LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
May 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 16 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Omega patent infringement claim On April 22, 2021, we filed our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2021 which disclosed the current status of the Omega patent infringement claim. In summary, on March 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Trial Court”) denied our motion for judgement as a matter of law (“JMOL”), a new trial, and remittitur of damages. Also, on March 20, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion for a new trial on willfulness. On April 1, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion to enhance the royalty rate beyond the jury’s award of $5 per unit and motion to conduct post-trial discovery on CalAmp’s other OBD-II compliant LMUs. On April 3, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s final motion regarding infringement of the VPODs. On April 30, 2020, we filed a notice of appeal at the Federal Circuit. Also on April 30, 2020, Omega filed notices of cross-appeal at the Federal Circuit. On May 6, 2021the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on CalAmp’s appeal and the three judge panel will render that decision in approximately three to six months. In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability of $2.2 million as a litigation reserve related to this matter based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the prior judgment awarding Omega damages of as much as $4.6 million, together with $0.8 million of pre-judgment interest, could be upheld, which would result in losses of up to $3.2 million in excess of amounts we have accrued related to this matter. We also initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking to invalidate a number of Omega’s patents involved in the litigation. Those proceedings currently remain pending. We continue to believe that our products do not infringe on any of Omega’s patents. In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the judgement and amounts described above could be upheld, which would exceed the amounts we have accrued. Philips patent infringement 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, and seeks (a) an investigation and a hearing under the Tariff Act for unlawful importation of allegedly infringing product, (b) an exclusion order excluding entry into the U.S. of all allegedly infringing communication modules, and (c) a permanent cease and desist order barring the importation, marketing, advertising, and sale of allegedly infringing products in the U.S. All four proceedings are currently pending. The ITC anticipates issuing an initial determination on the alleged violations by January 27, 2022, and completing the ITC investigation by May 27, 2022. The case pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Quectel, CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird is stayed until a final determination in the ITC. The two other cases pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware are scheduled for further hearings. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions, and are investigating and/or asserting defenses and positions, including non-infringement, invalidity, and the “public interest factors” that must be considered by the ITC before issuing any exclusion order. If Phillips successfully proves infringement of the Patents, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages and could be precluded from importing into the U.S. certain products containing the allegedly infringing modules. However, we believe that we have strong defense and indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceeding paid by those suppliers, who are codefendants in these proceedings. While it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of these four legal proceedings, and no specific amount of damages has been identified, we believe that a loss is reasonably possible but not reasonably estimable. 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. Other matters 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 would have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

3 Months Ended

May 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 16 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Omega patent infringement claim

On April 22, 2021, we filed our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2021 which disclosed the current status of the Omega patent infringement claim. In summary, on March 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Trial Court”) denied our motion for judgement as a matter of law (“JMOL”), a new trial, and remittitur of damages. Also, on March 20, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion for a new trial on willfulness. On April 1, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion to enhance the royalty rate beyond the jury’s award of $5 per unit and motion to conduct post-trial discovery on CalAmp’s other OBD-II compliant LMUs. On April 3, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s final motion regarding infringement of the VPODs. On April 30, 2020, we filed a notice of appeal at the Federal Circuit. Also on April 30, 2020, Omega filed notices of cross-appeal at the Federal Circuit. On May 6, 2021the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on CalAmp’s appeal and the three judge panel will render that decision in approximately three to six months.

In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability of $2.2 million as a litigation reserve related to this matter based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the prior judgment awarding Omega damages of as much as $4.6 million, together with $0.8 million of pre-judgment interest, could be upheld, which would result in losses of up to $3.2 million in excess of amounts we have accrued related to this matter.

We also initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking to invalidate a number of Omega’s patents involved in the litigation. Those proceedings currently remain pending. We continue to believe that our products do not infringe on any of Omega’s patents.

In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the judgement and amounts described above could be upheld, which would exceed the amounts we have accrued.

Philips patent infringement 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, and seeks (a) an investigation and a hearing under the Tariff Act for unlawful importation of allegedly infringing product, (b) an exclusion order excluding entry into the U.S. of all allegedly infringing communication modules, and (c) a permanent cease and desist order barring the importation, marketing, advertising, and sale of allegedly infringing products in the U.S.

All four proceedings are currently pending. The ITC anticipates issuing an initial determination on the alleged violations by January 27, 2022, and completing the ITC investigation by May 27, 2022. The case pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Quectel, CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird is stayed until a final determination in the ITC. The two other cases pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware are scheduled for further hearings.

We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions, and are investigating and/or asserting defenses and positions, including non-infringement, invalidity, and the “public interest factors” that must be considered by the ITC before issuing any exclusion order. If Phillips successfully proves infringement of the Patents, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages and could be precluded from importing into the U.S. certain products containing the allegedly infringing modules. However, we believe that we have strong defense and indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceeding paid by those suppliers, who are codefendants in these proceedings. While it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of these four legal proceedings, and no specific amount of damages has been identified, we believe that a loss is reasonably possible but not reasonably estimable. 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.

Other matters

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 would have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.