Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 02, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies *Litigation and Other Legal Matters* Wi-Lan Inc. v. NETGEAR In October 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Wi-Lan Inc. ("Wi-Lan"), a patent-holding company existing under the laws of Canada, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Wi-Lan alleged that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,282,222, RE37,802 and 5,956,323. Wi-Lan accused the Company of infringement with respect to its wireless networking products compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standards and ADSL products compliant with the ITUG.992 standards. Wi-Lan also sued 21 other technology companies alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the first quarter of 2008. A claim construction hearing took place for the '222 and '802 Patents on March 11, 2010, and on May 11, 2010, the Court issued its order interpreting the claims of these patents (claim construction order). The claim construction hearing on the '323 patent occurred on September 1, 2010, and the Court subsequently issued its claim construction order for this patent. The Court ordered that infringement of the RE37,802 and 5,282,222 (Wi-Fi) patents would be tried first, as to all defendants, and infringement of the 5,956,323 (DSL) patent would be addressed in a second trial. Shortly before the beginning of the first trial, the Company and Wi-Lan entered into settlement discussions. 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 Wi-Lan signed a binding release agreement in which the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment to be paid by May 15, 2011 in consideration for mutual general releases. In the agreement, each party agreed to release the other party from all claims, known or unknown, under any of the '222, '802 and '323 Patents with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Company made the required one-time lump sum payment that was due by May 15, 2011. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Court has dismissed all claims between Wi-Lan and the Company, including all claims presented by Wi-Lan's complaint and all of the Company's counterclaims, and neither of the scheduled trials between Wi-Lan and the Company will occur. This litigation matter is now concluded. Fujitsu et. al v. NETGEAR In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Fujitsu Limited, LG Electronics, Inc. and U.S. Philips Corporation in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs allege that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,018,642, 6,469,993 and 4,975,952. The plaintiffs accuse the Company's wireless networking products compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standards of infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the first quarter of 2008. The District Court held a claim construction hearing on August 15, 2008. On September 10, 2008, the District Court issued a claim construction order. In February 2009, the parties filed numerous motions for summary judgment concerning, among other things, non-infringement, invalidity, and other affirmative defenses. In September 2009, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the three patents-in-suit. The District Court determined that the Company's compliance with the 802.11 standard did not necessarily infringe the patents-in-suit and that the plaintiffs did not provide adequate evidence regarding the function of the Company's products to put the issue of infringement before a jury. In light of the District Court's determination that the patents-in-suit were not infringed, the District Court declined to address the Company's summary judgment claims of the invalidity of the patents in question. On December 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed two briefs with the Federal Circuit appealing the District Court's summary judgment rulings. On December 30, 2009, the District Court ordered litigation costs in the amount $175,000 to be reimbursed to the Company, which were never collected or recognized. The Company's opposition brief to the Plaintiff's appeal was submitted on February 18, 2010. The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on the Plaintiffs' appeal on June 7, 2010. On September 20, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that made three separate findings. It affirmed a summary judgment ruling from the District Court that the Company did not infringe the claims of a Fujitsu patent related to wireless communications technology. In addition, the Court affirmed a summary judgment ruling that the Company did not infringe the claims of an LG Electronics Inc. patent also related to wireless communications technology. Further, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the Company did not infringe a Philips patent for a method of transmitting data messages in a communications network, except for four products. For those four products, the Court ruled that Philips produced sufficient evidence of direct infringement, so that an infringement trial for these four products could proceed. On October 19, 2010, plaintiff LG Electronics submitted a petition for rehearing to the Federal Circuit requesting that the Federal Circuit's decision be set aside with respect to LG Electronics' asserted patent and that a rehearing be granted. The Federal Circuit denied LG Electronics' petition for a rehearing on November 2, 2010, letting stand its September 20, 2010 order affirming the District Court's decision to grant the Company summary judgment of noninfringement on the patent asserted by LG Electronics. Subsequent to the Federal Circuit ruling, the parties began settlement discussions with respect to the four remaining products accused of infringing the Philips patent. On March 8, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement agreement between Philips and the Company. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. This litigation matter is now concluded. 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. 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 petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 4-7 and 11-32 was denied. 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. 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 $102,554.00, which have not yet been collected or recognized. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal. OptimumPath submitted its opening brief in its appeal to the Federal Circuit on October 21, 2011, and the Company's answering brief is due on December 2, 2011. OptimumPath reply brief will then be due on December 16, 2011. 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. The next step for Ruckus would be to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ruckus has 60 days from September 28, 2011 until November 27, 2011in which to file such a notice. 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. 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. 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. WIAV Networks, LLC v. NETGEAR In July 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and over 50 other companies by WIAV Networks, LLC ("WIAV") in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. WIAV alleges that the Company and the other defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,480,497 and 5,400,338. WIAV alleges that the Company's wireless networking devices, including various routers and gateways, infringe upon WIAV's patents. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in October 2009 and asserted that WIAV's patents were both invalid and not infringed upon by the Company. In March 2010, the Company and its co-defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. WIAV opposed the motion. On June 3, 2010, the Court heard the defendants' motion to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The Court took the motion under consideration, and on July 15, 2010, the Court ruled that it would transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Discovery has not commenced. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California ordered WIAV to demonstrate why the Court should not dismiss all but the first named defendant from the lawsuit. The parties briefed and argued this issue before the Court. In response, the Court dismissed without prejudice all the defendants from the case except Hewlett-Packard Company. PACid Group, LLC v. NETGEAR In July 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 30 other companies by The PACid Group, LLC ("PACid") in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. PACid alleges that the Company and the other defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,963,646 ('646 Patent) and 6,049,612 ('612 Patent). PACid alleges that certain unnamed NETGEAR products that use encryption methods infringe upon PACid's patents. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in September 2009 and asserted that PACid's patents were both invalid and not infringed by the Company. Discovery has not yet commenced. Most of the Company's chipset suppliers have settled out of the lawsuit and obtained a license to the plaintiff's asserted patents. Because most of the accused infringement occurred in the chipset, this settlement by the chipset suppliers limits the claims the plaintiff has against the Company. On March 7, 2011, the Company attended a status conference. On May 17, 2011, the Court held another status conference. At this conference, the Company indicated to the Court that a small percentage of the relevant products have non-licensed chip sets. The Court ordered that within 21 days of the status conference PACid shall produce all license agreements it has entered into; within 30 days of the status conference, all defendants shall produce a declaration on sales data; and within 14 days from that defendant production, PACid shall dismiss without prejudice the appropriate defendants. The parties complied with the order, and PACid did not dismiss the Company. On August 23, 2011, at mediation between the Company and PACid, a settlement of this lawsuit was reached. 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 PACid signed a binding release agreement in which the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment in consideration for mutual general releases. In the agreement, each party agreed to release the other party from all claims, known or unknown, under any of the '646 and '612 Patents with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Company has made the required one-time lump sum payment. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Court has dismissed all claims between PACid and the Company, including all claims presented by PACid's complaint and all of the Company's counterclaims, and the trial in this matter will not occur. This litigation matter is now concluded. MPH Technologies Oy v. NETGEAR On February 4, 2010, the Company was sued by MPH Technologies Oy ("MPH") for infringement of U.S. patent 7,346,926 entitled "Method for Sending Messages Over Secure Mobile Communication Links." MPH alleges that the Company's VPN Client Software, Dual WAN gigabit SSL VPN Firewall, ProSafe Dual WAN VPN Firewall with 8-port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall with 8-port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall 8 with 8-Port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall 8 with 4-Port 10/100 Mbps Switch, ProSafe 802 11 g Wireless ADSL Modem VPN Firewall Router, ProSafe Wireless-N VPN Firewall, and ProSafe 802 11 wireless VPN Firewall 8 with 8-port 10/100 Mbps Switch infringe claims of the '926 Patent. On May 17, 2010, the defendants jointly filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In addition, the Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims on that day. On June 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed its answer to the Company's invalidity counterclaim and its response to the defendants' motion to transfer. On June 23, 2010, the defendants filed their joint reply to plaintiff's response to the defendants' motion to transfer venue. On July 16, 2010, the Court issued an order transferring the case to the Northern District of California. On September 10, 2010, the Company amended its answer to the complaint. The initial scheduling conference occurred on December 2, 2010. In response to this conference, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff must file its opening claim construction brief no later than May 17, 2011 and that defendants must file their responsive claim construction briefs no later than May 31, 2011. The Court also ordered that a claim construction hearing take place on June 22, 2011. The Company and plaintiff signed a settlement agreement on May 15, 2011. In the agreement, the Company agreed to pay a one-time lump sum payment and grant MPH certain other patent rights in return for each party agreeing to release the other party from all claims, known or unknown, under the patent in suit and related patents with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. The Company received a fully paid, worldwide, perpetual license to the patent in suit and all foreign counterparts and related patents. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Company has subsequently made the required one-time lump sum payment. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On May 16, 2011, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has since made the lump sum payment to MPH, and this litigation matter is now concluded. 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. 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. The parties are currently participating in the discovery process. Data Network Storage, LLC v. NETGEAR In April 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 14 other companies by Data Network Storage, LLC ("DNS") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. DNS alleges that the Company and the other third parties infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,098,128. In particular, DNS is alleging that several of the Company's ReadyNAS products infringe upon DNS's patents. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in July 2009 and asserted that DNS's patents were both invalid and had not been infringed upon by the Company. In September 2009, at a Court-sanctioned early neutral evaluation, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on a settlement, and discovery continued. On January 27, 2010, the Court denied co-defendant Fujitsu America, Inc.'s motion to stay the litigation, and the Company submitted its invalidity contentions on February 1, 2010. The Company and the plaintiff entered into settlement discussions in early March. 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 agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment in consideration for a fully paid and perpetual license to, and a covenant not to sue on, the '128 patent and the plaintiff's entire portfolio of U.S. patents, related patents, and foreign counterparts. The Company has made the required one-time lump sum payment, and the lawsuit by DNS against the Company was dismissed with prejudice on April 23, 2010. This arrangement did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2010. NETGEAR v. CSIRO In May 2005, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ("CSIRO"), in the San Jose division of the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that the claims of CSIRO's U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 are invalid and not infringed by any of Company's products. CSIRO had asserted that the Company's wireless networking products implementing the IEEE 802.11a, 802.11g, and 802.11n wireless LAN standards infringe this patent. In July 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to deny CSIRO's motion to dismiss the action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In September 2006, the Federal Circuit denied CSIRO's request for a rehearing en banc. CSIRO filed a response to the complaint in September 2006. In December 2006, the District Court granted CSIRO's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had brought and won a similar lawsuit against Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc., which Buffalo appealed and which was partially remanded to the District Court. The District Court consolidated this action with three related actions involving other companies (such as Buffalo) accused of infringing CSIRO's patent. The Company attended a Court-mandated mediation in November 2007 but failed to resolve the litigation. The District Court held a June 26, 2008 claim construction hearing. On August 14, 2008, the District Court issued a claim construction order and denied a motion for summary judgment of invalidity. In December 2008, the parties filed numerous motions for summary judgment concerning, among other things, infringement, validity, and other affirmative defenses. The District Court commenced a jury trial on April 13, 2009 regarding all liability issues for the four consolidated cases. On April 20, 2009, the Company and CSIRO executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth the terms of a settlement and license agreement between the Company and CSIRO. 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 agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment in consideration for a fully paid perpetual license and a covenant not to sue with respect to the '069 patent and all foreign counterparts and related patents. Based on the historical and estimated projected future unit sales of the Company's products that were alleged to infringe the asserted patent, the Company allocated a portion of the settlement cost towards product shipments prior to the settlement, which the Company recorded as a litigation settlement expense of $2.4 million, which was primarily recognized in the three months ended March 29, 2009. Additionally, the Company allocated $2.6 million of the settlement cost to prepaid royalties which will be recognized as a component of cost of revenue as the related products are sold. Of this $2.6 million, $413,000 and $551,000 were amortized and expensed in the year ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Additionally, $413,000 was amortized and expensed in the nine months ended October 2, 2011. Finoc, LLC v. NETGEAR In February 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 14 other companies by Finoc Design Consulting OY ("Finoc") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Finoc alleged that the Company's wireless DSL gateway products infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,850,560. In June 2009, without admitting any patent infringement, wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation, the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment of $82,500 in consideration for a fully paid perpetual license to the patent in suit as well as a dismissal with prejudice by Finoc. Based on the historical and estimated projected future unit sales of the Company's products that were alleged to infringe the asserted patents, the Company allocated a portion of the settlement cost towards product shipments prior to the settlement, which the Company recorded as a litigation settlement expense in the three months ended June 28, 2009. Additionally, the Company allocated the balance of the settlement cost to prepaid royalties which will be recognized as a component of cost of revenue as the related products are sold. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. NETGEAR In February 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. ("Network-1"), a patent-holding company existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Network-1 alleged that the Company's power over Ethernet ("PoE") products infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930. Network-1 also sued six other companies alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer in the second quarter of 2008. In May 2009, without admitting any patent infringement, wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation, the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment of $350,000, which the Company recorded as a litigation settlement in fiscal 2009, in consideration for a license to the patent in suit as well as a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit. Under the license, the Company will pay future running royalties on certain of its PoE products which will be recognized as a component of cost of revenue as the related products are sold. 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 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 claims 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 is reviewing the complaint and is in the process of retaining outside legal counsel to defend it. 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 non-party RPX Corporation. 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 a payment was made to Chalumeau by RPX Corporation in consideration for 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 is currently investigating the allegations. 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 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 non-party RPX Corporation. 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 a payment was made to Summit Data Systems by RPX Corporation in consideration for 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. 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 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, 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. All of the above described claims against the Company, or filed by the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility it would have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable. In addition, the Company is subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation related to intellectual property and employment matters. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcomes of any unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity or results of operations within the next 12 months. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the Company's view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations or liquidity for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable, and potentially in future periods. *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 October 2, 2011. The Company is continuing to evaluate the impact of the WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions as individual countries issue their implementation guidance. 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. *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. *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. *Guarantees and Indemnifications* 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 October 2, 2011, the Company had $161.7 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. 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 October 2, 2011. 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 of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual any time after execution of the 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 October 2, 2011.

Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Oct. 02, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and Other Legal Matters

Wi-Lan Inc. v. NETGEAR

In October 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Wi-Lan Inc. ("Wi-Lan"), a patent-holding company existing under the laws of Canada, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Wi-Lan alleged that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,282,222, RE37,802 and 5,956,323. Wi-Lan accused the Company of infringement with respect to its wireless networking products compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standards and ADSL products compliant with the ITUG.992 standards. Wi-Lan also sued 21 other technology companies alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the first quarter of 2008. A claim construction hearing took place for the '222 and '802 Patents on March 11, 2010, and on May 11, 2010, the Court issued its order interpreting the claims of these patents (claim construction order). The claim construction hearing on the '323 patent occurred on September 1, 2010, and the Court subsequently issued its claim construction order for this patent. The Court ordered that infringement of the RE37,802 and 5,282,222 (Wi-Fi) patents would be tried first, as to all defendants, and infringement of the 5,956,323 (DSL) patent would be addressed in a second trial. Shortly before the beginning of the first trial, the Company and Wi-Lan entered into settlement discussions. 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 Wi-Lan signed a binding release agreement in which the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment to be paid by May 15, 2011 in consideration for mutual general releases. In the agreement, each party agreed to release the other party from all claims, known or unknown, under any of the '222, '802 and '323 Patents with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Company made the required one-time lump sum payment that was due by May 15, 2011. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Court has dismissed all claims between Wi-Lan and the Company, including all claims presented by Wi-Lan's complaint and all of the Company's counterclaims, and neither of the scheduled trials between Wi-Lan and the Company will occur. This litigation matter is now concluded.

Fujitsu et. al v. NETGEAR

In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Fujitsu Limited, LG Electronics, Inc. and U.S. Philips Corporation in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs allege that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,018,642, 6,469,993 and 4,975,952. The plaintiffs accuse the Company's wireless networking products compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standards of infringement. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the first quarter of 2008. The District Court held a claim construction hearing on August 15, 2008. On September 10, 2008, the District Court issued a claim construction order. In February 2009, the parties filed numerous motions for summary judgment concerning, among other things, non-infringement, invalidity, and other affirmative defenses. In September 2009, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the three patents-in-suit. The District Court determined that the Company's compliance with the 802.11 standard did not necessarily infringe the patents-in-suit and that the plaintiffs did not provide adequate evidence regarding the function of the Company's products to put the issue of infringement before a jury. In light of the District Court's determination that the patents-in-suit were not infringed, the District Court declined to address the Company's summary judgment claims of the invalidity of the patents in question. On December 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed two briefs with the Federal Circuit appealing the District Court's summary judgment rulings. On December 30, 2009, the District Court ordered litigation costs in the amount $175,000 to be reimbursed to the Company, which were never collected or recognized. The Company's opposition brief to the Plaintiff's appeal was submitted on February 18, 2010. The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on the Plaintiffs' appeal on June 7, 2010. On September 20, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that made three separate findings. It affirmed a summary judgment ruling from the District Court that the Company did not infringe the claims of a Fujitsu patent related to wireless communications technology. In addition, the Court affirmed a summary judgment ruling that the Company did not infringe the claims of an LG Electronics Inc. patent also related to wireless communications technology. Further, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the Company did not infringe a Philips patent for a method of transmitting data messages in a communications network, except for four products. For those four products, the Court ruled that Philips produced sufficient evidence of direct infringement, so that an infringement trial for these four products could proceed. On October 19, 2010, plaintiff LG Electronics submitted a petition for rehearing to the Federal Circuit requesting that the Federal Circuit's decision be set aside with respect to LG Electronics' asserted patent and that a rehearing be granted. The Federal Circuit denied LG Electronics' petition for a rehearing on November 2, 2010, letting stand its September 20, 2010 order affirming the District Court's decision to grant the Company summary judgment of noninfringement on the patent asserted by LG Electronics. Subsequent to the Federal Circuit ruling, the parties began settlement discussions with respect to the four remaining products accused of infringing the Philips patent. On March 8, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement agreement between Philips and the Company. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. This litigation matter is now concluded.

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. 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 petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of claims 4-7 and 11-32 was denied. 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. 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 $102,554.00, which have not yet been collected or recognized. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal. OptimumPath submitted its opening brief in its appeal to the Federal Circuit on October 21, 2011, and the Company's answering brief is due on December 2, 2011. OptimumPath reply brief will then be due on December 16, 2011.

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. The next step for Ruckus would be to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ruckus has 60 days from September 28, 2011 until November 27, 2011in which to file such a notice.

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.

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.

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.

WIAV Networks, LLC v. NETGEAR

In July 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and over 50 other companies by WIAV Networks, LLC ("WIAV") in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. WIAV alleges that the Company and the other defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,480,497 and 5,400,338. WIAV alleges that the Company's wireless networking devices, including various routers and gateways, infringe upon WIAV's patents. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in October 2009 and asserted that WIAV's patents were both invalid and not infringed upon by the Company. In March 2010, the Company and its co-defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. WIAV opposed the motion. On June 3, 2010, the Court heard the defendants' motion to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The Court took the motion under consideration, and on July 15, 2010, the Court ruled that it would transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Discovery has not commenced. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California ordered WIAV to demonstrate why the Court should not dismiss all but the first named defendant from the lawsuit. The parties briefed and argued this issue before the Court. In response, the Court dismissed without prejudice all the defendants from the case except Hewlett-Packard Company.

PACid Group, LLC v. NETGEAR

In July 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 30 other companies by The PACid Group, LLC ("PACid") in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. PACid alleges that the Company and the other defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,963,646 ('646 Patent) and 6,049,612 ('612 Patent). PACid alleges that certain unnamed NETGEAR products that use encryption methods infringe upon PACid's patents. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in September 2009 and asserted that PACid's patents were both invalid and not infringed by the Company. Discovery has not yet commenced. Most of the Company's chipset suppliers have settled out of the lawsuit and obtained a license to the plaintiff's asserted patents. Because most of the accused infringement occurred in the chipset, this settlement by the chipset suppliers limits the claims the plaintiff has against the Company. On March 7, 2011, the Company attended a status conference. On May 17, 2011, the Court held another status conference. At this conference, the Company indicated to the Court that a small percentage of the relevant products have non-licensed chip sets. The Court ordered that within 21 days of the status conference PACid shall produce all license agreements it has entered into; within 30 days of the status conference, all defendants shall produce a declaration on sales data; and within 14 days from that defendant production, PACid shall dismiss without prejudice the appropriate defendants. The parties complied with the order, and PACid did not dismiss the Company. On August 23, 2011, at mediation between the Company and PACid, a settlement of this lawsuit was reached. 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 PACid signed a binding release agreement in which the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment in consideration for mutual general releases. In the agreement, each party agreed to release the other party from all claims, known or unknown, under any of the '646 and '612 Patents with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Company has made the required one-time lump sum payment. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Court has dismissed all claims between PACid and the Company, including all claims presented by PACid's complaint and all of the Company's counterclaims, and the trial in this matter will not occur. This litigation matter is now concluded.

MPH Technologies Oy v. NETGEAR

On February 4, 2010, the Company was sued by MPH Technologies Oy ("MPH") for infringement of U.S. patent 7,346,926 entitled "Method for Sending Messages Over Secure Mobile Communication Links." MPH alleges that the Company's VPN Client Software, Dual WAN gigabit SSL VPN Firewall, ProSafe Dual WAN VPN Firewall with 8-port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall with 8-port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall 8 with 8-Port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall 8 with 4-Port 10/100 Mbps Switch, ProSafe 802 11 g Wireless ADSL Modem VPN Firewall Router, ProSafe Wireless-N VPN Firewall, and ProSafe 802 11 wireless VPN Firewall 8 with 8-port 10/100 Mbps Switch infringe claims of the '926 Patent. On May 17, 2010, the defendants jointly filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In addition, the Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims on that day. On June 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed its answer to the Company's invalidity counterclaim and its response to the defendants' motion to transfer. On June 23, 2010, the defendants filed their joint reply to plaintiff's response to the defendants' motion to transfer venue. On July 16, 2010, the Court issued an order transferring the case to the Northern District of California. On September 10, 2010, the Company amended its answer to the complaint. The initial scheduling conference occurred on December 2, 2010. In response to this conference, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff must file its opening claim construction brief no later than May 17, 2011 and that defendants must file their responsive claim construction briefs no later than May 31, 2011. The Court also ordered that a claim construction hearing take place on June 22, 2011. The Company and plaintiff signed a settlement agreement on May 15, 2011. In the agreement, the Company agreed to pay a one-time lump sum payment and grant MPH certain other patent rights in return for each party agreeing to release the other party from all claims, known or unknown, under the patent in suit and related patents with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, etc. of products by the Company. The Company received a fully paid, worldwide, perpetual license to the patent in suit and all foreign counterparts and related patents. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Company has subsequently made the required one-time lump sum payment. This arrangement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On May 16, 2011, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has since made the lump sum payment to MPH, and this litigation matter is now concluded.

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. 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. The parties are currently participating in the discovery process.

Data Network Storage, LLC v. NETGEAR

In April 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 14 other companies by Data Network Storage, LLC ("DNS") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. DNS alleges that the Company and the other third parties infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,098,128. In particular, DNS is alleging that several of the Company's ReadyNAS products infringe upon DNS's patents. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in July 2009 and asserted that DNS's patents were both invalid and had not been infringed upon by the Company. In September 2009, at a Court-sanctioned early neutral evaluation, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on a settlement, and discovery continued. On January 27, 2010, the Court denied co-defendant Fujitsu America, Inc.'s motion to stay the litigation, and the Company submitted its invalidity contentions on February 1, 2010. The Company and the plaintiff entered into settlement discussions in early March. 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 agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment in consideration for a fully paid and perpetual license to, and a covenant not to sue on, the '128 patent and the plaintiff's entire portfolio of U.S. patents, related patents, and foreign counterparts. The Company has made the required one-time lump sum payment, and the lawsuit by DNS against the Company was dismissed with prejudice on April 23, 2010. This arrangement did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2010.

NETGEAR v. CSIRO

In May 2005, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ("CSIRO"), in the San Jose division of the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that the claims of CSIRO's U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 are invalid and not infringed by any of Company's products. CSIRO had asserted that the Company's wireless networking products implementing the IEEE 802.11a, 802.11g, and 802.11n wireless LAN standards infringe this patent. In July 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to deny CSIRO's motion to dismiss the action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In September 2006, the Federal Circuit denied CSIRO's request for a rehearing en banc. CSIRO filed a response to the complaint in September 2006. In December 2006, the District Court granted CSIRO's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had brought and won a similar lawsuit against Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc., which Buffalo appealed and which was partially remanded to the District Court. The District Court consolidated this action with three related actions involving other companies (such as Buffalo) accused of infringing CSIRO's patent. The Company attended a Court-mandated mediation in November 2007 but failed to resolve the litigation. The District Court held a June 26, 2008 claim construction hearing. On August 14, 2008, the District Court issued a claim construction order and denied a motion for summary judgment of invalidity. In December 2008, the parties filed numerous motions for summary judgment concerning, among other things, infringement, validity, and other affirmative defenses. The District Court commenced a jury trial on April 13, 2009 regarding all liability issues for the four consolidated cases. On April 20, 2009, the Company and CSIRO executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth the terms of a settlement and license agreement between the Company and CSIRO. 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 agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment in consideration for a fully paid perpetual license and a covenant not to sue with respect to the '069 patent and all foreign counterparts and related patents. Based on the historical and estimated projected future unit sales of the Company's products that were alleged to infringe the asserted patent, the Company allocated a portion of the settlement cost towards product shipments prior to the settlement, which the Company recorded as a litigation settlement expense of $2.4 million, which was primarily recognized in the three months ended March 29, 2009. Additionally, the Company allocated $2.6 million of the settlement cost to prepaid royalties which will be recognized as a component of cost of revenue as the related products are sold. Of this $2.6 million, $413,000 and $551,000 were amortized and expensed in the year ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Additionally, $413,000 was amortized and expensed in the nine months ended October 2, 2011.

Finoc, LLC v. NETGEAR

In February 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and 14 other companies by Finoc Design Consulting OY ("Finoc") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Finoc alleged that the Company's wireless DSL gateway products infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,850,560. In June 2009, without admitting any patent infringement, wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation, the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment of $82,500 in consideration for a fully paid perpetual license to the patent in suit as well as a dismissal with prejudice by Finoc. Based on the historical and estimated projected future unit sales of the Company's products that were alleged to infringe the asserted patents, the Company allocated a portion of the settlement cost towards product shipments prior to the settlement, which the Company recorded as a litigation settlement expense in the three months ended June 28, 2009. Additionally, the Company allocated the balance of the settlement cost to prepaid royalties which will be recognized as a component of cost of revenue as the related products are sold.

Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. NETGEAR

In February 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. ("Network-1"), a patent-holding company existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Network-1 alleged that the Company's power over Ethernet ("PoE") products infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930. Network-1 also sued six other companies alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed its answer in the second quarter of 2008. In May 2009, without admitting any patent infringement, wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation, the Company agreed to make a one-time lump sum payment of $350,000, which the Company recorded as a litigation settlement in fiscal 2009, in consideration for a license to the patent in suit as well as a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit. Under the license, the Company will pay future running royalties on certain of its PoE products which will be recognized as a component of cost of revenue as the related products are sold.

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 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 claims 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 is reviewing the complaint and is in the process of retaining outside legal counsel to defend it. 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 non-party RPX Corporation. 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 a payment was made to Chalumeau by RPX Corporation in consideration for 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 is currently investigating the allegations.

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 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 non-party RPX Corporation. 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 a payment was made to Summit Data Systems by RPX Corporation in consideration for 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.

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 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, 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.

All of the above described claims against the Company, or filed by the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility it would have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable. In addition, the Company is subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation related to intellectual property and employment matters.

Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcomes of any unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity or results of operations within the next 12 months. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the Company's view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations or liquidity for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable, and potentially in future periods.

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 October 2, 2011. The Company is continuing to evaluate the impact of the WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions as individual countries issue their implementation guidance.

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.

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.

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.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

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 October 2, 2011, the Company had $161.7 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.

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 October 2, 2011.

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 of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual any time after execution of the 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 October 2, 2011.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 450

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 4

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 460

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 8

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)

-Number 14

-Paragraph 3

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 440

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 5

-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 210

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 1

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621

+ Details