LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
May 31, 2022
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 15 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Omega patent infringement claim On April 28, 2022, we filed our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2022 which disclosed the current status of the Omega Patents LLC (“Omega”) patent infringement claim. In summary, on September 14, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its decision and affirmed the judgment by the Trial Court of infringement by CalAmp with respect to the 8,032,278 patent; however the U.S. Court of Appeal upheld CalAmp’s appeal on damages, vacated the damages award of the Trial Court and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for a new trial on damages only. On January 17, 2022, Omega filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery For Limited Purpose and to Permit a Supplement to the Damages Expert Report and we filed a response opposing Omega’s motion on February 9, 2022. A Pretrial Conference was held on January 19, 2022. The Trial Court granted Omega’s motion on March 16, 2022 to reopen discovery for certain purposes and permitted the parties to supplement damages expert reports. 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 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. All three cases pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware are stayed until a final determination in the ITC. 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 administrative law judge determined that a violation of section 337 has not occurred with respect to any of the asserted patents. On April 13, 2022, Philips filed a Petition for Commission Review of the ALJ’s Initial Determination, and Respondents responded to Philips’ Petition on April 21, 2022. The target date for issuance of a Final Decision is August 1, 2022. We believe that we have strong non-infringement and invalidity defenses should the Delaware district court cases proceed. 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. Currently, it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of all proceedings, 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. 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, 2022

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 15 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Omega patent infringement claim

On April 28, 2022, we filed our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2022 which disclosed the current status of the Omega Patents LLC (“Omega”) patent infringement claim. In summary, on September 14, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its decision and affirmed the judgment by the Trial Court of infringement by CalAmp with respect to the 8,032,278 patent; however the U.S. Court of Appeal upheld CalAmp’s appeal on damages, vacated the damages award of the Trial Court and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for a new trial on damages only.

On January 17, 2022, Omega filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery For Limited Purpose and to Permit a Supplement to the Damages Expert Report and we filed a response opposing Omega’s motion on February 9, 2022. A Pretrial Conference was held on January 19, 2022. The Trial Court granted Omega’s motion on March 16, 2022 to reopen discovery for certain purposes and permitted the parties to supplement damages expert reports. 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 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. All three cases pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware are stayed until a final determination in the ITC. 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 administrative law judge determined that a violation of section 337 has not occurred with respect to any of the asserted patents. On April 13, 2022, Philips filed a Petition for Commission Review of the ALJ’s Initial Determination, and Respondents responded to Philips’ Petition on April 21, 2022. The target date for issuance of a Final Decision is August 1, 2022.

We believe that we have strong non-infringement and invalidity defenses should the Delaware district court cases proceed. 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. Currently, it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of all proceedings, 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.

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.