COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 18 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Omega patent claim In December 2013, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against us by Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”), a non-practicing entity. Omega alleged that certain of our vehicle tracking products infringed on four patents owned by Omega. The parties commenced a mediation on April 12, 2022, and on May 17, 2022, CalAmp and Omega executed an agreement for a settlement and release and a covenant not to sue under certain patents. On June 1, 2022, we paid $4.9 million pursuant to this settlement agreement. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice on June 15, 2022, and on June 16, 2022, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. Philips patent claim On December 17, 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) filed four separate legal actions against us, and several other companies, accusing the companies of infringing Philips’s 3G and 4G wireless standard-essential patents: (1) first, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (“Quectel”), CalAmp, Xirgo Technologies, LLC (“Xirgo”), and Laird Connectivity, Inc. (“Laird”), Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,271 (“the ’271 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,199,711 (“the ’711 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,554,943 (“the ’943 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935 (“the ’935 patent”) (all four patents collectively, the “Patents”); (2) second, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications Plc, (collectively, “Telit”), and CalAmp, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units and certain modules therein infringe certain claims of the Patents; (3) third, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC (F/K/A Gemalto IoT LLC “Gemalto”) F/K/A Cinterion Wireless Modules NAFTA LLC (“Cinterion”), Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH (F/K/A Gemalto M2M GmbH), Thales USA, Inc., Thales S.A., (collectively, “Thales”), CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of the Patents, and (4) fourth, before The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), Philips v. Quectel, CalAmp, Xirgo, Laird, Thales, Gemalto, Cinterion, and Telit, Philips alleges violations of section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act based upon our importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) and LTE (Long Term Evolution) cellular communication modules and products containing the same by reason of our location monitoring units that allegedly infringe on certain claims of the Patents. On April 1, 2022, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) at the ITC issued a Final Initial Determination on the question of violation of section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). The ALJ determined that a violation of section 337 has not occurred with respect to any of the Patents. On July 6, 2022, the ITC affirmed the Final Initial Determination of no violation of Section 337 and terminated the investigation and the deadline for any appeal has passed. While the district court case against Thales was recently reopened to set a status conference, the district court cases against Quectel and Telit are currently stayed. Considering the ITC’s determination of no infringement of any of the Patents we believe that we have strong defenses in the Delaware district court cases. Also, we believe we have strong indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceedings paid by those suppliers, who are co-defendants in these proceedings, should the stays be removed in the three district court cases. Currently, it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of the three district court cases, and no specific amount of damages has been identified. Additionally, we believe the ultimate resolution of the proceedings, including indemnification and defense by our module suppliers, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. In addition to the foregoing matters, from time to time as a normal consequence of doing business, various claims and litigation may be asserted or commenced against us. In particular, we may receive claims concerning contract performance or claims that our products or services infringe the intellectual property of third parties which are in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of any such claims or litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe that the outcome of such matters existing at the present time will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Feb. 28, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 18 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

Omega patent claim

In December 2013, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against us by Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”), a non-practicing entity. Omega alleged that certain of our vehicle tracking products infringed on four patents owned by Omega. The parties commenced a mediation on April 12, 2022, and on May 17, 2022, CalAmp and Omega executed an agreement for a settlement and release and a covenant not to sue under certain patents. On June 1, 2022, we paid $4.9 million pursuant to this settlement agreement. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice on June 15, 2022, and on June 16, 2022, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Philips patent claim

On December 17, 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) filed four separate legal actions against us, and several other companies, accusing the companies of infringing Philips’s 3G and 4G wireless standard-essential patents: (1) first, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (“Quectel”), CalAmp, Xirgo Technologies, LLC (“Xirgo”), and Laird Connectivity, Inc. (“Laird”), Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,271 (“the ’271 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,199,711 (“the ’711 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,554,943 (“the ’943 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935 (“the ’935 patent”) (all four patents collectively, the “Patents”); (2) second, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications Plc, (collectively, “Telit”), and CalAmp, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units and certain modules therein infringe certain claims of the Patents; (3) third, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC (F/K/A Gemalto IoT LLC “Gemalto”) F/K/A Cinterion Wireless Modules NAFTA LLC (“Cinterion”), Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH (F/K/A Gemalto M2M GmbH), Thales USA, Inc., Thales S.A., (collectively, “Thales”), CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of the Patents, and (4) fourth, before The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), Philips v. Quectel, CalAmp, Xirgo, Laird, Thales, Gemalto, Cinterion, and Telit, Philips alleges violations of section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act based upon our importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) and LTE (Long Term Evolution) cellular communication modules and products containing the same by reason of our location monitoring units that allegedly infringe on certain claims of the Patents.

On April 1, 2022, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) at the ITC issued a Final Initial Determination on the question of violation of section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). The ALJ determined that a violation of section 337 has not occurred with respect to any of the Patents. On July 6, 2022, the ITC affirmed the Final Initial Determination of no violation of Section 337 and terminated the investigation and the deadline for any appeal has passed.

While the district court case against Thales was recently reopened to set a status conference, the district court cases against Quectel and Telit are currently stayed. Considering the ITC’s determination of no infringement of any of the Patents we believe that we have strong defenses in the Delaware district court cases. Also, we believe we have strong indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceedings paid by those suppliers, who are co-defendants in these proceedings, should the stays be removed in the three district court cases. Currently, it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of the three district court cases, and no specific amount of damages has been identified. Additionally, we believe the ultimate resolution of the proceedings, including indemnification and defense by our module suppliers, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

In addition to the foregoing matters, from time to time as a normal consequence of doing business, various claims and litigation may be asserted or commenced against us. In particular, we may receive claims concerning contract performance or claims that our products or services infringe the intellectual property of third parties which are in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of any such claims or litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe that the outcome of such matters existing at the present time will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.