
Note 14	Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty

Changes in the warranty reserves during the three and six months ended May 1, 2011 and May 2, 2010 were as follows:


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	May 1,			May 2,			May 1,			May 2,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(In millions)

Beginning balance	$	173		$	137		$	155		$	117
Provisions for warranty		48			32			99			66
Consumption of reserves		(37	)		(29	)		(70	)		(43	)

Ending balance	$	184		$	140		$	184		$	140

Applied products are generally sold with a 12-month warranty period following installation. The provision for the estimated cost of warranty is recorded when revenue is recognized. Parts and labor are covered under the terms of the warranty agreement. The warranty provision is based on historical experience by product, configuration and geographic region. Quarterly warranty consumption is generally associated with sales that occurred during the preceding four quarters, and quarterly warranty provisions are generally related to the current quarter’s sales.

Guarantees

In the ordinary course of business, Applied provides standby letters of credit or other guarantee instruments to third parties as required for certain transactions initiated by either Applied or its subsidiaries. As of May 1, 2011, the maximum potential amount of future payments that Applied could be required to make under these guarantee agreements was approximately $53 million. Applied has not recorded any liability in connection with these guarantee agreements beyond that required to appropriately account for the underlying transaction being guaranteed. Applied does not believe, based on historical experience and information currently available, that it is probable that any amounts will be required to be paid under these guarantee agreements.

Applied also has agreements with various banks to facilitate subsidiary banking operations worldwide, including overdraft arrangements, issuance of bank guarantees, and letters of credit. As of May 1, 2011, Applied Materials Inc. has provided parent guarantees to banks for approximately $191 million to cover these services.

Legal Matters

Semitool Shareholder Litigation

On November 17, 2009, Applied announced that it was making a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Semitool, Inc. (Semitool) in accordance with an Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into with Semitool. Following this announcement, three lawsuits were filed by Semitool shareholders in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District Court for the State of Montana, County of Flathead, against Semitool, Semitool’s directors, Applied Materials, Inc. and Applied’s acquisition subsidiary. The actions sought certification of a class of all holders of Semitool common stock, except the defendants and their affiliates. The complaints alleged that Semitool’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value and failing to disclose material information, and that Applied aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The actions sought injunctive relief, damages and attorneys’ fees.

On December 14, 2009, all parties in these cases reached an agreement in principle to settle the matters. Without admitting any wrongdoing or fault, Semitool disclosed certain additional information in its Schedule 14D-9 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2009. Following the tender of shares representing over 95 percent of the outstanding shares of Semitool common stock, the merger of Semitool into Applied’s acquisition subsidiary was completed on December 21, 2009. In November 2010, the parties filed their Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which provided, among other things, that plaintiffs agreed to release all known and unknown claims related to the tender offer and the merger (with certain exceptions), and defendants agreed not to object to an application by plaintiffs’ counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in an amount up to $200,000. Under its order issued January 12, 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the stipulation and settlement and certified a class of Semitool’s public shareholders solely for purposes of settlement, comprised of all record and beneficial holders of Semitool common stock from November 17, 2009 through December 21, 2009 (subject to specified exclusions). The Court further approved, as to form and content, the notice to the class and set a settlement hearing for April 4, 2011. Following the hearing on April 4, 2011, the Court issued its order and final entry of judgment approving the settlement which, upon expiration of the applicable time period, will result in a complete and final discharge of all of plaintiffs’ claims.

Jusung

Applied has been engaged in several lawsuits and patent and administrative proceedings with Jusung Engineering Co., Ltd. and/or Jusung Pacific Co., Ltd. (Jusung) in Taiwan and South Korea since 2003, and more recently in China, involving technology used in manufacturing LCDs. Applied believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses against Jusung that it intends to pursue vigorously.

In 2004, Applied filed a complaint for patent infringement against Jusung in the Hsinchu District Court in Taiwan seeking damages and a permanent injunction for infringement of a patent related to chemical vapor deposition (CVD) equipment. Jusung filed a counterclaim against Applied. On December 31, 2010, the Hsinchu District Court announced that it had ruled against Applied and dismissed the lawsuit and Jusung’s counterclaim. Applied appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit and Jusung appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim. Jusung unsuccessfully sought invalidation of Applied’s CVD patent in the Taiwanese Intellectual Property Office (TIPO). In September 2010, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed Jusung’s appeal of the TIPO’s decision. In 2009, Jusung filed a second action with the TIPO seeking invalidation of Applied’s CVD patent, which remains pending.

In 2006, Applied filed an action in the TIPO challenging the validity of a Jusung patent related to separability of the transfer chamber on a CVD tool. Jusung sued Applied and AKT America in Hsinchu District Court in Taiwan alleging infringement of the same patent. In March 2009, the Hsinchu District Court dismissed Jusung’s lawsuit, and in October, 2010, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court dismissed Jusung’s appeal. Separately, the TIPO granted Applied’s request for invalidation and also revoked Jusung’s patent. In January 2010, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court granted Jusung’s appeal of the TIPO decision revoking its patent and remanded the matter to the TIPO for reconsideration of validity. TIPO subsequently granted another party’s request for invalidation of Jusung’s patent. Jusung appealed to the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court and Applied has intervened in the appeal. In November 2009, Applied filed an action in China with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office seeking to invalidate this patent. On June 18, 2010, the Patent Reexamination Board issued a decision invalidating Jusung’s patent in China. Jusung has appealed this decision.

In 2006, Jusung filed a complaint of private prosecution in the Taipei District Court of Taiwan alleging that Applied’s outside counsel received from the Court and used a copy of an expert report that Jusung had filed in the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits that Jusung had intended to remain confidential. The complaint names as defendants Applied’s outside counsel in Taiwan, as well as Michael R. Splinter, Applied’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, as the statutory representative of Applied. The Taipei District Court dismissed the private prosecution complaint, and the matter was transferred to the Taipei District Attorney’s Office. The Taipei District Attorney’s Office issued five successive rulings not to prosecute, each of which Jusung appealed. In each instance, the Taiwan High Court District Attorney returned the matter to the Taipei District Attorney’s Office for further consideration, where it is now pending.

Korea Criminal Proceedings

In February 2010, the Seoul Prosecutor’s Office for the Eastern District of Korea (the Prosecutor’s Office) indicted employees of several companies for the alleged improper receipt and use of confidential information belonging to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), a major Applied customer based in Korea. The Prosecutor’s Office did not name Applied or any of its subsidiaries as a party to the criminal action. The individuals charged included the former head of Applied Materials Korea (AMK), who at the time of the indictment was a vice president of Applied Materials, Inc., and certain other AMK employees. Hearings on these matters are ongoing in the Seoul Eastern District Court. Applied and Samsung entered into a settlement agreement effective as of November 1, 2010, which resolves potential civil claims related to this matter, which is separate from and does not affect the criminal proceedings.

From time to time, Applied receives notification from third parties, including customers and suppliers, seeking indemnification, litigation support, payment of money or other actions by Applied in connection with claims made against them. In addition, from time to time, Applied receives notification from third parties claiming that Applied may be or is infringing or misusing their intellectual property or other rights. Applied also is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, both asserted and unasserted, that arise in the ordinary course of business.

Although the outcome of the above-described matters or these claims and proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, Applied does not believe that any of these proceedings or other claims will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.