Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 01, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company leases office space, cars and equipment under operating leases, some of which are non-cancelable, with various expiration dates through December 2026. The terms of some of the Company’s office leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period, and has accrued for rent expense incurred but not paid. Purchase Obligations The Company has entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. At April 1, 2012, the Company had $176.3 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. The Company establishes a loss liability for all products it does not expect to sell for which it has committed purchases from suppliers. Such losses have not been material to date. Guarantees and Indemnifications The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a Director and Officer Insurance Policy that enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of April 1, 2012. In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual any time after execution date of the respective agreement. The maximum amount of potential future infringement indemnification is generally unlimited. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of April 1, 2012. Employment Agreements The Company has signed various employment agreements with key executives pursuant to which, if their employment is terminated without cause, such employees are entitled to receive their base salary (and commission or bonus, as applicable) for 52 weeks (for the Chief Executive Officer), 39 weeks (for the Senior Vice President of Worldwide Operations and Support) and up to 26 weeks (for other key executives). Such employees will also continue to have stock options vest for up to a one-year period following such termination without cause. If a termination without cause or resignation for good reason occurs within one year of a change in control, such employees are entitled to full acceleration (for the Chief Executive Officer) and up to two years acceleration (for other key executives) of any unvested portion of his or her stock options. Litigation and Other Legal Matters The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In relation to such matters, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position within the next 12 months, or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses. OptimumPath, L.L.C. v. NETGEAR In January 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by OptimumPath, L.L.C (“OptimumPath”), a patent-holding company existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, in the U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina. OptimumPath claims that certain of the Company's wireless networking products infringe on OptimumPath's U.S. Patent No. 7,035,281. OptimumPath also sued six other technology companies alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the second quarter of 2008. Several defendants, including the Company, jointly filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the OptimumPath patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) on October 13, 2008. On January 12, 2009, a reexamination was ordered with respect to claims 1-3 and 8-10 of the patent, but denied with respect to claims 4-7 and 11-32 of the patent. On February 4, 2009, the defendants jointly filed a petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 4-7 and 11-32. On March 26, 2009, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of claims 1-3 and 8-10 without amendment. Shortly thereafter, in March 2009, the District Court granted defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In July 2009, the defendants' petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 4-7 and 11-32 was denied by the USPTO. Since the petition and prosecution were closed, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice on July 31, 2009, and the defendants chose to appeal the confirmation of claims 1-3 and 8-10 by filing a notice of appeal on August 31, 2009. The Company and OptimumPath attended a Court-ordered mediation on September 22, 2009 but were unable to make progress towards settlement. The Company and other defendants filed a combined claim construction/summary judgment brief on December 23, 2010. OptimumPath responded on January 20, 2011, and the defendants replied on February 3, 2011. The oral arguments on claim construction and the summary judgment motion were made on February 17, 2011. An oral hearing was held on March 9, 2011 in the USPTO and a decision by the USPTO was issued on March 30, 2011 confirming the patentability of claims 1-3 and 8-10. On April 12, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on OptimumPath's claim for literal infringement and defendants' motion to preclude OptimumPath's infringement claims based on the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also found that the accused devices did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also granted defendants' motion for summary judgment that asserted claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 through 13 of the '281 patent were invalidated by various prior art. The pretrial conference and trial dates were vacated. OptimumPath filed its notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit of the District Court's rulings on May 18, 2011. On May 23, 2011, the District Court entered the defendants' joint request for costs in the amount of $103,000, which have not yet been collected or recognized. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal. In addition, the defendants appealed the USPTO's ruling confirming the patentability of claims 1-3 and 8-10 to the Federal Circuit by filing a Reexamination Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit on October 18, 2011. The parties argued OptimumPath's appeal of the District Court's summary judgment rulings before the Federal Circuit on March 5, 2011. On March 7, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment rulings in favor of the defendants. OptimumPath has not indicated whether or not it will appeal the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the District Court's summary judgment rulings. On June 5, 2012, the parties are scheduled to argue the defendants' appeal of the USPTO rulings before the Federal Circuit. Ruckus Wireless v. NETGEAR In May 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Ruckus Wireless (“Ruckus”), a developer of Wi-Fi technology, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Ruckus alleges that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,358,912 ('912 Patent) and 7,193,562 ('562 Patent) in the course of deploying Wi-Fi antenna array technology in its WPN824 RangeMax wireless router. Ruckus also sued Rayspan Corporation alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the third quarter of 2008. The Company and Rayspan Corporation jointly filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the Ruckus patents with the USPTO on September 4, 2008. The Court issued a stay of the litigation while the reexaminations proceeded in the USPTO. On November 28, 2008, a reexamination was ordered with respect to claims 11-17 of the '562 Patent, but denied with respect to claims 1-10 and 18-36. On December 17, 2008, the defendants jointly filed a petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 1-10 and 18-36 of the '562 Patent. In July 2009, the petition was denied, and the remaining claims 11-17 were confirmed. The Company is appealing the confirmation of claims 11-17. On December 2, 2008, reexamination was granted with regard to the '912 Patent. In early October 2009, the Company received an Action Closing Prosecution in the reexamination of the '912 Patent. All the claims of the '912 Patent, with the exception of the unchallenged claims 7 and 8, were finally rejected by the USPTO. On October 30, 2009, Ruckus submitted an “after-final” amendment in the '912 Patent reexamination proceeding. The Company's comments to Ruckus' “after-final” amendment were submitted on November 30, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the Court found that bifurcating the '562 Patent from the '912 Patent and commencing litigation on the '562 Patent while the USPTO reexamination process and appeals are still pending would be an inefficient use of the Court's resources. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the litigation stay should remain in effect. On September 12, 2010, the Company filed the rebuttal brief in its appeals of the USPTO's rulings during the reexamination of the '562 Patent, and the Company requested an oral hearing with the Board of Appeals at the USPTO to discuss this brief. On September 13, 2010, Ruckus filed a notice of appeal of the '912 Patent to appeal the adverse rulings it received from the USPTO in the reexamination of this patent. The Company filed a respondent's brief in the '912 Patent case on January 24, 2011. An oral hearing in the '562 case was set for February 1, 2011, but the Company decided to cancel it and let the USPTO decide the '562 case based solely on the previously submitted papers. On May 13, 2011, the USPTO indicated that the Company was successful in its appeal of the examiner's previous decision to allow claims 11-17 in the '562 reexamination, and the USPTO Board of Appeals reversed the examiner's decision and declared those claims invalid. On June 13, 2011, Ruckus submitted a request for rehearing by the Board of Appeals of its decision to reject claims 11-17 of the '562 Patent. On September 28, 2011, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences denied Ruckus's request for a rehearing in the '562 Patent reexamination case. Ruckus did not timely file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the USPTO's cancellation of claims 11-17 of the '562 patent. Therefore, a reexamination certificate will issue with claims 11-17 cancelled and claims 1-10 and 18-36 confirmed. On November 4, 2009, Ruckus filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging the Company and Rayspan Corporation infringe a patent that is related to the patents previously asserted against the Company and Rayspan Corporation by Ruckus, as discussed above. This newly asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,525,486 entitled “Increased wireless coverage patterns.” As with the previous Ruckus action, the WPN824 RangeMax wireless router is the alleged infringing device. The Company challenged the sufficiency of Ruckus's complaint in this new action and moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruckus opposed this motion. The Court partially agreed with the Company's motion and ordered Ruckus to submit a new complaint, which Ruckus did. The initial case management conference occurred on February 11, 2010. On March 25, 2010, the Court ordered a stay until the completion of the '562 Patent's reexamination proceedings in the first Ruckus lawsuit against the Company and Rayspan. The Court instructed the parties to submit status reports to the Court every six months, apprising the Court of the status of the pending reexamination proceedings in the USPTO. Upon final exhaustion of all pending reexamination proceedings of the '562 Patent, including any appeals, the Court ordered the parties to jointly submit to the Court a letter indicating that all appeals have been exhausted and requesting a further case management conference. The case remains stayed. On November 19, 2010, the Company filed suit against Ruckus in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware for infringement of four of the Company's patents. The Company alleges that Ruckus's manufacture, use, sale or offers for sale within the United States or importation into the United States of products, including wireless communication products, infringe United States Patent Nos. 5,812,531, 6,621,454, 7,263,143, and 5,507,035, all owned by the Company. The Company granted Ruckus an extension to file its answer to the Company's suit, and on January 11, 2011, Ruckus filed a motion to dismiss the Company's suit based on insufficient pleadings. The Company filed its response to Ruckus's motion on January 31, 2011. In addition, on May 6, 2011, Ruckus filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The Court denied Ruckus' motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California and granted the Company leave to file an amended complaint rather than address the Ruckus motion to dismiss based on insufficient pleadings. The Company filed the proposed amended complaint. Nevertheless, Ruckus filed a second motion to dismiss based on insufficient pleadings by the Company. The Company has filed its opposition to Ruckus's motion, and the Court has not yet ruled on the motion. On March 28, 2012, the Delaware District Court in a memorandum opinion and order denied Ruckus's second motion to dismiss. A scheduling conference occurred April 18, 2012, but the District Court did not yet set a trial date. The discovery process, however, has commenced for the parties, and the Company's initial disclosures are due on May 15, 2012. Northpeak Wireless, LLC v. NETGEAR In October 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 30 other companies by Northpeak Wireless, LLC (“Northpeak”) in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Northpeak alleges that the Company's 802.11b compatible products infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,977,577 and 5,987,058. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the fourth quarter of 2008. On January 21, 2009, the District Court granted a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In August 2009, the parties stipulated to a litigation stay pending a reexamination request to the USPTO on the asserted patents. The reexaminations of the patents are proceeding. In March 2011, the USPTO confirmed the validity of the asserted claims of the '577 patent over certain prior art references. In April 2011, the USPTO issued a final office action rejecting both asserted claims of the '058 patent as being obvious in light of the prior art. The case remains stayed by stipulation, and no trial date has been set. Ericsson v. NETGEAR On September 14, 2010, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company and defendants D-Link Corporation, D-Link Systems, Inc., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas alleging that the defendants infringe certain Ericsson patents. The Company has been accused of infringing eight U.S. patents: 5,790,516; 6,330,435; 6,424,625; 6,519,223; 6,772,215; 5,987,019; 6,466,568; and 5,771,468. Ericsson generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the Ericsson patents through the defendants' IEEE 802.11-compliant products. In addition, Ericsson alleges that the Company has infringed, and continues to infringe, the claimed methods and apparatuses of the '468 Patent through the Company's PCMCIA routers. The Company filed its answer to the Ericsson complaint on December 17, 2010 where it asserted the affirmative defenses of noninfringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. On March 1, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California and their memorandum of law in support thereof. On March 21, 2011, Ericsson filed is opposition to the motion, and on April 1, 2011, defendants filed their reply to Ericsson's opposition to the motion to transfer. On June 8, 2011, Ericsson filed an amended complaint that added Dell, Toshiba and Belkin as defendants. At the status conference held on Jun 9, 2011, the Court set a Markman hearing for June 28, 2012 and trial for June 3, 2013. On June 14, 2011, Ericsson submitted its infringement contentions against the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court denied the defendants motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The parties are now approaching the Markman hearing. In advance of the Markman hearing, the parties on March 9, 2012 exchanged proposed constructions of claim terms and on April 9, 2012 filed the Joint Claim Construction Statement with the District Court. The remaining deadlines up to and including the Markman hearing are: May 8, 2012 - Ericsson's Markman brief is due; May 16, 2012 - Tutorials are due; June 18, 2012 - Defendants Markman brief is due; June 15 - Ericsson's Reply Markman brief is due; and June 28, 2012 - Markman hearing occurs. Discovery is ongoing. Fujitsu v. NETGEAR On September 3, 2010, Fujitsu filed a complaint against the Company, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin, Inc., D−Link Corporation, D−Link Systems, Inc., ZyXEL Communications Corporation, and Zyxel Communications, Inc in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging that certain of the Company's products infringe upon Fujitsu's U.S. patent Re. 36,769 patent ('769 Patent) through various cards and interface devices within the Company's products. The Company answered the complaint denying the allegations of infringement and claiming that the asserted patent is invalid. In addition, the Company filed a motion to disqualify counsel for Fujitsu. The Company's disqualification motion was argued before the Court on December 16, 2010, and on December 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion and disqualified counsel for Fujitsu. In response, Fujitsu requested a stipulation from all parties to reset the case management conference and scheduled hearing dates for the motions to dismiss. The initial case management conference was held on March 18, 2011. A claim construction hearing was held on October 14, 2011. On February 3, 2012, the Court issued its claim construction order based on the claim construction hearing. On March 3, 2011, the Fujitsu patent emerged from the latest ex-parte reexamination in the USPTO. The USPTO examiner rejected five of the “wired” claims in the patent, but found that the majority of claims of the patent were valid. Expert discovery opens May 4, 2012 with the exchange of initial expert reports. Rebuttal expert reports are due May 25, and expert discovery closes on June 8, 2012. Dispositive motions are due June 28, 2012, and trial is set to commence on November 26, 2012. The parties are continuing to participate in the discovery process. Chalumeau Power Systems v. NETGEAR. On June 28, 2011, Chalumeau Power Systems LLC (“Chalumeau”) filed a complaint against several technology companies - including the Company, Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., D-Link, and Avaya Inc. - in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware alleging infringement of a patent for a remote device detection method. The patent number is U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 ('885 Patent) and is entitled “Method and apparatus for detecting the presence of a remote device and providing power thereto.” Chalumeau claimed that the defendants have all made or sold devices that make use of infringing PoE technology, which allows electrical power and data to pass safely on Ethernet cabling. The Company answered Chalumeau's complaint on September 1, 2011, and asserted various defenses and counterclaims, including those of noninfringement and invalidity of the '885 Patent. In October 2011, a settlement of this lawsuit was reached between Chalumeau and the Company through a third-party intermediary. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, the Company and Chalumeau signed a binding release agreement in which both parties agreed to mutual general releases from all claims, known or unknown, under the '885 Patent and its foreign counterparts with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. The Court has since dismissed Chalumeau's claims for relief against the Company and the Company's counterclaims for relief against Chalumeau, with prejudice and with all attorneys' fees, costs and expenses levied against the party incurring the same. Powerline Innovations, LLC v. NETGEAR On August 6, 2011 the Company, along with 16 other companies, was sued in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division for patent infringement by a non-practicing entity called Powerline Innovations, LLC (“Powerline Innovations”). This is a single patent case, involving U.S. Patent No. 5,471,190, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Resource Allocation in a Communication Network System.” On the same day that it filed suit against the Company and 16 other companies, Powerline Innovations sued 14 additional companies in a separate suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas for infringement of the same patent. The complaint against the Company alleges that it infringes the 5,471,190 patent based on the Company's use of methods for establishing control relationships between plural devices and names the Company's Powerline AV Ethernet Adapter, Model XAV101, as an accused infringing product. The Company answered the plaintiff's complaint on December 12, 2011, and asserted that it has not infringed the patent in suit and that the patent in suit is invalid. In addition, the Company asserted various affirmative defenses. Powerline Innovations has not yet served all the parties. The Court will likely not set an initial status conference before service is completed. Summit Data Systems LLC v. NETGEAR. On September 1, 2010, a non-practicing entity, Summit Data Systems LLC (“Summit Data Systems”), sued the Company and seven other companies in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware alleging infringement of two patents -- U.S. Patent No. 7,392,291 ('291 Patent), entitled Architecture for Providing Block-Level Access over a Computer Network and U.S. Patent No. 7,428,581 ('581 Patent), entitled Architecture for Providing Block-Level Access over a Computer Network. The '581 Patent is a continuation of the '291 Patent. The Company's ReadyNAS and NVX products were listed by the plaintiff in the complaint as accused infringing products. The Company answered the complaint on November 1, 2010, asserting that the patents are not infringed and invalid. Subsequently, the Company participated in discovery, and trial for this matter was scheduled for March 2013. In October 2011, a settlement of this lawsuit was reached between Summit Data Systems and the Company through a third-party intermediary. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, the Company and Summit Data Systems signed a binding release agreement in which both parties agreed to mutual general releases from all claims, known or unknown, under the '291 Patent and '581 Patents and certain other patents and applications assigned to Summit Data Systems with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. The Court has since dismissed Summit Data Systems's claims for relief against the Company and the Company's counterclaims for relief against Summit Data Systems, with prejudice and with all attorneys' fees, costs and expenses levied against the party incurring the same. NETGEAR v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC. On November 16, 2011, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware for non-infringement and invalidity of 17 WiFi-related patents brought in the approximately 15 actions throughout the United States by Innovatio IP Ventures LLC (“Innovatio”) against end user customers of the Company and other companies. Shortly after filing the declaratory judgment action, the Company filed a response supporting Cisco Systems, Inc.'s and Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer for Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 that was before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). The pending motion to transfer would serve to consolidate all of the Innovatio lawsuits - including NETGEAR's pending declaratory judgment action in Delaware-and transfer them to a single court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 28, 2011, the JPML issued an order transferring the Innovatio actions throughout the United States, including the Company's declaratory judgment action, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Thus, the Company's declaratory judgment action and approximately 15 other similar cases will now proceed in the Northern District of Illinois in a consolidated fashion. The status conference originally scheduled for March 27, 2012 was postponed by the District Court until April 10, 2012. At the conference, the District Court discussed two primary issues (1) case phasing (i.e., which subset of defendants should proceed after Markman Hearing through the remaining proceedings) and (2) the defendants' proposal on damages contentions. The District Court stated that it tentatively felt that the case should proceed with one or more WiFi hardware suppliers after the Markman Hearing, but was going to reserve a final ruling on the issue. The District Court withheld ordering damages contentions for the time being. The District Court also ordered that the parties prepare a joint pretrial order reflecting his decisions and the schedule for the case. Harris Corporation v. NETGEAR. On November 26, 2011, Harris Corporation (“Harris”) sued the Company in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida alleging that the Company willfully infringes six of Harris's patents -- U.S. Patent Nos. 6,504,515, 7,916,684, 5,787,177, 5,974,149, 6,189,104, and 6,397,336. The Company obtained an extension until February 20, 2012 to answer the complaint and is reviewing the complaint and patents. It appears that Harris is attempting to read four of the patents (the '177, '149, '104, and '336 Patents) on the Company's ProSecure UTM series of products. The other two patents (the '515 and '684 Patents) allegedly read on certain of the Company's access points and wireless routers and gateways with multiple antennas. Harris filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2012 that removed its initial allegations of willful infringement by the Company and also removed the allegations of direct infringement against the Company for U.S. Patent No. 7,916,684, leaving only indirect infringement allegations for the '684 Patent. The Company's answer to the amended complaint was submitted on March 2, 2012. The scheduling order in this case gives the following deadlines: a) Motions to Add Parties or to Amend Pleadings April 30, 2012; b) Disclosure of Expert Reports by the Plaintiff: November 14, 2012; c) Disclosure of Expert Reports by the Defendant: December 14, 2012; d) Discovery Deadline: February 8, 2013; e) Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions: March 15, 2013 f) Markman Motions: July 2, 2012; g) Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final Pretrial Statement: May 8, 2013; h) Joint Final Pretrial Statement: May 20, 2013; i) Trial Term Begins: August 1, 2013. The Court set a length of trial of 5-10 days. The parties are currently participating in discovery. On April 3, 2012, the Company filed suit against Harris in the District Court of the Northern District of California asserting that Harris infringes four of the Company's patents. In the complaint, the Company alleges that Harris infringes: a) U.S. Patent No. 6,718,030 (“the '030 Patent”), entitled “Virtual Private Network System and Method Using Voice of Internet Protocol” through Harris's VIDA Network and products, the VIDA Telephone Interconnect (VTI), the MASTR III Base Station, and the EDACS MASTR III repeater; b) U.S. Patent No. 7,200,400 (“the '400 Patent”), entitled “Mobile to 802.11 Voice Multi-Network Roaming Utilizing SIP Signaling With SIP Proxy or Redirect Server” through Harris's VIDA Network and products, the Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI) Gateway, the Interoperability Gateway, and the UNITY XG-100P Portable Radio; c) U.S. Patent No. 7,218,722 (“the '722 Patent”), entitled “System and Method For Proving Call Management Services in a Virtual Private Network Using Voice or Video Over Internet Protocol” through Harris's VIDA Network and products, the VIDA Telephone Interconnect (VTI), the P7200 Portable Radio, the OpenSky Network and Products, the MASTR III Base Station, and EDACS MASTR III repeater; and d) U.S. Patent No. 7,936,714 (“the '714 Patent”), entitled “Spectrum Allocation System and Method For Multi-Band Wireless RF Data Communications” through Harris's UNITY XG-100P Portable Radio. The Company granted Harris's request for an extension until May 25, 2012 to answer the Company's complaint. IP Indemnification Claims In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers (the “Indemnified Parties”) for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties that are asserted against the Indemnified Parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is generally unlimited. From time to time, the Company receives requests for indemnity and may choose to assume the defense of such litigation asserted against the Indemnified Parties. In June 2006, the Company received a request for indemnification from Charter and Charter Communications Operating, LLC ("Charter") related to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, by Rembrandt Technologies, L.P. (“Rembrandt”), a patent-holding company. Rembrandt also filed a similar lawsuit in the same jurisdiction against Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast of Plano, LP. Rembrandt alleged that products implementing the DOCSIS standard, which are supplied to Charter, Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast of Plano, LP by, among others, the Company, infringe various patents held by Rembrandt. In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered these and other similar patent cases brought by Rembrandt consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In November 2007, the Company along with Motorola, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., ARRIS Group, Inc., Thomson, Inc. and Ambit Microsystems, Inc. filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Rembrandt, seeking a declaration that eight asserted Rembrandt patents asserted in the transferred cases are either invalid or not infringed. The District Court held a claim construction hearing on August 5, 2008. On November 29, 2008, the District Court issued its claim construction order. After the District Court's order, Rembrandt agreed to drop three patents from the case, leaving five patents at issue. The District Court held a mediation on March 3-4, 2009 but the parties were unable to reach a resolution. On July 21, 2009, Rembrandt delivered to the Company and other parties an executed covenant not to sue on any of the eight patents originally in the suit, contending that the execution of the covenant divests the District Court of jurisdiction or renders moot the remaining claims and counterclaims in the action. On July 31, 2009, Rembrandt filed a motion to dismiss the litigation. While Rembrandt's motion was pending, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, motions for sanctions, and responses to Rembrandt's motion to dismiss. In early October 2009, the District Court suspended all further dates for the case while it reviewed the pending motions and case status. On October 23, 2009, the Court ordered Rembrandt to supplement the covenant not to sue to include any products or services that comply with DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 or 3 and dismissed Rembrandt's various infringement claims on the eight patents with prejudice. The Court gave Rembrandt five days to withdraw its motion to dismiss the litigation if it found the Court's conditions on dismissal to be unacceptable. Rembrandt did not withdraw its motion to dismiss the litigation, and on October 30, 2009, Rembrandt executed a covenant not to sue on any of the eight patents in the case and any products or services that comply with DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 or 3. The Company and its co-defendants moved for attorneys' fees to be paid by Rembrandt. Rembrandt opposed the motion. On July 8, 2011, the Court denied the defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the one patent remaining in the case, the '627 Patent. This ruling did not affect the Company since that patent was not asserted against the Company, other than postponing the Company's possible recovery of attorneys' fees. On July 13, 2011, the Court dismissed without prejudice the defendants' joint motion for fees because the motion is now not ripe given the Court's denial of the motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the '627 Patent. The Company is now reviewing its options for recovering attorneys' fees. Environmental Regulation The European Union (“EU”) has enacted the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, which makes producers of electrical goods, including home and commercial business networking products, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products. The deadline for the individual member states of the EU to transpose the directive into law in their respective countries was August 13, 2004 (such legislation, together with the directive, the “WEEE Legislation”). Producers participating in the market were financially responsible for implementing these responsibilities under the WEEE Legislation beginning in August 13, 2005. Similar WEEE Legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, China, India, Australia and Japan. The Company adopted the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and environmental obligations in the third quarter of fiscal 2005 and has determined that its effect did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations and financial position for the three months ended April 1, 2012. The Company continues to monitor WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions as individual countries issue their implementation guidance. The Company believes it has met the applicable requirements of current WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions, to the extent implementation requirements have been published. Additionally, the EU has enacted the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (“RoHS Legislation”), the REACH Directive and the Battery Directive. EU RoHS Legislation, along with similar legislation in China, requires manufacturers to ensure certain substances, including polybrominated biphenyls (“PBD”), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (“PBDE”), mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and lead (except for allowed exempted materials and applications), are below specified maximum concentration values in certain products put on the market after July 1, 2006. The REACH Directive similarly requires manufacturers to ensure the published list of substances of very high concern in certain products are below specified maximum concentration values. The Battery Directive prohibits use of certain types of battery technology in certain products. The Company believes it has met the requirements of the RoHS Legislation, the REACH Directive and the Battery Directive. Additionally, the EU has enacted the Energy Using Product (“EuP”) Directive, which requires manufacturers of certain products to meet minimum energy efficiency limits. These limits are documented in EuP implementing measures issued for specific types of equipment and document minimum power supply efficiencies and may include required equipment standby modes which also reduce energy consumption. The Company believes it has met the requirements of the applicable EuP implementing measures.

Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases office space, cars and equipment under operating leases, some of which are non-cancelable, with various expiration dates through December 2026. The terms of some of the Company’s office leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period, and has accrued for rent expense incurred but not paid.

Purchase Obligations

The Company has entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. At April 1, 2012, the Company had $176.3 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. The Company establishes a loss liability for all products it does not expect to sell for which it has committed purchases from suppliers. Such losses have not been material to date.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a Director and Officer Insurance Policy that enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of April 1, 2012.

In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual any time after execution date of the respective agreement. The maximum amount of potential future infringement indemnification is generally unlimited. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of April 1, 2012.

Employment Agreements

The Company has signed various employment agreements with key executives pursuant to which, if their employment is terminated without cause, such employees are entitled to receive their base salary (and commission or bonus, as applicable) for 52 weeks (for the Chief Executive Officer), 39 weeks (for the Senior Vice President of Worldwide Operations and Support) and up to 26 weeks (for other key executives). Such employees will also continue to have stock options vest for up to a one-year period following such termination without cause. If a termination without cause or resignation for good reason occurs within one year of a change in control, such employees are entitled to full acceleration (for the Chief Executive Officer) and up to two years acceleration (for other key executives) of any unvested portion of his or her stock options.

Litigation and Other Legal Matters

The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In relation to such matters, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position within the next 12 months, or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses.

OptimumPath, L.L.C. v. NETGEAR

In January 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by OptimumPath, L.L.C (“OptimumPath”), a patent-holding company existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, in the U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina. OptimumPath claims that certain of the Company's wireless networking products infringe on OptimumPath's U.S. Patent No. 7,035,281. OptimumPath also sued six other technology companies alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the second quarter of 2008. Several defendants, including the Company, jointly filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the OptimumPath patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) on October 13, 2008. On January 12, 2009, a reexamination was ordered with respect to claims 1-3 and 8-10 of the patent, but denied with respect to claims 4-7 and 11-32 of the patent. On February 4, 2009, the defendants jointly filed a petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 4-7 and 11-32. On March 26, 2009, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of claims 1-3 and 8-10 without amendment. Shortly thereafter, in March 2009, the District Court granted defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In July 2009, the defendants' petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 4-7 and 11-32 was denied by the USPTO. Since the petition and prosecution were closed, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice on July 31, 2009, and the defendants chose to appeal the confirmation of claims 1-3 and 8-10 by filing a notice of appeal on August 31, 2009. The Company and OptimumPath attended a Court-ordered mediation on September 22, 2009 but were unable to make progress towards settlement. The Company and other defendants filed a combined claim construction/summary judgment brief on December 23, 2010. OptimumPath responded on January 20, 2011, and the defendants replied on February 3, 2011. The oral arguments on claim construction and the summary judgment motion were made on February 17, 2011. An oral hearing was held on March 9, 2011 in the USPTO and a decision by the USPTO was issued on March 30, 2011 confirming the patentability of claims 1-3 and 8-10. On April 12, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on OptimumPath's claim for literal infringement and defendants' motion to preclude OptimumPath's infringement claims based on the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also found that the accused devices did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also granted defendants' motion for summary judgment that asserted claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 through 13 of the '281 patent were invalidated by various prior art. The pretrial conference and trial dates were vacated. OptimumPath filed its notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit of the District Court's rulings on May 18, 2011. On May 23, 2011, the District Court entered the defendants' joint request for costs in the amount of $103,000, which have not yet been collected or recognized. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal. In addition, the defendants appealed the USPTO's ruling confirming the patentability of claims 1-3 and 8-10 to the Federal Circuit by filing a Reexamination Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit on October 18, 2011. The parties argued OptimumPath's appeal of the District Court's summary judgment rulings before the Federal Circuit on March 5, 2011. On March 7, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment rulings in favor of the defendants. OptimumPath has not indicated whether or not it will appeal the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the District Court's summary judgment rulings. On June 5, 2012, the parties are scheduled to argue the defendants' appeal of the USPTO rulings before the Federal Circuit.

Ruckus Wireless v. NETGEAR

In May 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Ruckus Wireless (“Ruckus”), a developer of Wi-Fi technology, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Ruckus alleges that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,358,912 ('912 Patent) and 7,193,562 ('562 Patent) in the course of deploying Wi-Fi antenna array technology in its WPN824 RangeMax wireless router. Ruckus also sued Rayspan Corporation alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the third quarter of 2008. The Company and Rayspan Corporation jointly filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the Ruckus patents with the USPTO on September 4, 2008. The Court issued a stay of the litigation while the reexaminations proceeded in the USPTO. On November 28, 2008, a reexamination was ordered with respect to claims 11-17 of the '562 Patent, but denied with respect to claims 1-10 and 18-36. On December 17, 2008, the defendants jointly filed a petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 1-10 and 18-36 of the '562 Patent. In July 2009, the petition was denied, and the remaining claims 11-17 were confirmed. The Company is appealing the confirmation of claims 11-17. On December 2, 2008, reexamination was granted with regard to the '912 Patent. In early October 2009, the Company received an Action Closing Prosecution in the reexamination of the '912 Patent. All the claims of the '912 Patent, with the exception of the unchallenged claims 7 and 8, were finally rejected by the USPTO. On October 30, 2009, Ruckus submitted an “after-final” amendment in the '912 Patent reexamination proceeding. The Company's comments to Ruckus' “after-final” amendment were submitted on November 30, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the Court found that bifurcating the '562 Patent from the '912 Patent and commencing litigation on the '562 Patent while the USPTO reexamination process and appeals are still pending would be an inefficient use of the Court's resources. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the litigation stay should remain in effect. On September 12, 2010, the Company filed the rebuttal brief in its appeals of the USPTO's rulings during the reexamination of the '562 Patent, and the Company requested an oral hearing with the Board of Appeals at the USPTO to discuss this brief. On September 13, 2010, Ruckus filed a notice of appeal of the '912 Patent to appeal the adverse rulings it received from the USPTO in the reexamination of this patent. The Company filed a respondent's brief in the '912 Patent case on January 24, 2011. An oral hearing in the '562 case was set for February 1, 2011, but the Company decided to cancel it and let the USPTO decide the '562 case based solely on the previously submitted papers. On May 13, 2011, the USPTO indicated that the Company was successful in its appeal of the examiner's previous decision to allow claims 11-17 in the '562 reexamination, and the USPTO Board of Appeals reversed the examiner's decision and declared those claims invalid. On June 13, 2011, Ruckus submitted a request for rehearing by the Board of Appeals of its decision to reject claims 11-17 of the '562 Patent. On September 28, 2011, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences denied Ruckus's request for a rehearing in the '562 Patent reexamination case. Ruckus did not timely file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the USPTO's cancellation of claims 11-17 of the '562 patent. Therefore, a reexamination certificate will issue with claims 11-17 cancelled and claims 1-10 and 18-36 confirmed.

On November 4, 2009, Ruckus filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging the Company and Rayspan Corporation infringe a patent that is related to the patents previously asserted against the Company and Rayspan Corporation by Ruckus, as discussed above. This newly asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,525,486 entitled “Increased wireless coverage patterns.” As with the previous Ruckus action, the WPN824 RangeMax wireless router is the alleged infringing device. The Company challenged the sufficiency of Ruckus's complaint in this new action and moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruckus opposed this motion. The Court partially agreed with the Company's motion and ordered Ruckus to submit a new complaint, which Ruckus did. The initial case management conference occurred on February 11, 2010. On March 25, 2010, the Court ordered a stay until the completion of the '562 Patent's reexamination proceedings in the first Ruckus lawsuit against the Company and Rayspan. The Court instructed the parties to submit status reports to the Court every six months, apprising the Court of the status of the pending reexamination proceedings in the USPTO. Upon final exhaustion of all pending reexamination proceedings of the '562 Patent, including any appeals, the Court ordered the parties to jointly submit to the Court a letter indicating that all appeals have been exhausted and requesting a further case management conference. The case remains stayed.

On November 19, 2010, the Company filed suit against Ruckus in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware for infringement of four of the Company's patents. The Company alleges that Ruckus's manufacture, use, sale or offers for sale within the United States or importation into the United States of products, including wireless communication products, infringe United States Patent Nos. 5,812,531, 6,621,454, 7,263,143, and 5,507,035, all owned by the Company. The Company granted Ruckus an extension to file its answer to the Company's suit, and on January 11, 2011, Ruckus filed a motion to dismiss the Company's suit based on insufficient pleadings. The Company filed its response to Ruckus's motion on January 31, 2011. In addition, on May 6, 2011, Ruckus filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The Court denied Ruckus' motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California and granted the Company leave to file an amended complaint rather than address the Ruckus motion to dismiss based on insufficient pleadings. The Company filed the proposed amended complaint. Nevertheless, Ruckus filed a second motion to dismiss based on insufficient pleadings by the Company. The Company has filed its opposition to Ruckus's motion, and the Court has not yet ruled on the motion. On March 28, 2012, the Delaware District Court in a memorandum opinion and order denied Ruckus's second motion to dismiss. A scheduling conference occurred April 18, 2012, but the District Court did not yet set a trial date. The discovery process, however, has commenced for the parties, and the Company's initial disclosures are due on May 15, 2012.

Northpeak Wireless, LLC v. NETGEAR

In October 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 30 other companies by Northpeak Wireless, LLC (“Northpeak”) in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Northpeak alleges that the Company's 802.11b compatible products infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,977,577 and 5,987,058. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the fourth quarter of 2008. On January 21, 2009, the District Court granted a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In August 2009, the parties stipulated to a litigation stay pending a reexamination request to the USPTO on the asserted patents. The reexaminations of the patents are proceeding. In March 2011, the USPTO confirmed the validity of the asserted claims of the '577 patent over certain prior art references. In April 2011, the USPTO issued a final office action rejecting both asserted claims of the '058 patent as being obvious in light of the prior art. The case remains stayed by stipulation, and no trial date has been set.

Ericsson v. NETGEAR

On September 14, 2010, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company and defendants D-Link Corporation, D-Link Systems, Inc., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas alleging that the defendants infringe certain Ericsson patents. The Company has been accused of infringing eight U.S. patents: 5,790,516; 6,330,435; 6,424,625; 6,519,223; 6,772,215; 5,987,019; 6,466,568; and 5,771,468. Ericsson generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the Ericsson patents through the defendants' IEEE 802.11-compliant products. In addition, Ericsson alleges that the Company has infringed, and continues to infringe, the claimed methods and apparatuses of the '468 Patent through the Company's PCMCIA routers. The Company filed its answer to the Ericsson complaint on December 17, 2010 where it asserted the affirmative defenses of noninfringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. On March 1, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California and their memorandum of law in support thereof. On March 21, 2011, Ericsson filed is opposition to the motion, and on April 1, 2011, defendants filed their reply to Ericsson's opposition to the motion to transfer. On June 8, 2011, Ericsson filed an amended complaint that added Dell, Toshiba and Belkin as defendants. At the status conference held on Jun 9, 2011, the Court set a Markman hearing for June 28, 2012 and trial for June 3, 2013. On June 14, 2011, Ericsson submitted its infringement contentions against the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court denied the defendants motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The parties are now approaching the Markman hearing. In advance of the Markman hearing, the parties on March 9, 2012 exchanged proposed constructions of claim terms and on April 9, 2012 filed the Joint Claim Construction Statement with the District Court. The remaining deadlines up to and including the Markman hearing are: May 8, 2012 - Ericsson's Markman brief is due; May 16, 2012 - Tutorials are due; June 18, 2012 - Defendants Markman brief is due; June 15 - Ericsson's Reply Markman brief is due; and June 28, 2012 - Markman hearing occurs. Discovery is ongoing.

Fujitsu v. NETGEAR

On September 3, 2010, Fujitsu filed a complaint against the Company, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin, Inc., D−Link Corporation, D−Link Systems, Inc., ZyXEL Communications Corporation, and Zyxel Communications, Inc in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging that certain of the Company's products infringe upon Fujitsu's U.S. patent Re. 36,769 patent ('769 Patent) through various cards and interface devices within the Company's products. The Company answered the complaint denying the allegations of infringement and claiming that the asserted patent is invalid. In addition, the Company filed a motion to disqualify counsel for Fujitsu. The Company's disqualification motion was argued before the Court on December 16, 2010, and on December 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion and disqualified counsel for Fujitsu. In response, Fujitsu requested a stipulation from all parties to reset the case management conference and scheduled hearing dates for the motions to dismiss. The initial case management conference was held on March 18, 2011. A claim construction hearing was held on October 14, 2011. On February 3, 2012, the Court issued its claim construction order based on the claim construction hearing. On March 3, 2011, the Fujitsu patent emerged from the latest ex-parte reexamination in the USPTO. The USPTO examiner rejected five of the “wired” claims in the patent, but found that the majority of claims of the patent were valid. Expert discovery opens May 4, 2012 with the exchange of initial expert reports. Rebuttal expert reports are due May 25, and expert discovery closes on June 8, 2012. Dispositive motions are due June 28, 2012, and trial is set to commence on November 26, 2012. The parties are continuing to participate in the discovery process.

Chalumeau Power Systems v. NETGEAR.

On June 28, 2011, Chalumeau Power Systems LLC (“Chalumeau”) filed a complaint against several technology companies - including the Company, Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., D-Link, and Avaya Inc. - in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware alleging infringement of a patent for a remote device detection method. The patent number is U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 ('885 Patent) and is entitled “Method and apparatus for detecting the presence of a remote device and providing power thereto.” Chalumeau claimed that the defendants have all made or sold devices that make use of infringing PoE technology, which allows electrical power and data to pass safely on Ethernet cabling. The Company answered Chalumeau's complaint on September 1, 2011, and asserted various defenses and counterclaims, including those of noninfringement and invalidity of the '885 Patent. In October 2011, a settlement of this lawsuit was reached between Chalumeau and the Company through a third-party intermediary. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, the Company and Chalumeau signed a binding release agreement in which both parties agreed to mutual general releases from all claims, known or unknown, under the '885 Patent and its foreign counterparts with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. The Court has since dismissed Chalumeau's claims for relief against the Company and the Company's counterclaims for relief against Chalumeau, with prejudice and with all attorneys' fees, costs and expenses levied against the party incurring the same.

Powerline Innovations, LLC v. NETGEAR

On August 6, 2011 the Company, along with 16 other companies, was sued in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division for patent infringement by a non-practicing entity called Powerline Innovations, LLC (“Powerline Innovations”). This is a single patent case, involving U.S. Patent No. 5,471,190, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Resource Allocation in a Communication Network System.” On the same day that it filed suit against the Company and 16 other companies, Powerline Innovations sued 14 additional companies in a separate suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas for infringement of the same patent. The complaint against the Company alleges that it infringes the 5,471,190 patent based on the Company's use of methods for establishing control relationships between plural devices and names the Company's Powerline AV Ethernet Adapter, Model XAV101, as an accused infringing product. The Company answered the plaintiff's complaint on December 12, 2011, and asserted that it has not infringed the patent in suit and that the patent in suit is invalid. In addition, the Company asserted various affirmative defenses. Powerline Innovations has not yet served all the parties. The Court will likely not set an initial status conference before service is completed.

Summit Data Systems LLC v. NETGEAR.

On September 1, 2010, a non-practicing entity, Summit Data Systems LLC (“Summit Data Systems”), sued the Company and seven other companies in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware alleging infringement of two patents -- U.S. Patent No. 7,392,291 ('291 Patent), entitled Architecture for Providing Block-Level Access over a Computer Network and U.S. Patent No. 7,428,581 ('581 Patent), entitled Architecture for Providing Block-Level Access over a Computer Network. The '581 Patent is a continuation of the '291 Patent. The Company's ReadyNAS and NVX products were listed by the plaintiff in the complaint as accused infringing products. The Company answered the complaint on November 1, 2010, asserting that the patents are not infringed and invalid. Subsequently, the Company participated in discovery, and trial for this matter was scheduled for March 2013. In October 2011, a settlement of this lawsuit was reached between Summit Data Systems and the Company through a third-party intermediary. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, the Company and Summit Data Systems signed a binding release agreement in which both parties agreed to mutual general releases from all claims, known or unknown, under the '291 Patent and '581 Patents and certain other patents and applications assigned to Summit Data Systems with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. The Court has since dismissed Summit Data Systems's claims for relief against the Company and the Company's counterclaims for relief against Summit Data Systems, with prejudice and with all attorneys' fees, costs and expenses levied against the party incurring the same.

NETGEAR v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC.

On November 16, 2011, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware for non-infringement and invalidity of 17 WiFi-related patents brought in the approximately 15 actions throughout the United States by Innovatio IP Ventures LLC (“Innovatio”) against end user customers of the Company and other companies. Shortly after filing the declaratory judgment action, the Company filed a response supporting Cisco Systems, Inc.'s and Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer for Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 that was before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). The pending motion to transfer would serve to consolidate all of the Innovatio lawsuits - including NETGEAR's pending declaratory judgment action in Delaware-and transfer them to a single court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 28, 2011, the JPML issued an order transferring the Innovatio actions throughout the United States, including the Company's declaratory judgment action, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Thus, the Company's declaratory judgment action and approximately 15 other similar cases will now proceed in the Northern District of Illinois in a consolidated fashion. The status conference originally scheduled for March 27, 2012 was postponed by the District Court until April 10, 2012. At the conference, the District Court discussed two primary issues (1) case phasing (i.e., which subset of defendants should proceed after Markman Hearing through the remaining proceedings) and (2) the defendants' proposal on damages contentions. The District Court stated that it tentatively felt that the case should proceed with one or more WiFi hardware suppliers after the Markman Hearing, but was going to reserve a final ruling on the issue. The District Court withheld ordering damages contentions for the time being. The District Court also ordered that the parties prepare a joint pretrial order reflecting his decisions and the schedule for the case.

Harris Corporation v. NETGEAR.

On November 26, 2011, Harris Corporation (“Harris”) sued the Company in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida alleging that the Company willfully infringes six of Harris's patents -- U.S. Patent Nos. 6,504,515, 7,916,684, 5,787,177, 5,974,149, 6,189,104, and 6,397,336. The Company obtained an extension until February 20, 2012 to answer the complaint and is reviewing the complaint and patents. It appears that Harris is attempting to read four of the patents (the '177, '149, '104, and '336 Patents) on the Company's ProSecure UTM series of products. The other two patents (the '515 and '684 Patents) allegedly read on certain of the Company's access points and wireless routers and gateways with multiple antennas. Harris filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2012 that removed its initial allegations of willful infringement by the Company and also removed the allegations of direct infringement against the Company for U.S. Patent No. 7,916,684, leaving only indirect infringement allegations for the '684 Patent. The Company's answer to the amended complaint was submitted on March 2, 2012. The scheduling order in this case gives the following deadlines: a) Motions to Add Parties or to Amend Pleadings April 30, 2012; b) Disclosure of Expert Reports by the Plaintiff: November 14, 2012; c) Disclosure of Expert Reports by the Defendant: December 14, 2012; d) Discovery Deadline: February 8, 2013; e) Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions: March 15, 2013 f) Markman Motions: July 2, 2012; g) Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final Pretrial Statement: May 8, 2013; h) Joint Final Pretrial Statement: May 20, 2013; i) Trial Term Begins: August 1, 2013. The Court set a length of trial of 5-10 days. The parties are currently participating in discovery.

On April 3, 2012, the Company filed suit against Harris in the District Court of the Northern District of California asserting that Harris infringes four of the Company's patents. In the complaint, the Company alleges that Harris infringes: a) U.S. Patent No. 6,718,030 (“the '030 Patent”), entitled “Virtual Private Network System and Method Using Voice of Internet Protocol” through Harris's VIDA Network and products, the VIDA Telephone Interconnect (VTI), the MASTR III Base Station, and the EDACS MASTR III repeater; b) U.S. Patent No. 7,200,400 (“the '400 Patent”), entitled “Mobile to 802.11 Voice Multi-Network Roaming Utilizing SIP Signaling With SIP Proxy or Redirect Server” through Harris's VIDA Network and products, the Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI) Gateway, the Interoperability Gateway, and the UNITY XG-100P Portable Radio; c) U.S. Patent No. 7,218,722 (“the '722 Patent”), entitled “System and Method For Proving Call Management Services in a Virtual Private Network Using Voice or Video Over Internet Protocol” through Harris's VIDA Network and products, the VIDA Telephone Interconnect (VTI), the P7200 Portable Radio, the OpenSky Network and Products, the MASTR III Base Station, and EDACS MASTR III repeater; and d) U.S. Patent No. 7,936,714 (“the '714 Patent”), entitled “Spectrum Allocation System and Method For Multi-Band Wireless RF Data Communications” through Harris's UNITY XG-100P Portable Radio. The Company granted Harris's request for an extension until May 25, 2012 to answer the Company's complaint.

IP Indemnification Claims

In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers (the “Indemnified Parties”) for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties that are asserted against the Indemnified Parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is generally unlimited. From time to time, the Company receives requests for indemnity and may choose to assume the defense of such litigation asserted against the Indemnified Parties.

In June 2006, the Company received a request for indemnification from Charter and Charter Communications Operating, LLC ("Charter") related to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, by Rembrandt Technologies, L.P. (“Rembrandt”), a patent-holding company. Rembrandt also filed a similar lawsuit in the same jurisdiction against Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast of Plano, LP. Rembrandt alleged that products implementing the DOCSIS standard, which are supplied to Charter, Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast of Plano, LP by, among others, the Company, infringe various patents held by Rembrandt. In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered these and other similar patent cases brought by Rembrandt consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In November 2007, the Company along with Motorola, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., ARRIS Group, Inc., Thomson, Inc. and Ambit Microsystems, Inc. filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Rembrandt, seeking a declaration that eight asserted Rembrandt patents asserted in the transferred cases are either invalid or not infringed. The District Court held a claim construction hearing on August 5, 2008. On November 29, 2008, the District Court issued its claim construction order. After the District Court's order, Rembrandt agreed to drop three patents from the case, leaving five patents at issue. The District Court held a mediation on March 3-4, 2009 but the parties were unable to reach a resolution. On July 21, 2009, Rembrandt delivered to the Company and other parties an executed covenant not to sue on any of the eight patents originally in the suit, contending that the execution of the covenant divests the District Court of jurisdiction or renders moot the remaining claims and counterclaims in the action. On July 31, 2009, Rembrandt filed a motion to dismiss the litigation. While Rembrandt's motion was pending, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, motions for sanctions, and responses to Rembrandt's motion to dismiss. In early October 2009, the District Court suspended all further dates for the case while it reviewed the pending motions and case status. On October 23, 2009, the Court ordered Rembrandt to supplement the covenant not to sue to include any products or services that comply with DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 or 3 and dismissed Rembrandt's various infringement claims on the eight patents with prejudice. The Court gave Rembrandt five days to withdraw its motion to dismiss the litigation if it found the Court's conditions on dismissal to be unacceptable. Rembrandt did not withdraw its motion to dismiss the litigation, and on October 30, 2009, Rembrandt executed a covenant not to sue on any of the eight patents in the case and any products or services that comply with DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 or 3. The Company and its co-defendants moved for attorneys' fees to be paid by Rembrandt. Rembrandt opposed the motion. On July 8, 2011, the Court denied the defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the one patent remaining in the case, the '627 Patent. This ruling did not affect the Company since that patent was not asserted against the Company, other than postponing the Company's possible recovery of attorneys' fees. On July 13, 2011, the Court dismissed without prejudice the defendants' joint motion for fees because the motion is now not ripe given the Court's denial of the motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the '627 Patent. The Company is now reviewing its options for recovering attorneys' fees.

Environmental Regulation

The European Union (“EU”) has enacted the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, which makes producers of electrical goods, including home and commercial business networking products, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products. The deadline for the individual member states of the EU to transpose the directive into law in their respective countries was August 13, 2004 (such legislation, together with the directive, the “WEEE Legislation”). Producers participating in the market were financially responsible for implementing these responsibilities under the WEEE Legislation beginning in August 13, 2005. Similar WEEE Legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, China, India, Australia and Japan. The Company adopted the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and environmental obligations in the third quarter of fiscal 2005 and has determined that its effect did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations and financial position for the three months ended April 1, 2012. The Company continues to monitor WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions as individual countries issue their implementation guidance. The Company believes it has met the applicable requirements of current WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions, to the extent implementation requirements have been published.

Additionally, the EU has enacted the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (“RoHS Legislation”), the REACH Directive and the Battery Directive. EU RoHS Legislation, along with similar legislation in China, requires manufacturers to ensure certain substances, including polybrominated biphenyls (“PBD”), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (“PBDE”), mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and lead (except for allowed exempted materials and applications), are below specified maximum concentration values in certain products put on the market after July 1, 2006. The REACH Directive similarly requires manufacturers to ensure the published list of substances of very high concern in certain products are below specified maximum concentration values. The Battery Directive prohibits use of certain types of battery technology in certain products. The Company believes it has met the requirements of the RoHS Legislation, the REACH Directive and the Battery Directive.

Additionally, the EU has enacted the Energy Using Product (“EuP”) Directive, which requires manufacturers of certain products to meet minimum energy efficiency limits. These limits are documented in EuP implementing measures issued for specific types of equipment and document minimum power supply efficiencies and may include required equipment standby modes which also reduce energy consumption. The Company believes it has met the requirements of the applicable EuP implementing measures.