1.0.0.3 false Legal Proceedings false 1 $ false false Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 2 Legal Proceedings [Abstract] 0 wdc_LegalProceedingsAbstract wdc false na duration string Legal Proceedings. false false false false false true false false false 1 false false 0 0 false false Legal Proceedings. false 3 Legal Proceedings 1 wdc_LegalProceedingsTextBlock wdc false na duration string Legal Proceedings. false false false false false false false false false 1 false false 0 0   <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>6. Legal Proceedings</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Company discloses material loss contingencies deemed to be reasonably possible and accrues for loss contingencies when, in consultation with the Company’s legal advisors, the Company concludes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management’s estimates. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><i>Intellectual Property Litigation</i> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On June 20, 2008, plaintiff Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against the Company and two other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,473 and 4,916,635. Plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On October 10, 2008, Convolve amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the ’473 patent. The ’473 patent allegedly relates to interface technology to select between certain modes of a disk drive’s operations relating to speed and noise. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On December 8, 2008, plaintiffs MagSil Corporation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against the Company and seven other companies in the disk drive industry alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,922 and 5,835,314. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The asserted patents allegedly relate to tunneling magnetoresistive technology. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On April 7, 2009, plaintiff Gregory Bender filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against the Company and Seagate Technology LLC alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,103,188. Plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages. The asserted patent allegedly relates to buffered transconductance amplifier technology. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On July 15, 2009, plaintiffs Carl B. Collins and Farzin Davanloo filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against the Company and ten other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,411,797 and 5,478,650. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees, and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to nanophase diamond films. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On December 7, 2009, plaintiff Nazomi Communications filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against the Company and seven other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,080,362 and 7,225,436. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees, and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to processor cores capable of Java hardware acceleration. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On January 5, 2010, plaintiff Enova Technology Corporation filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against the Company and Initio Corporation alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,136,995 and 7,386,734. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees, and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to real time full disk encryption application specific integrated circuits, or ASICs. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><i>Employment Litigation</i> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the Alameda County (California) Superior Court. The complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s engineers have been misclassified as exempt employees under California state law and are, therefore, due unpaid hourly overtime wages and other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest periods. By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now pending. On or about June 16, 2009, the Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice by stipulation, leaving WDTI as the sole remaining defendant. On or about June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its Answer to the complaint, denying the substantive allegations thereof and raising several affirmative defenses. The case is in the preliminary stages, with no formal discovery having occurred. A court hearing on whether the case should be certified as a class action will likely not occur until mid 2010 at the earliest. If the Company is unsuccessful in its defense of this matter, potential liability could include unpaid wages, interest, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><i>Other Matters</i> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of probable monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these other matters is subject to many uncertainties and is therefore not predictable with assurance, management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters, individually and in the aggregate, would not be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from those projected. </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false Legal Proceedings. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true