, number and type of stock awards granted and timing of modifications to stock awards, if any.

Other Income and Expense, Net

Other income and expense, net for the three months ended June 30, 2012 was $1.0 million, as compared to $0.7 million, for the three months ended June 30, 2011. Other income and expense, net for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was $1.7 million, as compared to $1.3 million, for the six months ended June 30, 2011. The increase was mainly due to a realized gain on equity securities.

Provision for (benefit from) Income Taxes

The provision for income taxes in the three months ended June 30, 2012 of $1.2 million was largely comprised of non-tax deductible acquisition costs plus foreign withholding and income taxes. The benefit for income taxes for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was $0.7 million and was largely comprised of a tax benefit for domestic losses as offset by non-tax deductible acquisition costs and foreign withholding and income taxes. The income tax provision for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was $5.7 million and $11.3 million, respectively, and was comprised of domestic income tax and foreign income and withholding tax.

Segment Operating Results

We have two reportable segments: Intellectual Property and DigitalOptics. In addition to these reportable segments, the Corporate Overhead category includes certain operating amounts that are not allocated to the reportable segments because these operating amounts are not considered in evaluating the operating performance of our business segments.

The costs incurred related to the Zhuhai Transaction during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 have been included in the results for the DigitalOptics segment, as the acquired business and assets have been included in that segment.

Our reportable segments were determined based upon the manner in which our management views and evaluates our operations. Segment information below and in Note 14 — “Segment and Geographic Information” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements is presented in accordance with the authoritative guidance on segment reporting.

 

27


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth our segments’ revenues, operating expenses and operating income (loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,     June 30,  
     2012     2011     2012     2011  

Revenues:

        

Intellectual Property Segment

        

Royalty and license fees

   $ 52,974      $ 60,487      $ 92,002      $ 114,102   

Product and service revenues

     —          —          —          —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Intellectual Property revenues

     52,974        60,487        92,002        114,102   

DigitalOptics:

        

Royalty and license fees

     5,211        4,915        9,447        13,558   

Product and service revenues

     3,239        5,328        6,648        10,843   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total DigitalOptics revenues

     8,450        10,243        16,095        24,401   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenues

     61,424        70,730        108,097        138,503   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating expenses:

        

Intellectual Property Segment

     23,234        18,505        43,325        35,533   

DigitalOptics Segment

     26,622        21,394        51,274        45,107   

Corporate Overhead

     11,772        14,230        24,337        25,133   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     61,628        54,129        118,936        105,773   

Operating income (loss):

        

Intellectual Property Segment

     29,740        41,982        48,677        78,569   

DigitalOptics Segment

     (18,172     (11,151     (35,179     (20,706

Corporate Overhead

     (11,772     (14,230     (24,337     (25,133
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating income (loss)

   $ (204   $ 16,601      $ (10,839   $ 32,730   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Revenues and operating income amounts in this section have been presented on a basis consistent with U.S. GAAP applied at the segment level. Corporate Overhead expenses which have been excluded are primarily support services, human resources, legal, finance, IT, corporate development, procurement activities, and insurance expenses. For the three months ended June 30, 2012, corporate overhead expenses were $11.8 million as compared to $14.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011. The decrease of $2.4 million was mainly attributable to a decrease in stock-based compensation expense of $3.5 million and a reduction in personnel related expenses of $0.9 million, partially offset by an increase of $1.5 million in outside services. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, corporate overhead expenses were $24.3 million as compared to $25.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011. The decrease of $0.8 million was mainly attributable to a decrease in stock-based compensation expense of $4.2 million, partially offset by an increase of $3.2 million in outside services.

 

28


Table of Contents

Intellectual Property Segment

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,      June 30,      Increase     %     June 30,      June 30,      Increase     %  
     2012      2011      (Decrease)     Change     2012      2011      (Decrease)     Change  

Revenues:

                    

Intellectual Property:

                    

Royalty and license fees

   $ 52,974       $ 60,487       $ (7,513     (12 )%    $ 92,002       $ 114,102       $ (22,100     (19 )% 
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Intellectual Property revenues

     52,974         60,487         (7,513     (12     92,002         114,102         (22,100     (19

Operating expenses:

                    

Cost of revenues

     307         200         107        54        503         407         96        24   

Research, development and other related costs

     8,531         7,313         1,218        17        17,694         14,148         3,546        25   

Selling, general and administrative

     7,673         3,721         3,952        106        14,667         7,604         7,063        93   

Litigation expense

     6,723         7,271         (548     (8     10,461         13,374         (2,913     (22
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     23,234         18,505         4,729        26        43,325         35,533         7,792        22   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating income

   $ 29,740       $ 41,982       $ (12,242     (29 )%    $ 48,677       $ 78,569       $ (29,892     (38 )% 
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Intellectual Property revenues consist primarily of royalties received from our licensees. For the three months ended June 30, 2012, Intellectual Property revenues were $53.0 million as compared to $60.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, a decrease of $7.5 million, or 12%. The overall decrease in revenues in the three months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 was primarily due to the timing of a renewed contract with a major DRAM customer which resulted comparatively in lower revenues of $6.1 million and lower unit volumes reported by customers totaling $9.8 million, offset by audit payments in the second quarter of 2012 of approximately $9.4 million.

For the six months ended June 30, 2012, Intellectual Property revenue for the first half of 2012 was $92.0 million, compared to $114.1 million in the first half of the prior year, which included a nonrecurring $1.0 million license fee. The overall decrease in revenues in the six months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 was primarily due to the timing of a renewed contract with a major DRAM customer which resulted comparatively in lower revenues of $6.1 million and lower unit volumes reported by customers totaling $24.4 million, offset by audit payments in the second quarter of 2012 of approximately $9.4 million.

Operating expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2012 were $23.2 million and consisted primarily of research, development and other related costs of $8.5 million, SG&A expenses of $7.7 million and litigation expense of $6.7 million. The increase of $4.7 million, or 26%, in total operating expense as compared to $18.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, was primarily attributable to increases in amortization of intangible assets of $2.2 million and consulting fees of $1.9 million, offset by lower litigation expense of $0.5 million.

Operating expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2012 were $43.3 million and consisted primarily of research, development and other related costs of $17.7 million, SG&A expenses of $14.7 million and litigation expense of $10.5 million. The increase of $7.8 million, or 22%, in total operating expense as compared to $35.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, was primarily attributable to increases in amortization of intangible assets of $4.5 million, consulting fees of $3.7 million and patent prosecution, application and examination expenses of $1.5 million, offset by lower litigation expense of $2.7 million.

We expect that litigation expense will continue to be a material portion of our operating expenses in future periods, and may fluctuate significantly in some periods, because of our ongoing litigation, as described in Part II, Item 1 — Legal Proceedings, and because of litigation initiated from time to time in the future in order to enforce and protect our intellectual property and contract rights.

Operating income for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $29.7 million and $42.0 million, respectively, which represented a decrease of $12.2 million, or 29%, for the reasons stated above. Operating income for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $48.7 million and $78.6 million, respectively, which represented a decrease of $29.9 million, or 38%, for the reasons stated above.

 

29


Table of Contents

DigitalOptics Segment

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,     June 30,     Increase     %     June 30,     June 30,     Increase     %  
     2012     2011     (Decrease)     Change     2012     2011     (Decrease)     Change  

Revenues:

                

DigitalOptics:

                

Royalty and license fees

   $ 5,211      $ 4,915      $ 296        6   $ 9,447      $ 13,558      $ (4,111     (30 )% 

Product and service revenues

     3,239        5,328        (2,089     (39     6,648        10,843        (4,195     (39
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total DigitalOptics revenues

     8,450        10,243        (1,793     (18     16,095        24,401        (8,306     (34

Operating expenses:

                

Cost of revenues

     5,290        5,161        129        2        10,854        10,466        388        4   

Research, development and other related costs

     16,339        11,472        4,867        42        30,621        23,250        7,371        32   

Selling, general and administrative

     4,993        4,761        232        5        9,799        9,507        292        3   

Restructuring charges

     —          —          —          —          —          1,884        (1,884     N/A   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     26,622        21,394        5,228        24        51,274        45,107        6,167        14   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating loss

   $ (18,172   $ (11,151   $ (7,021     63   $ (35,179   $ (20,706   $ (14,473     70
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

DigitalOptics revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2012 were $8.4 million as compared to $10.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011. The decrease in DigitalOptics revenues in the three months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 was due primarily to lower revenues related to $1.5 million in weaker demand for our Micro-Optics products, $0.6 million in one-time royalty payments in the prior year and an EDoF customer whose reported units were lower than the prior year.

DigitalOptics revenue for the for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was $16.1 million, compared to $24.4 million in the first half of the prior year. The decrease was due primarily to lower revenues related to $3.4 million in weaker demand for our Micro-Optics products, $0.6 million in one-time royalty payments in the prior year and an EDoF customer whose reported units were lower than the prior year.

On June 28, 2012, DOC completed the Zhuhai Transaction for consideration of $28.1 million. We intend to use the acquired assets to help build the DigitalOptics segment into a leading supplier of integrated camera modules in the mobile phone market. In addition, we are in the process of investing in lens design and manufacturing capability. As a result, we anticipate that we will incur greater operating expenses in future periods.

In January 2011, we announced a reorganization of our DigitalOptics segment to focus on key growth opportunities including EDoF, Zoom and MEMS-based auto-focus. We also announced a reduction of DigitalOptics employees by up to 15% of our worldwide employee base along with certain headquarters support functions. Restructuring and other charges primarily consisted of severance and costs related to the continuation of certain employee benefits that are not expected to be recurring.

Operating expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2012 were $26.6 million and consisted of cost of revenues of $5.3 million, research, development and other related costs of $16.3 million and SG&A expenses of $5.0 million, an increase of $5.2 million, or 24%, in total operating expenses as compared to $21.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011. The increase was primarily due to increases in personnel related expenses of $2.6 million and material costs of $1.3 million.

Operating expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2012 were $51.3 million and consisted of cost of revenues of $10.9 million, research, development and other related costs of $30.6 million and SG&A expenses of $9.8 million, an increase of $6.2 million, or 14%, in total operating expenses as compared to $45.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011. The increase was primarily due to increases in personnel related expenses of $4.0 million, material costs of $2.5 million, and depreciation expense of $0.7 million, offset by non-recurring restructuring costs of $1.9 million in the prior year and a decrease in stock-based compensation expenses of $0.8 million.

Operating loss for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $18.2 million and $11.2 million, respectively, which represented an increased loss of $7.0 million, or 63%, for the reasons stated above.

Operating loss for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $35.2 million and $20.7 million, respectively, which represented an increased loss of $14.5 million, or 70%, for the reasons stated above.

We have incurred significant operating losses from the DigitalOptics segment. If the anticipated future results of the DigitalOptics segment do not materialize as expected, then the related intangible assets could be subject to an impairment charge in the future.

 

30


Table of Contents

Liquidity and Capital Resources

 

     As of     As of  
     June 30,     December 31,  
(in thousands, except for percentages)    2012     2011  

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 115,438      $ 55,758   

Short-term investments

     359,357        436,687   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments

   $ 474,795      $ 492,445   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Percentage of total assets

     66     69
     Six Months Ended  
     June 30,
2012
    June 30,
2011
 

Net cash provided by operating activities

   $ 21,190      $ 50,538   

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

   $ 39,931      $ (47,709

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   $ (1,441   $ 4,989   

Cash generated from operations is our primary source of liquidity and capital resources. Our investment portfolio is also available for future cash requirements. Cash, cash equivalents and investments were $474.8 million at June 30, 2012, a decrease of $17.6 million from $492.4 million at December 31, 2011. Cash and cash equivalents were $115.4 million at June 30, 2012, an increase of $59.6 million from $55.8 million at December 31, 2011. The increase in cash and cash equivalents was primarily the result of $21.2 million in cash provided by operating activities and $39.9 million in cash provided by investing activities, offset by $1.4 million net cash used in financing activities.

Cash flows provided by operations were $21.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2012, primarily due to our net loss of $8.5 million being adjusted for non-cash items of depreciation and amortization of $18.2 million, stock-based compensation expense of $9.3 million and a net increase in the changes in operating assets and liabilities of $1.5 million.

Cash flows provided by operations were $50.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, primarily due to net income of $22.8 million, adjusted for non-cash items of depreciation and amortization of $13.2 million, stock-based compensation expense of $14.9 million, offset by a net decrease in the changes in operating assets and liabilities of $0.4 million.

Net cash provided by investing activities was $39.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2012, primarily related to the maturities and sales of short-term investments of $211.5 million, offset by purchases of available-for-sale securities of $134.6 million, cash used of $27.2 million in our acquisition of Zhuhai Entity and related assets from Flextronics, purchases of intangible assets of $3.2 million and purchases of property and equipment of $6.5 million.

Net cash used in investing activities was $47.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, primarily related to purchases of short-term investments of $195.2 million, purchases of intangible assets of $3.5 million, and purchases of property and equipment of $2.4 million, offset by proceeds from maturities and sales of investments of $151.2 million and proceeds from the sale of assets of $2.2 million.

The primary objectives of our investment activities are to preserve principal and to maintain liquidity while at the same time capturing a market rate of return. To achieve these objectives, we maintain a diversified portfolio of debt securities including municipal bonds and notes, corporate bonds and notes, commercial paper, treasury and agency notes and bills, certificates of deposit and money market funds. We invest excess cash predominantly in high-quality investment grade debt securities with less than two years to maturity. Our marketable securities are classified as available-for-sale and are reported at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income. The fair values for our securities are determined based on quoted market prices as of the valuation date and observable prices for similar assets.

We evaluate our investments periodically for possible other-than-temporary impairment and review factors such as the length of time and extent to which fair value has been below cost basis, the financial condition of the issuer, our intent to hold and whether we will not be required to sell the security before its anticipated recovery, on a more likely than not basis. If declines in the fair value of the investments are determined to be other-than-temporary, we report the credit loss portion of such decline in other income and expense, net, and the remaining noncredit loss portion in accumulated other comprehensive income. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, no impairment charges were recorded.

In August 2007, our Board of Directors authorized a plan to repurchase up to a maximum total of $100.0 million of our outstanding shares of common stock dependent on market conditions, share price and other factors. No expiration has been specified for this plan. Repurchases may take place in the open market or through private transactions. As of June 30, 2012, we have repurchased approximately 645,000 shares of common stock at a total cost of $10.5 million under this plan at an average price of $16.26. As of June 30, 2012, the total amount available for repurchase was $89.5 million. We may continue to execute authorized repurchases from time to time under the plan.

Net cash used in financing activities was $1.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2012 due to a dividend payment of $5.2 million, offset by the issuance of common stock under our employee stock option programs and employee stock purchase plans.

 

31


Table of Contents

Net cash from financing activities was $5.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 due to the issuance of common stock under our employee stock option programs and employee stock purchase plans.

We believe that based on current levels of operations and anticipated growth, our cash from operations, together with cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments currently available, will be sufficient to fund our operations, anticipated DOC growth and acquisition funding needs for at least the next twelve months. Poor financial results, unanticipated expenses, unanticipated acquisitions of technologies or businesses or unanticipated strategic investments could give rise to additional financing requirements sooner than we expect. There can be no assurance that equity or debt financing will be available when needed or, if available, that such financing will be on terms satisfactory to us and not dilutive to our then-current stockholders.

Contractual Cash Obligations

 

     Payments Due by Period  
            Less than      1-3      4-5         
     Total      1 Year      Years      Years      Thereafter  
     (In thousands)  

Operating lease obligations

   $ 9,525       $ 1,767       $ 7,269       $ 489       $ —     

Purchase obligations

     200         200         —           —           —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 9,725       $ 1,967       $ 7,269       $ 489       $ —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

The amounts reflected in the table above for obligations represent aggregate future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable facility and equipment operating leases. In addition, we have agreements containing non-cancelable, nonrefundable payments terms with third parties to purchase services. For our facilities leases, rent expense charged to operations differs from rent paid because of scheduled rent increases. Rent expense is calculated by amortizing total rental payments on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

We have recognized approximately $4.2 million in the liability for unrecognized tax benefits, including accrued interest and penalties. It is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits will decrease by a range of $0.1 million to $0.2 million during 2012 due to a lapse in a foreign statute of limitations relating to various tax incentives. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the timing of the long-term payments or the amount by which the liability will increase or decrease over time. As a result, this amount is not included in the table above.

Refer to Note 13 — Commitments and Contingencies of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional detail.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Related Party Transactions

As of June 30, 2012, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in item 303(a)(4)(ii) of Regulation S-K.

Since 2008, Tessera, Inc. has engaged 3LP Advisors LLC (“3LP”) to assist with the identification and acquisition of patents. In 2011 and 2012, 3LP expanded its advisory services by providing strategic advice to Invensas Corporation and Tessera Intellectual Property Corp. as well. A managing partner of 3LP, Mr. Kevin G. Rivette, is a member of our Board of Directors and has a 33.3% ownership interest in 3LP. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, we recognized operating expense of $0.9 million and $0.3 million, respectively, related to these engagements. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, we recognized operating expense of $1.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively, related to these engagements. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the accounts payable balance due to 3LP was $0.4 million and $2.0 million, respectively.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

During the six months ended June 30, 2012 there were no significant changes in our critical accounting policies. See Note 2 — “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional detail. For a discussion of our critical accounting policies and estimates, see Part II, Item 7 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 17, 2012.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 3 — “Recent Accounting Pronouncements” of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for a full description of recent accounting pronouncements including the respective expected dates of adoption.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

For a discussion of the Company’s market risk, see Item 7A — Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk in our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 17, 2012.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Attached as exhibits to this Form 10-Q are certifications of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, which are required in accordance with Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). This “Controls and Procedures” section includes information concerning the controls and controls evaluation referred to in the certifications and it should be read in conjunction with the certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented.

 

32


Table of Contents

Evaluation of Controls and Procedures. We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed pursuant to the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act as of the end of the period covered by this report (the evaluation date). Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded as of the evaluation date that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that the information relating to the Company, including our consolidated subsidiaries, required to be disclosed in our SEC reports (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and (ii) is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Change in Internal Control over Financial Reporting. There have been no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f), during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

Other than to the extent the proceedings described below have concluded, we cannot predict the outcome of any of the proceedings described below. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm our business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The disclosure in this Item 1 updates the disclosure contained in Part II, Item 1 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2012, filed on May 3, 2012.

Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.)

On October 7, 2005, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and Spansion LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 5,852,326, 6,433,419 and 6,465,893 arising from AMD’s and Spansion LLC’s respective manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell and/or importation of packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. Tessera, Inc. seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorney’s fees, interest and costs. Tessera, Inc. also seeks other relief, including enjoining AMD and Spansion LLC from continuing to infringe these patents.

On December 16, 2005, Tessera, Inc. added Spansion Inc. and Spansion Technology, Inc. to the lawsuit.

On January 31, 2006, Tessera, Inc. added claims for breach of contract and/or patent infringement against new defendants, including Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc., ASE (U.S.) Inc., ChipMOS Technologies, Inc., ChipMOS U.S.A., Inc., Siliconware Precision Industries Co. Ltd and Siliconware USA Inc. (collectively “SPIL”), STMicroelectronics N.V., STMicroelectronics, Inc., STATS ChipPAC Ltd., STATS ChipPAC, Inc. and STATS ChipPAC Ltd. (BVI). The defendants in this action have asserted affirmative defenses to Tessera, Inc.’s claims, and some of them have brought related counterclaims alleging that the Tessera, Inc. patents at issue are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed, and/or that Tessera, Inc. is not the owner of the patents.

These actions were stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-605, including appeals, before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). That stay was lifted on January 4, 2012.

On January 4, 2012 the court set a fact discovery cut-off date of January 18, 2013, a hearing on claim construction and certain dispositive motions on December 5, 2013, and a trial date of April 7, 2014. In July 2012, in connection with the filing of back-royalty reports and the payment of back royalties, Tessera, Inc. by stipulation dismissed its cause of action for breach of contract by ChipMOS Technologies, Inc. and ChipMOS U.S.A. and its cause of action for breach of contract by the SPIL entities.

Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. et. al, Case No. 1-06-CV-076688 (Cal. Super. Ct.)

On December 18, 2006, Tessera Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. (collectively, “Hynix”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Santa Clara, alleging violations of California antitrust law and California common law based on Hynix’s alleged anticompetitive actions in markets related to synchronous DRAM. Tessera Technologies, Inc. also seeks other relief, including enjoining Hynix from continuing their alleged anticompetitive actions. On June 1, 2007, the Superior Court overruled Hynix’s demurrer to Tessera Technologies, Inc.’s Cartwright Act claims against Hynix, thus allowing the claims to proceed. On September 14, 2007, the court overruled another Hynix demurrer to Tessera Technologies, Inc.’s claim for interference with contract and business relations, allowing those claims to proceed as well.

 

33


Table of Contents

In December 2009, the case was formally coordinated with the Rambus v. Micron lawsuit pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. 04-0431105).

On August 17, 2010, the court denied Hynix’s motion for summary adjudication for alleged lack of standing and Hynix’s motion for summary adjudication regarding Tessera Technologies, Inc.’s claims for damages. The court granted Hynix’s motion to dismiss Tessera Technologies, Inc.’s intentional interference claim. At present, no trial date has been set.

Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et. al, Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00692 (N.D. Cal.)

On April 17, 2007, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against Motorola, Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., and ATI Technologies ULC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326 and 6,433,419, arising from, among other things, the defendants’ respective manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. Tessera, Inc. seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorney’s fees, interest and costs. Tessera, Inc. filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2007. The parties agreed that the case would be temporarily stayed pending completion, including appeals, of ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-605 titled In re Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same. On or about June 2, 2009, Motorola, Inc. and Tessera, Inc. entered into a settlement and license agreement regarding certain Tessera, Inc. technology, including the patents at issue in this action. Tessera, Inc.’s request to dismiss Motorola, Inc. from the action was granted by the Court on June 8, 2009.

On January 18, 2012, the stay was lifted and the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 1, 2012, the Court ordered the parties to comply with the scheduling order in Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.).

The defendants answered the amended complaint on March 12, 2012. ATI Technologies ULC and Qualcomm, Inc. also asserted counterclaims alleging that the Tessera, Inc. patents at issue are invalid and not infringed.

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), ITC No. 337-TA-630 (the “‘630 ITC Action”)

On January 3, 2008, following a complaint by Tessera, the ITC commenced an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The respondents named in the complaint were A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., A-Data Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., Centon Electronics, Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., International Products Sourcing Group, Inc. (“IPSG”), Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corp., U.S.A., Peripheral Devices & Products Systems, Inc. d/b/a Patriot Memory (“PDP”), Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., ProMOS Technologies Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. In the Notice of Institution, the ITC stated that it would, among other things, investigate infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627, 5,663,106, and 6,458,681, and consider Tessera, Inc.’s request for issuance of an order excluding from entry into the United States infringing packaged semiconductor components, assemblies thereof, and products containing the same, as well as cease and desist orders directing parties with domestic inventories to desist from activities with respect to infringing products.

With the exception of the TwinMOS respondents, all of the respondents answered Tessera, Inc.’s complaint. On February 19, 2008, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion for an order to show cause why the TwinMOS respondents should not be found to be in default. Tessera, Inc.’s motion was granted. The TwinMOS respondents have not responded to the order to show cause.

On May 15, 2008, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to withdraw U.S. Patent No. 6,458,681 from the ITC action. The respondents did not oppose the motion, and the motion was granted.

On May 21, 2008, Tessera, Inc. settled its dispute with one of the respondents, IPSG, and entered into a settlement and license agreement with IPSG and its parent, Micro Electronics, Inc. As part of the settlement, IPSG and Micro Electronics acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that their accused products infringe those patents. IPSG has been dismissed from the ITC action. On August 14, 2008, Tessera, Inc. settled its dispute with another respondent, PDP, and entered into a settlement and license agreement with PDP. As part of the settlement, PDP, on behalf of itself and its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries, acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that its accused products infringe those patents. On September 22, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granted the motion of A-DATA Technology Co., Ltd. and A-DATA Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. to dismiss those respondents from the ITC action based on their stipulation to a consent order pursuant to which they agreed not to import or sell for importation into the United States any products infringing Tessera, Inc.’s asserted patents.

On August 28, 2009, the ALJ issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond, in which he found that no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 had occurred. The ALJ held, among other things, that the ITC had subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and products, that the importation or sale requirement of Section 337 was satisfied, that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims, that the asserted claims are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness or indefiniteness, that a domestic industry exists, that the respondents failed to prove the affirmative defense of licensing, that respondents except for Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Elpida”) failed to prove the affirmative defense of patent exhaustion for certain accused products but had established it for others, and that Elpida proved that all of its accused products are subject to patent exhaustion. The section addressing the recommended remedy and bond provisionally recommended among other things that, if a violation of Section 337 had been found, Tessera, Inc. had not demonstrated entitlement to a general exclusion order or an order extending to downstream products, and that a bond could have been set at a reasonable royalty rate as determined by Tessera, Inc.’s license agreements.

 

34


Table of Contents

On October 30, 2009, the ITC announced that it would review portions of the Initial Determination. The ITC stated that it would review, among other things, whether the respondents infringed the Tessera, Inc. patents asserted in the action.

On December 29, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination holding, among other things, that it would (1) modify the ALJ’s construction of the claim terms “top layer” and “thereon” recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 (the “106 patent”); (2) reverse the ALJ’s finding that the accused µBGA products do not meet all of the limitations of the asserted claims of the ‘106 patent but affirm his finding that there is no infringement due to patent exhaustion; (3) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the accused wBGA products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘106 patent; (4) affirm the ALJ’s validity and domestic industry analyses pertaining to the asserted claims of the ‘106 patent; (5) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the Direct Loading testing methodology employed by Tessera, Inc.’s expert fails to prove infringement; and (6) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the 1989 Motorola OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 (the “977 patent”) under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but modify a portion of the Initial Determination. A public version of the ITC’s full opinion was issued on February 24, 2010. The ruling by the ITC was appealed, as discussed immediately below. In September 2010, the ‘977 and ‘627 patents expired.

Tessera, Inc. et al., v. International Trade Commission., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case No. 2010-1176

On January 28, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal of the ITC’s Final Determination in the ‘630 ITC Action with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 23, 2011, the Court of Appeals released an opinion affirming the ITC’s Final Determination. On August 30, 2011 Tessera, Inc.’s petition seeking rehearing in this matter was denied.

On December 28, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari on May 29, 2012. The ‘630 ITC Action is now concluded.

Tessera, Inc. v. A-DATA Technology Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 2-07-CV-534 (E.D. Tex.)

On December 7, 2007, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., A-Data Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., Centon Electronics, Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., IPSG, Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corp., U.S.A., PDP, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., ProMOS Technologies Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627, 5,663,106 and 6,458,681, arising from, among other things, the defendants’ respective manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. Tessera, Inc. seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorney’s fees, interest and costs.

The defendants have not yet answered Tessera, Inc.’s complaint, but, with the exception of the TwinMOS defendants and Ramaxel, filed motions to stay the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 pending final resolution of the ‘630 ITC Action. Tessera, Inc. filed a motion seeking to find TwinMOS Technologies U.S.A. Inc. in default, and the clerk entered the default judgment. On February 25, 2008, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the action.

As noted above, on May 21, 2008, Tessera, Inc. settled its dispute with IPSG, and entered into a settlement and license agreement with IPSG and its parent, Micro Electronics, Inc. IPSG was dismissed from the Texas district court action on June 30, 2008. On August 14, 2008, Tessera, Inc. settled its dispute with PDP, and entered into a settlement and license agreement with PDP. On September 9, 2008, PDP was dismissed from the Texas district court action.

Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03667 (N.D. Cal.)

On July 31, 2008, SPIL filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. Tessera, Inc. filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 5, 2008, asserting infringement of the patent at issue by SPIL. On September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and assigned to the same judge. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which investigation was terminated in July 2009.

The Court held a case management conference on January 4, 2012 and lifted the stay on that date. The Court’s January 4, 2012 Minute Order and Case Management Order, described above in connection with Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.), applies to this lawsuit as well.

Advanced Semiconductor Engineering Inc., ASE Test Limited, and ASE (U.S.) Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03726 (N.D. Cal.)

On August 4, 2008, Advanced Semiconductor Engineering Inc., ASE Test Limited, and ASE (U.S.) Inc. (collectively, “ASE”) filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal). Tessera, Inc. filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 1, 2008, asserting infringement of the patent at issue by ASE. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which investigation was terminated in July 2009.

 

35


Table of Contents

The Court held a case management conference on January 4, 2012 and lifted the stay on that date. The Court’s January 4, 2012 Minute Order and Case Management Order, described above in connection with Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.), applies to this lawsuit as well.

On April 2, 2012, Tessera, Inc. dismissed its counterclaim without prejudice. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs in this action dismissed their claims against Tessera, Inc. without prejudice. This proceeding is now concluded.

ChipMOS Technologies Inc., ChipMOS U.S.A. Inc. and ChipMOS Technologies (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03827 (N.D. Cal.)

On August 11, 2008, ChipMOS Technologies Inc., ChipMOS U.S.A. Inc. and ChipMOS Technologies (Bermuda) Ltd. (collectively, “ChipMOS”) filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and assigned to the same judge. Tessera, Inc. filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 12, 2008, asserting infringement of the patent at issue by ChipMOS. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which investigation was terminated in July 2009.

The Court held a case management conference on January 4, 2012 and lifted the stay on that date. The Court’s January 4, 2012 Minute Order and Case Management Order, described above in connection with Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.), applies to this lawsuit as well.

Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-00945 (N.D. Cal.) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case No. 2010-1489

On March 5, 2010, Powertech Technology Inc. (“PTI”) filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On March 22, 2010, the case was related to Siliconware Precision Industries, Co., Ltd v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03667 (N.D. Cal.), and assigned to the judge presiding over that action.

On April 1, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 1, 2010, the judge granted Tessera, Inc.’s motion, and dismissed the action.

On June 29, 2010, PTI filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the June 1, 2010 order dismissing the action. On August 3, 2010, PTI’s motion was denied.

On August 6, 2010, PTI filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 30, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding the case to the district court, determining that there was declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Tessera, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing on November 14, 2011. The Federal Circuit denied Tessera, Inc.’s petition for rehearing on January 5, 2012. On January 19, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its judgment and the case was remanded to the district court. On December 15, 2011, the district court case was related to Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-06121 (N.D. Cal.), discussed below.

The district court held a Case Management Conference on January 4, 2012. The court issued a Minute Order and Case Management Order dated January 4, 2012, setting, among other things, a fact discovery cut-off date of January 18, 2013, and a trial date of April 7, 2014.

On May 16, 2012, the Court entered an order that denied PTI’s motion to strike as to one of Tessera, Inc.’s affirmative defenses, granted PTI’s motion to strike with leave to amend as to several other affirmative defenses asserted by Tessera, Inc., and granted PTI’s motion to strike as to one of Tessera, Inc.’s affirmative defenses, stating that Tessera, Inc. may move to amend to add that defense if circumstances change. Tessera, Inc. filed an amended answer on May 29, 2012.

On June 29, 2012, PTI sent a letter to Tessera, Inc. purporting to terminate the TCC License Agreement as of June 30, 2012.

Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-06121 (N.D. Cal.)

On December 6, 2011, PTI filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PTI’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that PTI has the right to terminate its license with Tessera, Inc. as of December 6, 2011. The complaint also seeks damages for breach of contract in the amount of all royalties paid to Tessera, Inc. since December 7, 2007, purportedly totaling at least $200 million, in addition to an accounting of PTI’s damages, an accounting of Tessera, Inc.’s revenue from PTI, prejudgment interest, costs and fees, and other relief deemed proper. Tessera, Inc. disagrees with the assertions made by PTI in the complaint regarding breach of contract, and believes the likelihood that Tessera, Inc. will be required to return already-paid royalties is remote.

On December 15, 2011, the case was related to Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-00945 (N.D. Cal.), discussed above.

On December 30, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and a special motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Court denied Tessera, Inc.’s motions on May 21, 2012.

The district court held a Case Management Conference on January 4, 2012. The court issued a Minute Order and Case Management Order dated January 4, 2012, setting, among other things, a fact discovery cut-off date of January 18, 2013 and a trial date of April 7, 2014.

 

36


Table of Contents

On June 3, 2012, PTI filed an amended complaint against Tessera, Inc., adding claims for fraud and deceit, patent misuse, and a declaratory judgment interpreting PTI’s license agreement with Tessera, Inc. In addition to the damages sought by PTI’s original complaint, the amended complaint seeks punitive damages for fraud, termination of the Tessera, Inc. license as of September 24, 2010, recovery of all royalties paid on wBGA products since September 24, 2010, and an order “enjoining Tessera, Inc. and directing that Tessera, Inc. may not proceed against any party,… under any Tessera Patent as defined by Exhibit A to the TCC License with all amendments, supplements, and additions through September 28, 2010 until Tessera has first paid PTI all of the royalties paid on wBGA products by PTI since September 24, 2010, presently estimated to be $40 million.” Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss PTI’s claim for patent misuse and to strike portions of PTI’s claim for fraud on June 19, 2012.

On June 29, 2012, PTI sent a letter to Tessera, Inc. purporting to terminate the TCC License Agreement as of June 30, 2012.

Tessera, Inc. v. UTAC (Taiwan) Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-04435 (N.D. Cal.)

On September 30, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against UTAC (Taiwan) Corporation (“UTAC Taiwan”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Tessera, Inc.’s complaint names as defendant UTAC Taiwan and alleges causes of action for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint requests of the Court, among other things, a judicial determination and declaration that UTAC Taiwan remains contractually obligated to pay royalties to Tessera, Inc., an accounting and restitution in an amount to be determined at trial, and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest on damages, costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On March 16, 2011, UTAC Taiwan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 28, 2012, the Court granted UTAC Taiwan’s motion with leave to amend. On April 19, 2012, Tessera, Inc. filed an amended complaint against UTAC Taiwan alleging in further detail causes of action for breach of contract, declaratory relief and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The amended complaint seeks the same relief as the original complaint. On May 22, 2012 UTAC Taiwan filed its answer and counterclaim to Tessera, Inc.’s amended complaint. Tessera, Inc. filed its reply to UTAC’s counterclaim, asserting affirmative defenses, on June 21, 2012.

The Court issued its case management order on June 26, 2012, setting the schedule for the case. The Court set January 31, 2013 for initial fact discovery cutoff, and a last date to file dispositive motions of April 5, 2013.

Tessera, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-838(D. Del.)

On October 1, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against Sony Electronics, Inc., Sony Corporation, and Renesas Electronics Corporation (“Renesas”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On May 23, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed an Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a Second Amended Complaint. On March 6, 2012, Tessera, Inc. filed a Third Amended Complaint, adding allegations against Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and Sony Ericcson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.

Tessera, Inc’s Third Amended Complaint alleges that Sony Electronics, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and Sony Ericcson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Sony”) and Renesas infringed and are currently infringing, including by directly infringing, contributorily infringing and/or inducing infringement, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,885,106 and 6,054,337. The complaint requests of the Court, among other things, a judgment that the defendants willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or committed acts of contributory infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,885,106 and 6,054,337; an order that defendants, their affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further acts of infringement, inducing infringement, and contributory infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,885,106 and 6,054,337; an order for an accounting; and an award of damages that result from the defendants’ infringing acts, interest on damages, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On June 17, 2011, Renesas filed an Answer and Counterclaims to Tessera, Inc.’s Amended Complaint; in its filing, Renesas, among other things, denies infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,885,106 and 6,054,337, alleges invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,885,106 and 6,054,337 and unenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 6,885,106, and alleges that Tessera, Inc. is not entitled to any injunctive relief.

On July 11, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Renesas’s counterclaim of inequitable conduct and to strike Renesas’s affirmative defense of inequitable conduct. On March 30, 2012 the Court denied the motion because it was based on an answer to a now-moot prior complaint. On July 12, 2011, Renesas filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. On March 30, 2012 the Court denied the motion.

On March 19, 2012, Sony filed an Answer to Tessera, Inc.’s Third Amended Complaint and certain Sony parties filed Counterclaims; in its filing, Sony, among other things, denies infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,885,106 and 6,054,337 and alleges invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,885,106 and 6,054,337. Sony also alleges that Tessera, Inc.’s claims are precluded to the extent any allegedly infringing products are supplied directly or indirectly to Sony by an entity or entities having an express or implied license to the patents-in-suit, to the extent any allegedly infringing products are supplied, directly or indirectly, by Sony to an entity or entities having an express or implied license to the patents-in-suit, and/or to the extent Tessera, Inc.’s claims are otherwise precluded by the doctrine of patent exhaustion. On April 12, 2012, Tessera, Inc. filed an Answer to the Sony parties’ Counterclaims, denying that they are entitled to any relief on their Counterclaims.

On April 20, 2012, Renesas filed an Answer and Counterclaims to Tessera, Inc.’s Third Amended Complaint. In its filing, Renesas, among other things, denies infringement of the ‘106 and ‘337 patents, alleges invalidity of the ‘106 and ‘337 patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, alleges invalidity of the ‘106 patent for improper double patenting, alleges unenforceability of the ‘106 patent due to inequitable conduct, and alleges that Tessera, Inc. is not entitled to any injunctive relief. On May 14, 2012, Tessera, Inc. filed an Answer to Renesas’s Counterclaims, denying that Renesas is entitled to any relief on its Counterclaims.

 

37


Table of Contents

Tessera, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, Civil Action No. 11-04399 (N.D. Cal.)

On May 26, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against Sony Corporation (“Sony”) in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County. Tessera, Inc.’s complaint alleges breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims against Sony. Tessera, Inc. contends that Sony failed to abide by the terms of a royalty-bearing technology license agreement between the parties. Tessera, Inc. contends that it commissioned an audit of payments due by Sony under the agreement, delivered an audit report to Sony on February 14, 2011, and that Sony has failed to pay the amounts the auditors found due. Tessera, Inc. requests its damages, plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees. Sony removed the case to federal district court (Northern District of California) on September 2, 2011. On September 8, 2011, Sony filed an answer and defenses to Tessera, Inc.’s complaint, and a counterclaim alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On January 31, 2012, the Court issued a Case Management Order, setting various case deadlines, including scheduling a Preliminary Pretrial Conference for February 22, 2013.

Invensas Corporation v. Renesas Electronics Corporation, Civil Action No. 11-CV-448 (D. Del.)

On May 23, 2011, Invensas filed a complaint against Renesas in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Invensas’s complaint alleges that Renesas has infringed and is currently infringing, including by directly infringing, contributorily infringing and/or inducing infringement, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,777,802, 6,825,554, 6,566,167, and 6,396,140. The complaint requests of the Court, among other things, a judgment that Renesas has willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or committed acts of contributory infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,777,802, 6,825,554, 6,566,167, and 6,396,140; an order that Renesas, its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further acts of infringement, inducing infringement, or contributory infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,777,802, 6,825,554, 6,566,167, and 6,396,140; an order for an accounting; and an award of damages that result from Renesas’s infringing acts, interest on damages, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On October 28, 2011, Renesas filed an Answer and Counterclaims to Invensas’s Complaint. In its filing, Renesas, among other things, denies infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,777,802, 6,825,554, 6,566,167, and 6,396,140, alleges invalidity of these same patents, alleges that Invensas is not entitled to any injunctive relief, alleges that Invensas’s claims for damages are limited or barred, and alleges that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Renesas.

On June 4, 2012, the Court issued a Case Management Order, setting various case deadlines. Pretrial conference and trial dates have not yet been set.

Reexamination Proceedings

On February 9, 2007 and February 15, 2007, SPIL filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) requests for inter partes reexamination relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,433,419 and 6,465,893, and ex parte reexamination relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627 and 5,852,326. On April 19, 2007, the PTO granted the requests for ex parte reexamination. On May 4, 2007, the PTO granted the requests for inter partes reexamination.

The PTO issued a non-final Official Action in connection with the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893 initially rejecting a number of patent claims on May 4, 2007. The PTO issued a non-final Official Action in connection with the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 initially rejecting a number of the patent claims on June 5, 2007, to which a response was filed by Tessera, Inc. on August 6, 2007. On March 14, 2007, SPIL filed a second request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977. The PTO granted this request on June 12, 2007.

On May 21, 2007, Amkor filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,861,666. On July 26, 2007, the PTO granted this request. On June 11, 2007, Amkor filed additional requests for reexamination regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977 and 6,133,627. The PTO granted the request for reexamination as to the 5,679,977 patent on August 15, 2007, and the PTO granted the requests for reexamination as to the 6,133,627 patent on August 13, 2007.

A first official action rejecting some claims and confirming other claims as patentable was mailed February 21, 2008 in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,852,326. A second office action rejecting some claims and confirming other claims as patentable was mailed on August 1, 2008. A third, final official action rejecting all claims under reexamination was mailed on March 6, 2009. An advisory action was mailed by the PTO on June 22, 2009, maintaining all of the rejections presented in the Action of March 6, 2009. On July 1, 2009, Tessera, Inc. filed a petition to withdraw the finality of the official action mailed on March 6, 2009. The PTO issued a decision on July 10, 2009 dismissing Tessera, Inc.’s petition of July 1, 2009. Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on August 6, 2009, and timely filed an appeal brief on October 13, 2009. The PTO’s Answer to Tessera, Inc.’s appeal brief was mailed on May 28, 2010. On November 16, 2010, the PTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, finding the original claims subject to reexamination to be patentable. The Reexamination Certificate issued on March 1, 2011, confirming that all of the original claims subject to reexamination are patentable and terminating the reexamination proceeding.

A first official action was mailed February 22, 2008 in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,861,666 rejecting those claims which were subject to reexamination. Such official action was superseded by a substantively identical action mailed March 11, 2008 restarting the period for response. A second official action was mailed on September 30, 2008. On March 13, 2009, the PTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, after which a Supplemental Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Corrected Status) was issued on April 2, 2009, finding certain amended and newly presented claims to be patentable. The Reexamination Certificate issued on June 30, 2009.

On February 12, 2008, the PTO issued decisions merging the three reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 with one another and also merging the two reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 with one another.

 

38


Table of Contents

A first official action was issued on February 29, 2008 in the merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627, rejecting those claims subject to reexamination. On August 10, 2008, the PTO issued a second official action, to which Tessera, Inc. filed a Request to Vacate the Second Official Action on August 26, 2008 on procedural grounds. As a result, on September 11, 2008, the PTO issued a third non-final official action. A first official action was issued on March 28, 2008 in the merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977, rejecting those claims subject to reexamination. On October 10, 2008, the PTO issued a second non-final official action. On October 1, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action. On January 14, 2010, the PTO issued an Advisory Action indicating that Tessera, Inc.’s response of December 1, 2009 failed to overcome all of the rejections set forth in the final official action mailed October 1, 2009. Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2010, and timely filed an appeal brief on April 5, 2010. The PTO’s Answer to Tessera, Inc.’s appeal brief withdrew certain rejections previously applied to the claims, but continued to apply other rejections as to all claims under reexamination. On December 14, 2010, the PTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, finding the original claims subject to reexamination to be patentable and canceling the newly presented claims. The Reexamination Certificate issued on March 15, 2011, confirming that all of the original claims subject to reexamination are patentable and terminating the reexamination proceeding.

On February 19, 2008, the PTO issued a second official action maintaining the rejections in U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419. On March 10, 2008, Tessera, Inc. filed a petition to vacate the second official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 on the ground that the second official action did not properly take account of an amendment to the specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419. On June 3, 2008, Tessera, Inc. filed a renewed petition to vacate the inter partes reexamination on the ground that the request for such reexamination did not name the real party in interest. The petition was denied on September 10, 2008. On June 13, 2008, the PTO issued a third official action in the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 which was denominated as an action closing prosecution. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on September 17, 2008, and Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2008. On November 3, 2008, the PTO issued a decision withdrawing the Right of Appeal Notice and returning the case to the examiner for issuance of a further action. On December 23, 2008, the PTO issued a non-final official action, also denominated as an action closing prosecution. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on June 19, 2009. On July 1, 2009, Tessera, Inc. filed a petition to withdraw the Right of Appeal Notice. Having not yet received a decision on the petition of July 1, 2009, Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on July 20, 2009. On July 30, 2009, the PTO issued a decision dismissing Tessera, Inc.’s petition of July 1, 2009. Tessera, Inc. timely filed an appeal brief on October 5, 2009. The PTO’s Answer to Tessera, Inc.’s appeal brief was mailed on July 13, 2010. On January 17, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a petition to reopen prosecution due to new developments after the close of briefing in the appeal which include actions by the PTO in other reexaminations and a new holding by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an appeal from a decision of the International Trade Commission concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419. On February 25, 2011, the PTO issued a decision granting in part Tessera, Inc.’s petition to the extent that prosecution of the reexamination proceedings in connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 was reopened. On March 11, 2011, the PTO issued a fourth official action in the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 which was denominated an action closing prosecution. The official action of March 11, 2011 confirmed that all of the claims subject to reexamination are patentable. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on May 3, 2011, and SPIL filed a Notice of Appeal on June 2, 2011. On November 15, 2011, the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer maintaining all positions set forth in the Right of Appeal Notice issued on May 3, 2011. An oral hearing in the appeal is scheduled for September 19, 2012 at the PTO in Alexandria, VA.

On February 15, 2008, the PTO issued a second official action, also denominated as an action closing prosecution, maintaining the rejections of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893. On March 28, 2008, Tessera, Inc. filed a petition to vacate the second official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893 on the ground that the second official action did not properly take account of an amendment to the specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893. On June 9, 2008, Tessera, Inc. filed a renewed petition to vacate the inter partes reexamination on the ground that the request for such reexamination did not name the real party in interest, which petition was denied on September 10, 2008. On August 21, 2008, a non-final office action was issued. On February 5, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official action, also denominated as the second action closing prosecution. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on June 22, 2009. Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on July 22, 2009. On November 10, 2010, the PTO issued an action closing prosecution confirming certain of the original claims subject to reexamination as patentable and rejecting other claims subject to reexamination. A second Right of Appeal Notice was issued on February 18, 2011. Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on March 3, 2011, and SPIL filed a Notice of Cross Appeal on March 7, 2011. On August 22, 2011, the examiner mailed an examiner’s answer maintaining all positions set forth in the Right of Appeal Notice issued on February 18, 2011. An oral hearing in the appeal is scheduled for September 19, 2012 at the PTO in Alexandria, VA.

On March 26, 2008, a request for a third ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 patent was filed, ostensibly by PowerChip Semiconductor Corporation (“Powerchip”). On May 2, 2008, the PTO granted this request. On November 18, 2008, the PTO issued a first non-final official action. On February 13, 2009, the PTO issued an order merging all of the reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627. On March 17, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official action rejecting all claims under reexamination. On July 14, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action which held certain claims patentable but rejected other claims. On December 1, 2009, the PTO issued an Advisory Action indicating that Tessera, Inc.’s response of August 14, 2009 failed to overcome all of the rejections set forth in the final official action mailed July 14, 2009. Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on December 14, 2009. The PTO’s Answer to Tessera, Inc.’s appeal brief was mailed on May 28, 2010. On November 16, 2010, the PTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, finding the original claims subject to reexamination to be patentable and canceling the newly presented claims. The Reexamination Certificate issued on March 1, 2011, confirming that all of the original claims subject to reexamination are patentable and terminating the reexamination proceeding.

On April 2, 2008, a request for inter partes reexamination of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,458,681 was filed, ostensibly by Powerchip. On June 6, 2008, the PTO granted this request and issued an official action rejecting certain claims of the ‘681 patent. On September 21, 2009, the PTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution rejecting certain claims and holding one claim patentable. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on February 22, 2010. On July 20, 2010, the PTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate, canceling the claims subject to reexamination. The reexamination certificate issued on October 26, 2010. On March 22, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed an application for reissue of the ‘681 patent to further address the matters raised during the reexamination proceedings and to pursue additional claims. On May 22, 2012, the reissue application issued as U.S. Patent No. RE43,404, which included certain amended claims from the ‘681 patent and new claims, and which canceled other claims from the ‘681 patent.

 

39


Table of Contents

On July 18, 2008, a request for ex parte reexamination of Tessera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 was filed, ostensibly by Powerchip. On September 4, 2008, the PTO granted the request for reexamination. On April 10, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official action rejecting all claims under reexamination. On November 19, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action finding certain claims patentable and rejecting other claims. On April 7, 2010, the PTO issued a non-final official action withdrawing the rejections previously made but rejecting all claims under reexamination on new grounds. On October 18, 2010, the PTO issued a new final official action. An advisory action was mailed by the PTO on March 17, 2011, finding certain claims patentable and maintaining the remainder of the rejections presented in the October 18, 2010 action. Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on April 18, 2011. On July 6, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a petition with the PTO to allow a first reissue application filed with the claims held to be patentable in the present reexamination proceeding, and to merge a second reissue application filed with the claims involved the present reexamination proceeding with the present proceeding. On January 18, 2012, the PTO issued a decision dismissing Tessera, Inc.’s July 6, 2011 petition and suspending the first and second reissue applications pending conclusion of the ex parte reexamination proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. The PTO’s Answer to Tessera, Inc.’s appeal brief was mailed on February 17, 2012. On July 9, 2012, Tessera, Inc. filed a request for the Board to dismiss the appeal of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 and to return the case to the Examiner for issuance of a Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (“NIIRC”) with the presently allowed claims as set forth in the advisory action mailed March 17, 2011. On July 17, 2012, the Board dismissed the appeal and returned the case to the Examiner for further action. On July 30, 2012, the PTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, holding certain claims patentable and canceling certain other claims.

On June 17, 2011, a request for inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,885,106 was filed by Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. On September 8, 2011, the PTO granted the request for reexamination. On September 20, 2011, the PTO issued a non-final official action rejecting certain claims and confirming certain claims. Tessera, Inc. filed a Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 to Withdraw the Pending Office Action and Ultra Vires Requirement for Information (Rule 105 Requirement) on November 11, 2011. Tessera, Inc. then filed a response to the September 20, 2011, non-final official action on December 20, 2011. Sony filed responsive comments on January 19, 2012 with a Petition to waive page limits. The PTO dismissed Tessera, Inc.’s Rule 181 Petition as moot because the PTO accepted Tessera, Inc.’s arguments in the Response regarding the Rule 105 requirement. The PTO found Tessera, Inc.’s response non-compliant for exceeding the page limits in a Notice mailed February 22, 2012. Tessera Inc. filed a Response to the Notice and a Petition to waive page limits March 7, 2012. The PTO granted Tessera Inc.’s and Sony’s separate petitions to waive page limits on April 10, 2012. The PTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution (non-final) on April 17, 2012, which rejected certain claims and confirmed certain claims. Tessera, Inc. filed a Petition to Strike Sony’s Comments on April 23, 2012. Sony opposed on May 1, 2012 by withdrawing from the record the challenged proposed rejections. The PTO denied Tessera, Inc.’s Petition on May 25, 2012 based on Sony’s withdrawal. Tessera, Inc. filed a Response to the Action Closing Prosecution on June 18, 2012. Sony’s Comments were filed on July 18, 2012.

On or about January 3, 2006, Koninklijke Phillips Electronics N.V. and Philips Semiconductors B.V. (“Philips”), MICRON Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (“Micron GmbH”), Infineon and STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) filed oppositions to Tessera, Inc.’s European Patent No. EP1111672 (the “EP672 Patent”) before the European Patent Office (the “EPO”). Micron GmbH and Infineon withdrew their oppositions on July 24, 2006 and November 4, 2006, respectively. On December 4, 2006, Phillips withdrew its opposition. On September 16, 2008, the EPO Opposition Division issued a “Summons to attend oral proceedings” which states “preliminary” opinions unfavorable to the claims of the EP672 Patent. An oral hearing before the EPO Opposition Division, was held on June 4, 2009, resulting in a decision to revoke the EP672 Patent. Tessera, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal on August 24, 2009.

The following Tessera, Inc. patents expired on September 24, 2010: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,433,419, 6,465,893, 5,679,977, 6,133,627 and 5,852,326. In addition, on September 24, 2011, the EP672 Patent expired. The reexamination proceedings concerning U.S. Patents 6,433,419 and 6,465,893 will continue after expiration. As set forth above, the reexamination proceedings concerning U.S. Patents 5,679,977, 6,133,627 and 5,852,326 have terminated with issuance of reexamination certificates confirming patentability of the original claims subject to reexamination.

The patents that are subject to the above-described reexamination proceedings include some of the key patents in Tessera, Inc.’s portfolio, and claims that are treated in the current official actions are being asserted in certain of Tessera, Inc.’s various litigations. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. An adverse decision could also significantly affect Tessera, Inc.’s ongoing litigations, as described herein, in which patents are being asserted, which in turn could significantly harm the Company’s business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Insolvency Proceedings over the Estate of Qimonda AG, Local Court of Munich, Insolvency Court, File No. 1542 IN 209/09

On January 23, 2009, Qimonda AG filed a bankruptcy petition with the Local Court of Munich, Insolvency Court. On April 1, 2009, the Court opened insolvency proceedings over the estate of Qimonda AG and appointed Rechtsanwalt Dr. Michael Jaffé as the insolvency administrator.

On or about May 27, 2009, Dr. Jaffé chose non-performance of Tessera, Inc.’s license agreement with Qimonda AG under Section 103 of the German Insolvency Code and purported to terminate the license agreement. On June 12, 2009, Tessera, Inc. filed a Proof of Claim in the Qimonda AG bankruptcy alleging amounts due of approximately 15.7 million Euros. On December 2, 2009, Dr. Jaffé preliminarily contested Tessera, Inc.’s claim in full. On November 15, 2010, Dr. Jaffé acknowledged approximately 7.8 million Euros of Tessera, Inc.’s claim. The amount has been registered with the list of creditors’ claims at the Local Court of Munich, Insolvency Court. However, both the date and the final amount of recovery for unsecured debtors remain uncertain.

 

40


Table of Contents

In re Spansion, LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case No. 09-1069; In re Spansion, Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case No. 09-10690; In re Spansion Technology LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case No. 09-10691

On or about March 1, 2009, Spansion LLC, Spansion, Inc. and Spansion Technology LLC (collectively, “Spansion”) initiated bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On or about July 17, 2009, Tessera, Inc. filed a Proof of Claim in each of the above Spansion bankruptcy proceedings alleging amounts due of not less than $25 million.

On January 12, 2010, Spansion filed a motion to determine and estimate the amount of Tessera, Inc.’s administrative expense claim, for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of Spansion’s Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. Tessera, Inc.’s administrative expense claim relates to the damages that Spansion would owe for the post-petition (post-March 1, 2009) infringement of certain Tessera, Inc. patents. On January 26, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed its objection to Spansion’s Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, asserting that the plan was not feasible and that it failed to provide for the payout of administrative expense claims on the plan effective date.

On January 29, 2010, the court held a hearing on Spansion’s motion. On February 9, 2010, the Court announced its ruling that a reasonable royalty rate for Spansion products sold in the United States during the administrative period was 56.7 cents per unit. As later memorialized in its April 6, 2010 Order, the Court also estimated, for purposes of plan confirmation, Tessera, Inc.’s administrative expense claim at $4,232,986.13 for the period from March 1, 2009 to July 20, 2009.

On February 5, 2010, Spansion filed a motion for an order estimating the amount of “certain contingent, unliquidated, duplicative and/or overstated claims,” including Tessera, Inc.’s pre-petition claims, for purposes of establishing class 5 plan distribution reserves. Tessera, Inc. filed its objection to the estimation motion on February 17, 2010 and on that same date submitted three Amended Proofs of Claim, each for not less than $219 million, based in part on the Court’s 56.7 cents per unit royalty rate.

On February 23, 2010, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion for allowance and payment of its administrative expense claim. The motion requested that the claim be allowed at $96,765,070, for the period from March 1, 2009 to January 29, 2010, plus all after-arising damages, with interest. Spansion and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an objection to this motion on March 16, 2010.

On March 23, 2010, the Court entered an order allowing Tessera, Inc. to file its three Amended Proofs of Claim. On March 25, 2010, the parties reached a stipulation that the Court would estimate Tessera, Inc.’s pre-petition claim in the amount of $130 million for purposes of establishing class 5 plan distribution reserves.

On April 1, 2010, the Court issued an Order and Opinion on Confirmation. The Order denied Spansion’s request for plan confirmation due in part to Spansion’s failure to set aside a reserve for Tessera, Inc.’s administrative expense claim. On April 7, 2010, Spansion filed an amended plan that included a reserve for Tessera, Inc.’s administrative expense claim in the amount of $4,232,986.13. On April 16, 2010, the Court issued its finding of facts, conclusions of law, and Order confirming the plan as amended. Spansion’s bankruptcy plan became effective on May 10, 2010.

In accordance with the parties’ prior stipulation, on May 26, 2010, the Court issued an Order estimating Tessera, Inc.’s pre-petition claims in the amount of $130 million. In a June 15, 2010 Order, the Court disallowed two of Tessera, Inc.’s Amended Proofs of Claim, leaving one proof of claim of not less than $219 million. On July 6, 2010, Spansion filed an objection to the remaining proof of claim.

On November 2, 2010, the remaining issues regarding Tessera, Inc.’s claims were transferred to the Northern District of California as Case No. 4:10-cv-04954-CW, which was then related to the previously pending case, Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04063-CW. Thus, the proceedings in the Northern District of California will address the objections to Tessera, Inc.’s pre-petition claim, which had been estimated for purposes of class 5 plan distribution reserves at $130 million. These proceedings will also address Tessera, Inc.’s administrative expense claim, which had been estimated for purposes of claim confirmation at $4,232,986.13 for the period from March 1, 2009 to July 20, 2009.

The Court in the Northern District of California held a case management conference on January 4, 2012 and lifted its stay on that date. The Court’s January 4, 2012 Minute Order and Case Management Order, described above in connection with Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.), applies to this lawsuit as well.

Insolvency Proceedings over the Estate of Elpida, Japan, Tokyo District Court, Eighth Civil Division

On March 23, 2012, Elpida Memory, Inc. filed a corporate reorganization proceeding with the Tokyo District Court, Eighth Civil Division. A Delaware Bankruptcy Court entered an order recognizing this foreign bankruptcy proceeding on April 24, 2012 and this order, which effected a limited stay of proceedings against Elpida, its United States subsidiary and down-stream customers, was filed with the Texas A-DATA court on May 3, 2012. On May 20, 2012, Tessera, Inc. timely filed a Proof of Claim in the Japanese proceeding. On July 9, 2012 the insolvency administrator served a Statement of Disapproval of the Proof of Claim. On or before August 17, 2012, Tessera, Inc. may file a complaint with the Tokyo District Court to prove its claim, notwithstanding the Statement of Disapproval. The current deadline for Elpida to file its corporate reorganization plan is August 21, 2012, and so the amount of potential recoveries for claims against Elpida remains unknown.

Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc. (ICC Case No. 16531/VRO)

On or about August 7, 2009, Amkor filed a request for arbitration against Tessera, Inc. before the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). The request, among other things, accused Tessera, Inc. of interference with Amkor’s existing and prospective business relationships, of improperly claiming that Amkor had breached the parties’ license agreement, and of improperly threatening to terminate that agreement. Amkor seeks relief including judgment that it is in compliance with the license agreement and is a licensee in good standing under the license agreement; judgment that the license agreement remains in effect and no breach alleged by Tessera, Inc. against Amkor has terminated the license agreement; judgment that Amkor’s method of calculating royalties on a going-forward basis complies with Amkor’s obligations under the license agreement; an injunction against Tessera, Inc. forbidding it from making statements to Amkor’s customers and potential customers inconsistent with the

 

41


Table of Contents

above; an injunction against Tessera, Inc. forbidding it from attempting to terminate the license agreement or threatening to terminate the license agreement during the arbitration or based on events occurring prior to the conclusion of the arbitration; a damage award against Tessera, Inc. for attorneys’ fees and costs to Amkor associated with this arbitration, together with all other damages resulting from Tessera, Inc.’s alleged acts of tortious interference and punitive damages; all other relief recoverable under the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC; such other and further relief as the arbitrators deem just and proper.

On November 2, 2009, Tessera, Inc. filed its answer to the request, including counterclaims. The answer, among other things, denies Amkor’s accusations and accuses Amkor of failing to pay Tessera, Inc. full royalties on products Amkor sold to Qualcomm and potentially others that are subject to ITC injunctions, of refusing to allow Tessera, Inc. to audit in accordance with the parties’ license agreement, of interference with Tessera, Inc.’s prospective economic relationships, of failing to pay royalties or full royalties on products that infringe various U.S. and foreign patents owned by Tessera, Inc., and of violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Tessera, Inc. seeks relief including judgment that the license agreement has been breached and that Tessera, Inc. is entitled to terminate the license agreement; judgment that products on which Amkor has not paid the full contractual royalties to Tessera, Inc. are not licensed under Tessera, Inc.’s patents; damages for Amkor’s breaches of the license agreement; damages, including punitive damages, for Amkor’s interference with Tessera, Inc.’s prospective business relationships; interest on any damages; attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Tessera, Inc.; denial of Amkor’s claims against Tessera, Inc.; an order that awards Tessera, Inc. all other relief recoverable under the rules of Arbitration of the ICC; and an order for such other and further relief as the arbitrators deem just and proper.

On January 15, 2010, Amkor filed its response to Tessera, Inc.’s counterclaims, along with new counterclaims by Amkor and a motion for priority consideration of certain issues. In its responsive pleading, Amkor denied Tessera, Inc.’s counterclaims, arguing in part that Tessera, Inc.’s counterclaims for royalties are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and sought a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and that its packages are not made under any of the patents asserted in Tessera, Inc.’s answer and that the patents are invalid and unenforceable. Amkor also claimed a credit for royalties it alleges it overpaid Tessera, Inc.

On May 14, 2010, Amkor filed a motion to bar Tessera, Inc.’s counterclaims for royalties before December 1, 2008, as res judicata. The Tribunal ruled on Amkor’s motion on November 15, 2010, granting Amkor’s motion as to Tessera, Inc.’s counterclaims for royalties on some products and timeframes at issue, and denying the motion as to other products and timeframes.

On October 20, 2010, Amkor paid Tessera, Inc. approximately $2.3 million to address a portion of the past royalties claimed by Tessera, Inc.

On December 9 and December 10, 2010, the Tribunal held a two-day trial on certain issues in the arbitration, including (1) royalties payable on a going-forward basis for the patents addressed in the previous arbitration, including but not limited to royalties applicable to packages assembled for Qualcomm, Inc.; (2) Tessera, Inc.’s counterclaim for breach of the audit provision of the license agreement; (3) Tessera, Inc.’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, to the extent that it is based on issues (1) and (2) above; and (4) the status of Tessera, Inc.’s latest request to terminate the license agreement, to the extent that it is based on issues (1), (2), and (3) above.

On February 17, 2011, Tessera, Inc. sent Amkor an official notice of termination of Amkor’s license agreement with Tessera, Inc. Amkor has disputed Tessera, Inc.’s right to terminate the license agreement.

On March 11, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion seeking, among other things, to strike Amkor’s defense of invalidity for the time period before Amkor challenged the validity of the asserted patents. The Tribunal granted Tessera, Inc.’s motion on July 1, 2011, striking (1) Amkor’s invalidity and unenforceability defenses to the payment of royalties that accrued under the asserted U.S. patents before those defenses were raised, and (2) Amkor’s invalidity defenses to the payment of royalties due under the asserted foreign patents regardless of when the royalties accrued.

On June 1, 2011, the Tribunal issued an order construing certain claims of the patents-in-suit.

On July 11, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Partial Award on certain issues tried to the Tribunal on December 9-10, 2010. The Tribunal (1) granted Tessera, Inc.’s request for additional royalties due for the patents addressed in the previous arbitration, in an amount to be determined later, but denied Tessera, Inc.’s claim for additional royalties owing from certain packages assembled for customers including Qualcomm, Inc., (2) found that Amkor was in breach of the License Agreement as to its royalty obligations and the audit provision of the license agreement, and (3) deferred a final decision on certain grounds for termination of the license agreement until the second phase of this arbitration has concluded.

On August 15, 2011, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Tribunal entered an Order dismissing with prejudice the parties’ respective tortious interference claims.

A seven-day hearing on the remaining issues was held from August 15, 2011 to August 21, 2011.

On October 17, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Partial Award on certain issues tried to the Tribunal on December 9-10, 2010. The Tribunal awarded Tessera, Inc. approximately $0.5 million associated with additional royalties due for the patents addressed in the previous arbitration.

On July 6, 2012, the Tribunal issued a partial award. Among other things, the partial award further interpreted the parties’ agreement, found that certain packages were neither licensed nor royalty bearing under the agreement, found that one of the patents at issue in the arbitration was not valid, that seven of the asserted patents were not infringed by the accused Amkor products, that a subset of accused Amkor products did not infringe two additional asserted patents, and that royalties are due under seven of the patents at issue in the arbitration for certain TCC and related integrated circuit packages. In addition, the Tribunal awarded interest to Tessera, Inc., rejected Amkor’s contention that it is in compliance with the license agreement and that it is a licensee in good standing, rejected Amkor’s claim that Tessera, Inc.’s counterclaims were barred by doctrines of laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands or the statute of limitations, rejected Amkor’s request to enjoin Tessera, Inc. from behavior outside the

 

42


Table of Contents

arbitral forum, and agreed that Tessera, Inc. was entitled to and did terminate the license agreement as of February 17, 2011. The Tribunal also found that the parties should bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. The partial award contains additional rulings not summarized here. Further proceedings are expected to be undertaken to ascertain, among other things, the amount due to Tessera, Inc. consistent with the partial award. Tessera, Inc. cannot predict the timing of the damage award(s) that may result.

On July 9, 2012, the Tribunal issued a procedural order noting that Tessera, Inc. previously reserved its claims as to certain patents which have not yet been addressed by the Tribunal, and asking that Tessera, Inc. inform Amkor and the Tribunal within 10 days as to whether it intends to pursue any or all of those reserved claims in this proceeding or whether it intends to dismiss those claims. Tessera, Inc. has notified the Tribunal that it intends to proceed with claims it reserved under three of the previously identified patents.

Tessera, Inc. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. (ICC Case No. 17976/VRO)

On May 26, 2011, Tessera, Inc. filed an additional request for arbitration against Amkor before the ICC. The request, among other things, alleges that Amkor failed to make a required election under the License Agreement, and that Amkor failed to comply with obligations regarding “Licensee Improvements” under the License Agreement. Tessera, Inc. seeks relief including a declaration that Amkor breached the License Agreement; that the License Agreement was properly terminated on this basis; a declaration that Amkor’s rights to Tessera, Inc.’s patents expired on May 9, 2011 or earlier; the identification and transfer of all Licensee Improvements to Tessera, Inc.; an injunction preventing Amkor from using Licensee Improvements, to the extent it has not complied with the License Agreement; damages and/or disgorgement of profits for Amkor’s failure to comply with the License Agreement; attorneys’ fees, costs and exemplary damages; and an order for such other and further relief as the Tribunal deems just and proper. In its request, Tessera, Inc. estimated the amount in dispute to be in excess of $1 million.

On July 26, 2011, Amkor filed its response to the request, which, among other things, denies Tessera, Inc.’s allegations, raises various purported defenses, asserts that Tessera, Inc.’s requests for relief should be denied, contends that Tessera, Inc. has breached the License Agreement, argues that Amkor is entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs and exemplary damages relating to the allegations set forth in Tessera, Inc.’s request, and asks that the Tribunal order Tessera, Inc. to pay such further relief to Amkor as the Tribunal deems appropriate. Tessera, Inc. filed an answer denying the allegations in Amkor’s response on September 1, 2011.

On July 2, 2012, the ICC informed the parties that it had extended the time limit for establishing the terms of reference in this matter until August 31, 2012.

Tessera, Inc. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00852-SLR (D. Del.)

On July 6, 2012, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against Amkor Technology, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Tessera, Inc.’s complaint alleges that Amkor has infringed and is currently infringing, including by directly infringing, contributorily infringing and/or inducing infringement of, U.S. Patent No. 6,046,076 (the “’076 Patent”). The complaint requests of the Court, among other things, a judgment that Amkor has infringed or will infringe, induce others to infringe, and/or commit acts of contributory infringement of one or more claims of the ’076 Patent; an order that Amkor, its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further acts of infringement, inducing infringement, or contributory infringement of the ‘076 Patent; an order that the infringement be adjudged willful and that the damages be increased under 35 U.S.C § 284 to three times the amount found or measured; an order for an accounting; and an award of damages that result from Amkor’s infringing acts, interest on damages, attorneys’ fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The accused products include, for example and without limitation, infringing vacuum encapsulated and molded underfill semiconductor packages manufactured by Amkor that are not licensed based on the July 5, 2012 arbitration award in Amkor Technology, Inc., v. Tessera, Inc., 16 531/VRO.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our operations and financial results are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including those described below, that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and the trading price of our common stock.

From time to time we enter into license agreements that have fixed expiration dates and if, upon expiration or termination, we are unable to renew or relicense such license agreements on terms favorable to us, our results of operations could be harmed.

From time to time we enter into license agreements that have fixed expiration dates. Upon expiration of such agreements we need to renew or replace these agreements in order to maintain our revenue base. For example, our license agreement with Micron Technology, Inc. expired in May 2012. Micron Technology, Inc. accounted for 10% or more of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011 and has since announced that it intends to acquire Elpida Memory Inc., a leading dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”) manufacturer. If we fail to replace the expired Micron Technology, Inc. license agreement, it will have a negative impact on our revenue and our results of operations.

Furthermore, we may not be able to continue licensing customers on terms favorable to us, under the existing terms or at all, which would harm our results of operations. While we have expanded our licensable technology portfolio through internal development and patents purchased from third parties, there is no guarantee that these measures will lead to continued royalties. If we fail to continue to do business with our current licensees, our business would be materially adversely affected.

The success of our licensing business is dependent on the quality of our patent portfolios and our ability to create and implement new technologies or expand our licensable technology portfolio through acquisitions.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from licenses and royalties. The success of our licensing business depends on our ability to continue to acquire and develop high quality patent portfolios. We devote significant resources to sourcing and acquiring patent portfolios and to

 

43


Table of Contents

developing new technologies to address the evolving needs of the semiconductor and the consumer and communication electronics industries and we must continue to do so in the future to remain competitive. The competition for acquiring high quality patent portfolios is intense and there is no assurance that we can continue to acquire such patent portfolios on favorable terms. Moreover, developments in our technologies are inherently complex, and require long development cycles and a substantial investment before we can determine their commercial viability. We may not be able to develop and market new or improved technologies in a timely or commercially acceptable fashion. Furthermore, our acquired and developed patents will expire in the future. Our current U.S. issued patents expire at various times from 2012 through 2030. We need to develop or acquire successful innovations and obtain revenue-generating patents on those innovations before our current patents expire, and our failure to do so would significantly harm our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We are currently involved in litigation and administrative proceedings involving some of our key patents; any invalidation or limitation of the scope of our key patents could significantly harm our business.

As more fully described in Part II, Item 1 — Legal Proceedings, we are currently involved in litigation involving some of our patents. The parties in these legal actions have challenged the validity, scope, enforceability and ownership of our patents. In addition, reexamination requests have been filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) with respect to patent claims at issue in one or more of our litigation proceedings, and oppositions have been filed against us with respect to our patents in the European Patent Office. Under a reexamination proceeding and upon completion of the proceeding, the PTO may leave a patent in its present form, narrow the scope of the patent or cancel some or all of the claims of the patent. The PTO issued several Official Actions rejecting or maintaining earlier rejections of many of the claims in some of our patents. We are currently asserting these patents and patent claims in litigation and administrative proceedings. If the PTO’s adverse rulings are upheld on appeal and some or all of the claims of the patents that are subject to reexamination are canceled, our business may be significantly harmed. In addition, counterparties to our litigation and administrative proceedings may seek and obtain orders to stay these proceedings based on rejections of claims in the PTO reexaminations, and other courts or tribunals reviewing our legal actions could make findings adverse to our interests, even if the PTO actions are not final.

We cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings or the myriad procedural and substantive motions in these proceedings. If there is an adverse ruling in any legal or administrative proceeding relating to the infringement, validity, enforceability or ownership of any of our patents, or if a court or an administrative body such as the PTO limits the scope of the claims of any of our patents, we could be prevented from enforcing or earning future revenues from those patents, and the likelihood that customers will take new licenses and that current licensees will continue to agree to pay under their existing licenses could be significantly reduced. The resulting reduction in license fees and royalties could significantly harm our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, or the trading price of our common stock.

Furthermore, regardless of the merits of any claim, the continued maintenance of these legal and administrative proceedings may result in substantial legal expenses and diverts our management’s time and attention away from our other business operations, which could significantly harm our business. Our enforcement proceedings historically have been protracted and complex. The time to resolution and complexity of our litigations, their disproportionate importance to our business compared to other companies, the propensity for delay in patent litigations, and the potential that we may lose particular motions as well as the overall litigations all could cause significant volatility in our stock price and materially adversely affect our business and consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

We expect to continue to be involved in material legal proceedings in the future to enforce or protect our intellectual property rights, including material litigation with existing licensees or strategic partners, which could harm either of our business segments, or both.

From time to time, our efforts to obtain a reasonable royalty through our sales effort does not result in the prospective customer agreeing to license our patents. In those cases, we generally will use litigation in order to secure payment for past infringement and as means of securing future royalties for the use of our patents in the customer’s products. We also litigate to enforce our other intellectual property rights, to enforce the terms of our license agreements, to protect our trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others and to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Our current legal actions, as described in Part II, Item 1 – Legal Proceedings, are examples of disputes and litigation that impact our business. We expect to be involved in similar legal proceedings in the future, including proceedings to ensure proper and full payment of royalties by licensees under the terms of their license agreements.

These existing and any future legal actions may harm either or both of our business segments, and may hinder our ability to independently optimize each of them. For example, they could cause an existing licensee or strategic partner to cease making royalty or other payments to us, or to challenge the validity and enforceability of our patents or the scope of our license agreements, and could significantly damage our relationship with such licensee or strategic partner and, as a result, prevent the adoption of our other Intellectual Property or DigitalOptics technologies by such licensee or strategic partner. Litigation could also severely disrupt or shut down the business operations of our licensees or strategic partners, which in turn would significantly harm our ongoing relations with them and cause us to lose royalty revenues. Moreover, the timing and results of any of our legal proceedings are not predictable and may vary in any individual proceeding.

From time to time we identify products that we believe to infringe our patents. We seek to license the manufacturer of those products but often the manufacturer is unwilling to enter into a license agreement and then we may elect to enforce our patent rights against those products. Litigation stemming from these or other disputes could also harm our relationships with other licensees or our ability to gain new customers, who may postpone licensing decisions pending the outcome of the litigation or dispute, or who may, as a result of such litigation, choose not to adopt our technologies. In addition, these legal proceedings could be very expensive and may reduce or eliminate our profits.

The costs associated with legal proceedings are typically high, relatively unpredictable and not completely within our control. These costs may be materially higher than expected, which could adversely affect our operating results and lead to volatility in the price of our common stock. Whether or not determined in our favor or ultimately settled, litigation diverts our managerial, technical, legal and financial resources from our business operations. Furthermore, an adverse decision in any of these legal actions could result in a loss of our proprietary rights, subject us to significant liabilities, require us to seek licenses from others, limit the value of our licensed technology or otherwise negatively impact our stock price or our business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

44


Table of Contents

Even if we prevail in our legal actions, significant contingencies will exist to their settlement and final resolution, including the scope of the liability of each party, our ability to enforce judgments against the parties, the ability and willingness of the parties to make any payments owed or agreed upon and the dismissal of the legal action by the relevant court, none of which are completely within our control. Parties that may be obligated to pay us royalties could be insolvent or decide to alter their business activities or corporate structure, which could affect our ability to collect royalties from such parties.

From time to time we enter into license agreements that include pricing or payment terms that provide for fluctuations in our quarterly results of operations.

From time to time we enter into license agreements that include pricing or payment terms that result in quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in our revenues, such as volume pricing adjustments. The effect of these terms may also cause our aggregate annual royalty revenues to grow less rapidly than annual growth in overall unit shipments in the applicable end market.

Recent changes to U.S. patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may adversely impact our business.

Our business relies in part on the uniform and historically consistent application of U.S. patent laws and regulations. There are numerous recent changes and proposed changes to the patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the PTO, which may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, on September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act which codifies significant changes to the U.S. patent laws, including, among other things, changing from a “first to invent” to a “first inventor to file” system, limiting where a patentee may file a patent suit, requiring the apportionment of patent damages, replacing interference proceedings with derivation actions and creating a post-grant opposition process to challenge patents after they have been issued. The effects of these changes on our patent portfolio and business have yet to be determined, as the PTO must still implement regulations relating to these changes and the courts have yet to address the new provisions. In addition, in recent years, the courts have interpreted U.S. patent laws and regulations differently, and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court has decided a number of patent cases and continues to actively review more patent cases than it has in the past. Some of these changes or potential changes may not be advantageous for us, and may make it more difficult to obtain adequate patent protection or to enforce our patents against parties using them without a license or payment of royalties. These changes or potential changes could increase the costs and uncertainties surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our patent rights, and could have a deleterious effect on our licensing program and, therefore, the royalties we can collect.

Some of our license agreements may convert to fully paid-up licenses at the expiration of their terms, and we may not receive royalties after that time.

Tessera, Inc.’s license agreement with Texas Instruments, Inc. automatically converts to a fully paid-up license on December 31, 2013, assuming that Texas Instruments complies with all terms and conditions of the license agreement up through its expiration. Tessera, Inc.’s license agreements with Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. each convert to a fully paid-up license after the expiration of its extended term in May 2017. We may not receive further royalties from licensees for any licensed technology under those agreements if they convert to fully paid-up licenses because such licensees will be entitled to continue using some, if not all, of Tessera, Inc.’s relevant intellectual property under the terms of the license agreements without further payment, even if relevant patents are still in effect. If we cannot find another source of revenue to replace the revenues from these license agreements converting to fully paid-up licenses, our results of operations following such conversion would be materially adversely affected.

The current DRAM market conditions are challenging, and if such conditions do not improve, it may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Current conditions in the DRAM market are challenging. Prices for many DRAM chips are less than our licensees’ or potential licensees’ variable costs of making that chip. The DRAM market has gone through many cycles of unprofitability, resulting in the bankruptcy, consolidation or discontinuation of DRAM production by many semiconductor companies. For example, Elpida Memory Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012, and Micron Technology, Inc. has subsequently announced its intent to acquire that entity. We are unable to predict the effect of the current market conditions on our licensees or potential licensees. The poor profitability, bankruptcy, consolidation or discontinuation of DRAM production by any of these companies could have a material adverse effect on our business.

A significant amount of our royalty revenues comes from a few end markets and products, and our business could be harmed if demand for these market segments or products declines.

A significant portion of our royalty revenues comes from the manufacture and sale of packaged semiconductor chips for dynamic random memories, digital signal processors, application-specific standard product semiconductors, application-specific integrated circuits and memory. In addition, we derive substantial revenues from the incorporation of our technology into mobile devices. If demand for semiconductors in any one or a combination of these market segments or products declines, our royalty revenues will be reduced significantly and our business would be harmed.

 

45


Table of Contents

Our revenues are concentrated in a few customers and if we lose any of these customers our revenues could decrease substantially.

We earn a significant amount of our revenues from a limited number of customers. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, there were four and two customers, respectively, that each accounted for 10% or more of total revenues. We expect that a significant portion of our revenues will continue to come from a limited number of customers for the foreseeable future. If we lose any of these customers, our revenues could decrease substantially. Powertech Technology Inc. (“PTI”), one of our customers that accounted for 10% or more of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011 filed a complaint against Tessera, Inc. in December of 2011, seeking a declaratory judgment that PTI had the right to terminate its license agreement due to a breach of contract by Tessera, Inc., and subsequently notified Tessera, Inc. in June 2012 of its purported termination of its license agreement. See Part II, Item 1 — Legal Proceedings for additional detail. PTI also notified Tessera, Inc. in its June 2012 letter that PTI will make a final payment under the license agreement in July. If we are not able to continue or to replace the revenue from PTI or if we receive an adverse determination in the litigation with PTI, it could have a substantial adverse impact on our royalty revenue in the near term. In addition, our license agreement with Micron Technology, Inc., our other customer that accounted for 10% or more of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011, expired in May 2012. If we are not able to enter into a new license agreement with Micron Technology, Inc., it would have a substantial adverse impact on our royalty revenue in the near term.

The long-term success of our Intellectual Property business is dependent on a royalty-based business model, which is inherently risky.

The long-term success of our Intellectual Property business is dependent on future royalties paid to us by licensees. Royalty payments under our licenses are primarily based upon the number of electrical connections to the semiconductor chip in a package covered by our licensed technology. We also have royalty arrangements in which royalties are paid based on a percent of net sales, a per package, or a per unit sold basis. We are dependent upon our ability to structure, negotiate and enforce agreements for the determination and payment of royalties, as well as upon our licensees’ compliance with their agreements. We face risks inherent in a royalty-based business model, many of which are outside of our control, such as the following:

 

   

the rate of adoption and incorporation of our technology by semiconductor manufacturers and assemblers;

 

   

the willingness and ability of materials and equipment suppliers to produce materials and equipment that support our licensed technology, in a quantity sufficient to enable volume manufacturing;

 

   

the ability of our licensees to purchase such materials and equipment on a cost-effective and timely basis;

 

   

the demand for products incorporating semiconductors that use our licensed technology;

 

   

the cyclicality of supply and demand for products using our licensed technology;

 

   

the impact of economic downturns; and

 

   

the timing of receipt of royalty reports may not meet our revenue recognition criteria resulting in fluctuation in our results of operations.

It is difficult for us to verify royalty amounts owed to us under our licensing agreements, and this may cause us to lose revenues.

The terms of our license agreements generally require our licensees to document their use of our technology and report related data to us on a quarterly basis. Although our license terms generally give us the right to audit books and records of our licensees to verify this information, audits can be expensive, time consuming, and may not be cost justified based on our understanding of our licensees’ businesses. Our license compliance program audits certain licensees to review the accuracy of the information contained in their royalty reports in an effort to decrease the likelihood that we will not receive the royalty revenues to which we are entitled under the terms of our license agreements, but we cannot give assurances that such audits will be effective to that end.

The future success of our DigitalOptics business depends on our ability to become a vertically integrated camera module supplier.

As part of our DigitalOptics business, we currently derive revenues from licenses to and royalties from our DigitalOptics technologies in consumer electronics, such as mobile phones, digital still cameras, wireless devices, personal computers and other consumer electronics. Our future success depends upon transitioning our image enhancement solutions into the mobile imaging market through delivering revolutionary MEMS actuators and becoming a vertically integrated camera module supplier. Any of the following factors could limit the growth of our DigitalOptics technology, and therefore could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations:

 

   

our ability to innovate and provide solutions at lower costs, with improved performance, or with more enhanced features than our competitors;

 

   

the relevant markets’ rate of adoption of our DigitalOptics technologies;

 

   

our ability to build a robust supply chain to support product ramp plans; and

 

   

our competitors who may have superior products or solutions which take away market shares or design wins from us.

 

46


Table of Contents

The markets for semiconductors and related products and camera modules are highly concentrated, and we may have limited opportunities to license our technologies or sell our products.

The semiconductor industry is highly concentrated in that a small number of semiconductor designers and manufacturers account for a substantial portion of the purchases of semiconductor products generally, including our products and products incorporating our technologies. Consolidation in the semiconductor industry may increase this concentration. For example, Micron Technology, Inc. announced in July 2012 that it intends to acquire Elpida Memory Inc., a leading DRAM manufacturer. Accordingly, we expect that licenses of our technologies and sales of our products will be concentrated with a limited number of customers for the foreseeable future. As we acquire new technologies and integrate them into our product line, we will need to establish new relationships to sell these products. Our financial results depend in significant part on our success in establishing and maintaining relationships with, and effecting substantial sales to, these customers. Even if we are successful in establishing and maintaining such relationships, our financial results will be dependent in large part on these customers’ sales and business results. This is also true for the camera module market which is the target market for our DigitalOptics business. In this market, a small number of original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) account for a substantial portion of purchases of camera-enabled cell phones and other mobile devices. We have been promoting the adoption of our technologies in this market through the supply chain infrastructure by signing licenses with the sensor, lens and camera manufacturers and assemblers. Consolidation of the OEMs may affect our licensees’ ability to maintain or establish relationships with these OEMs through which they sell products incorporating our DigitalOptics technologies. As a result, our financial results could be materially adversely affected.

We make significant investments in new products and services that may not achieve technological feasibility or profitability or that may limit our revenue growth.

We have made and will continue to make significant investments in research, development, and marketing of new technologies, products and services, including MEMS-based auto-focus technologies, EDoF, OptiML Zoom and other image quality enhancement technologies, and thermal management technology (also referred to as silent air cooling). Investments in new technologies are speculative and technological feasibility may not be achieved. Commercial success depends on many factors including innovativeness and demand for the technology, availability of materials and equipment, selling price the market is willing to bear, competition and effective licensing or product sales. We may not achieve significant revenues from new product and service investments for a number of years, if at all. Moreover, new technologies, products and services may not be profitable, and even if they are profitable, operating margins for new products and businesses may not be as high as the margins we have experienced historically or originally anticipated.

Competing technologies may harm our business.

We expect that our technologies will continue to compete with technologies of internal design groups at semiconductor manufacturers, assemblers, electronic component and system manufacturers, image sensor and lens manufacturers and camera module companies such as Omnivision Technologies, Inc., Aptina Imaging Corporation, STMicroelectronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd., and Toshiba Corporation. The internal design groups of these companies create their own packaging, imaging and optics solutions. If these internal design groups design around our patents or introduce unique solutions superior to our technology, they may not need to license our technology. These groups may design technology that is less expensive to implement or that enables products with higher performance or additional features. Many of these groups have substantially greater resources, greater financial strength and lower cost structures which may allow them to undercut our price. They also have the inherent advantage of access to internal corporate strategies, technology roadmaps and technical information. As a result, they may be able to bring alternative solutions to market more easily and quickly.

For our DigitalOptics technologies, our OptiML Focus technology enables camera modules to automatically focus without any moving parts by employing extended depth of field technology. Our MEMS-based auto-focus technology enables high-precision control of a moving lens for auto-focus functionality with a small form factor. These technologies compete with auto-focus technologies including traditional lens-motion-type auto-focus, emerging lens-modification-type auto-focus, solutions using voice coil motor technology, and also other computational-type auto-focus solutions and other solutions and technologies provided by companies such as DxO Labs. Our Micro-optics products such as the diffractive optical elements used in off-axis illumination for lithography, face competition from products offered by other Micro-optics manufacturers such as JenOptik A.G. as well as emerging technologies such as ASML’s FlexRay technology. Our wafer-level camera solution competes with both the traditional lens vendors who enjoy an established supply chain, as well as other wafer-level optics technologies offered by companies such as Heptagon Oy and Anteryon B.V. For the embedded image enhancement technologies such as Face Detection and our other Face Tools products, our offerings compete with other image processing software vendors such as ArcSoft, Inc. as well as internal design groups of our customers providing similar technologies by employing different approaches. We also expect to see other competing technologies emerge.

 

47


Table of Contents

In the future, our licensed technologies may also compete with other technologies that emerge. These technologies may be less expensive and provide higher or additional performance. Companies with these competing technologies may also have greater resources. Technological change could render our technologies obsolete, and new, competitive technologies could emerge that achieve broad adoption and adversely affect the use of our technologies and intellectual property.

If we do not successfully further develop and commercialize the technologies we acquire, or cultivate strategic relationships that expand our licensable technology portfolio, our competitive position could be harmed and our operating results adversely affected.

We also attempt to expand our licensable technology portfolio and technical expertise by acquiring and further developing new technologies or developing strategic relationships with others. These strategic relationships may include the right for us to sublicense technology and intellectual property to others. However, we may not be able to acquire or obtain rights to licensable technology and intellectual property in a timely manner or upon commercially reasonable terms. Even if we do acquire such rights, some of the technologies we invest in may be commercially unproven and may not be adopted or accepted by the industry. Moreover, our research and development efforts, and acquisitions and strategic relationships, may be futile if we do not accurately predict the future needs of the semiconductor, consumer and communication electronics, and consumer imaging industries. Our failure to acquire new technologies that are commercially viable in the semiconductor, consumer and communication electronics, and consumer imaging industries could significantly harm our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The way we integrate internally developed and acquired technologies into our products and licensing programs may not be accepted by customers.

We have devoted, and expect to continue to devote, considerable time and resources to developing, acquiring and integrating new and existing technologies into our products and licensing programs. However, if customers do not accept the way we have integrated our technologies, they may adopt competing solutions. In addition, as we introduce new products or licensing programs, we cannot predict with certainty if and when our customers will transition to those new products or licensing programs. If customers fail to accept new or upgraded products or licensing programs incorporating our technologies, our financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be adversely impacted.

If we fail to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights and our confidential information, our business will suffer.

We rely primarily on a combination of license, development and nondisclosure agreements and other contractual provisions and patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright laws to protect our technology and intellectual property. If we fail to protect our technology and intellectual property, our licensees and others may seek to use our technology and intellectual property without the payment of license fees and royalties, which could weaken our competitive position, reduce our operating results and increase the likelihood of costly litigation. The growth of our business depends in large part on our ability to obtain intellectual property rights in a timely manner, our ability to convince third parties of the applicability of our intellectual property rights to their products, and our ability to enforce our intellectual property rights against them.

In certain instances, we attempt to obtain patent protection for portions of our technology, and our license agreements typically include both issued patents and pending patent applications. If we fail to obtain patents in a timely manner or if the patents issued to us do not cover all of the inventions disclosed in our patent applications, others