Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Contingencies

15.  Contingencies

In re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. Over the following five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed. (One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.) The securities class action complaints name the Company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the Company’s issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements. The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel. Following the Company’s restatement of its financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010 and that motion was granted with leave to amend on March 11, 2011. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 1, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants. On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2012, plaintiff filed his opening appeals brief. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed its response brief. On September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed his reply.

In re Immersion Corporation Derivative Litigation

On September 15, 2009, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of the Company and naming certain of its current and former directors and officers as individual defendants. Thereafter, two additional putative derivative complaints were filed in the same court.

The derivative complaints arise from the same or similar alleged facts as the federal securities actions and seek to bring state law causes of action on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, breach of contract, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, as well as for violations of federal securities laws. The federal derivative complaints seek compensatory damages, corporate governance changes, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, the imposition of a constructive trust, and restitution. On November 17, 2009, the court consolidated these actions as In re Immersion Corporation Derivative Litigation and appointed lead counsel. On May 3, 2010, the court issued an order staying the action, and that stay was lifted following dismissal of the securities class action in December 2011. On October 31, 2012, plaintiffs filed a statement with the Court indicating that in light of the settlement of the Kasmer v. Richardson action (referenced below), they intend to voluntarily dismiss their action with prejudice once the time to appeal the Kasmer settlement approval order has expired. The parties jointly moved to dismiss the action on January 2, 2013, and the Court dismissed the action with prejudice on January 4, 2013.

Kasmer v. Immersion Corporation

On May 5, 2010, an action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by a shareholder seeking to enforce a demand to inspect certain of the Company’s records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as a possible prelude to the shareholder bringing a derivative action. The Company filed an answer on June 14, 2010, questioning whether a proper purpose for the records inspection had been stated and raising other defenses concerning the scope of the demand, among other deficiencies. Following a one-day trial on December 2, 2010, the Court significantly narrowed the scope of the demand and the Company responded accordingly. On October 24, 2011, the shareholder filed a motion seeking to compel further responses to the demand. The Company believes that its responses complied with the Court’s ruling and the Company opposed the shareholder’s motion. On May 30, 2012, the same shareholder filed a putative shareholder derivative action in San Francisco Superior Court, entitled Kasmer v. Richardson et. al. purportedly on behalf of the Company and naming certain of its former directors and officers as individual defendants. On June 5, 2012, the parties participated in a mediation session, and on the same day reached an agreement in principle to settle both the Delaware Chancery and Kasmer v. Richardson actions. The Delaware Chancery action was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties on October 22, 2012. The settlement of the Kasmer v. Richardson action was approved by the San Francisco Superior Court on October 26, 2012 and became final on December 29, 2012.

The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the above-mentioned federal and state actions, and it is unable to estimate any potential liability it may incur.

Other Contingencies

From time to time, the Company receives claims from third parties asserting that the Company’s technologies, or those of its licensees, infringe on the other parties’ IP rights. Management believes that these claims are without merit. Additionally, periodically, the Company is involved in routine legal matters and contractual disputes incidental to its normal operations. In management’s opinion, the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

In the normal course of business, the Company provides indemnifications of varying scope to customers against claims of IP infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company’s IP, technology, or products. Historically, costs related to these guarantees have not been significant, and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these guarantees on its future results of operations.

As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby it indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at its request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company currently has director and officer insurance coverage that reduces its exposure and enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Management believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage is indeterminable.