12.	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. The Court heard oral argument on February 12, 2014 and took the matter under submission.

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 condensed 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.