LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Text Block]	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: On October 20, 2004, the Company filed a complaint against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (referred to collectively as "Fairchild") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its complaint, the Company alleged that Fairchild has and is infringing four of Power Integrations' patents pertaining to PWM integrated circuit devices. Fairchild denied infringement and asked for a declaration from the court that it does not infringe any Power Integration patent and that the patents are invalid. The Court issued a claim construction order on March 31, 2006 which was favorable to the Company. The Court set a first trial on the issues of infringement, willfulness and damages for October 2, 2006. At the close of the first trial, on October 10, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company finding all asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit to be willfully infringed by Fairchild and awarding $34.0 million in damages. Although the jury awarded damages, at this stage of the proceedings the Company cannot state the amount, if any, which it might ultimately recover from Fairchild, and no benefits have been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as a result of the damages award. Fairchild also raised defenses contending that the asserted patents are invalid or unenforceable, and the court held a second trial on these issues beginning on September 17, 2007. On September 21, 2007, the jury returned a verdict in the Company's favor, affirming the validity of the asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit. Fairchild submitted further materials on the issue of enforceability along with various other post-trial motions, and the Company filed post-trial motions seeking a permanent injunction and increased damages and attorneys' fees, among other things. On September 24, 2008, the Court denied Fairchild's motion regarding enforceability and ruled that all four patents are enforceable. On December 12, 2008, the Court ruled on the remaining post-trial motions, including granting a permanent injunction, reducing the damages award to $6.1 million, granting Fairchild a new trial on the issue of willful infringement in view of an intervening change in the law, and denying the Company's motion for increased damages and attorneys' fees with leave to renew the motion after the resolution of the issue of willful infringement. On December 22, 2008, at Fairchild's request, the Court temporarily stayed the permanent injunction for 90 days to permit Fairchild to petition the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for a further stay. On January 12, 2009, Fairchild filed a notice of appeal challenging the Court's refusal to enter a more permanent stay of the injunction, and Fairchild filed additional motions requesting that both the Federal Circuit and the District Court extend the stay of injunction. The District Court temporarily extended the stay pending the Federal Circuit ruling on Fairchild's pending motion, but the Federal Circuit dismissed Fairchild's appeal and denied its motion on May 5, 2009, and the District Court issued an order on May 13, 2009 confirming the reinstatement of the permanent injunction as originally entered in December 2008. On June 22, 2009, the Court held a brief bench re-trial on the issue of willful infringement, and the parties completed post-trial briefing on the issue of willfulness shortly thereafter. On July 22, 2010, the Court found that Fairchild willfully infringed all four of the asserted patents. The Court also invited briefing on enhanced damages and attorneys' fees, and Fairchild filed a motion requesting that the Court amend its findings regarding willfulness. On January 18, 2011, the Court denied Fairchild's request to amend the findings regarding Fairchild's willful infringement and doubled the damages award against Fairchild but declined to award attorneys' fees. On February 3, 2011, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company for a total damages award of $12.9 million. Fairchild has filed a notice of appeal challenging the final judgment and a number of the underlying rulings, and the Company has filed a cross-appeal seeking to increase the damages award. Briefing on the appeal is under way. On May 9, 2005, the Company filed a Complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. section 1337 against System General (“SG”). The Company filed a supplement to the complaint on May 24, 2005. The Company alleged infringement of its patents pertaining to pulse width modulation (“PWM”) integrated circuit devices produced by SG, which are used in power conversion applications such as power supplies for computer monitors. The Commission instituted an investigation on June 8, 2005 in response to the Company's complaint. SG filed a response to the ITC complaint asserting that the patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. The Company subsequently and voluntarily narrowed the number of patents and claims in suit, which proceeded to a hearing. The hearing on the investigation was held before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) from January 18 to January 24, 2006. Post-hearing briefs were submitted and briefing concluded February 24, 2006. The ALJ's initial determination was issued on May 15, 2006. The ALJ found all remaining asserted claims valid and infringed, and recommended the exclusion of the infringing products as well as certain downstream products that contain the infringing products. After further briefing, on June 30, 2006 the Commission decided not to review the initial determination on liability, but did invite briefs on remedy, bonding and the public interest. On August 11, 2006 the Commission issued an order excluding from entry into the United States the infringing SG PWM chips, and any LCD computer monitors, AC printer adapters and sample/demonstration circuit boards containing an infringing SG chip. The U.S. Customs Service is authorized to enforce the exclusion order. On October 11, 2006, the presidential review period expired without any action from the President, and the ITC exclusion order is now in full effect. SG appealed the ITC decision, and on November 19, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's findings in all respects. On October 27, 2008, SG filed a petition to modify the exclusion order in view of a recent Federal Circuit opinion in an unrelated case, and the Company responded to oppose any modification, but the Commission modified the exclusion order on February 27, 2009. Nevertheless, the exclusion order still prohibits SG and related entities from importing the infringing SG chips and any LCD computer monitors, AC printer adapters, and sample/demonstration circuit boards containing an infringing SG chip. On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a complaint against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Fairchild's wholly-owned subsidiary System General Corporation (“SG”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its complaint, the Company alleged that Fairchild has infringed and is infringing three patents pertaining to power supply controller integrated circuit devices. Fairchild answered the Company's complaint on November 7, 2008, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent and that the patents are invalid and unenforceable. Fairchild's answer also included counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing three patents pertaining to primary side power conversion integrated circuit devices. Fairchild had earlier brought these same claims in a separate suit against the Company, also in Delaware, which Fairchild dismissed in favor of adding its claims to the Company's already pending suit against Fairchild. The Company has answered Fairchild's counterclaims, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Fairchild patent and that the Fairchild patents are invalid. Fairchild also filed a motion to stay the case, but the Court denied that motion on December 19, 2008. On March 5, 2009, Fairchild filed a motion for summary judgment to preclude any recovery for post-verdict sales of parts found to infringe in the parties' other ongoing litigation, described above, and the Company filed its opposition and a cross-motion to preclude Fairchild from re-litigating the issues of infringement and damages for those same products. On June 26, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the parties' motions, and on July 9, 2009 the Court issued an order denying the parties' motions but staying proceedings with respect to the products that were found to infringe and which are subject to the injunction in the other Delaware case between the parties pending the entry of final judgment in that case; the remainder of the case is proceeding. On December 18, 2009, the Court issued an order construing certain terms in the asserted claims of the Company's and Fairchild's patents in suit. Following the Court's ruling on claim construction, Fairchild withdrew its claim related to one of its patents and significantly reduced the number of claims asserted for the remaining two patents. The parties thereafter filed and argued a number of motions for summary judgment, and the Court denied the majority of the parties' motions but granted the Company's motion to preclude Fairchild from re-arguing validity positions that were rejected in the prior case between the parties. Because the assigned Judge retired at the end of July 2010, the case was re-assigned to a different Judge, and the Court vacated the trial schedule and had the parties provide their input on the appropriate course of action. The Court thereafter set a trial schedule with the jury trial on infringement and validity to begin in July 2011. On February 10, 2011, the Court issued an order maintaining the stay with respect to the products that were found to infringe and which are subject to the injunction in the other Delaware case pending the appeal in that case. On April 18, 2011, the Court rescheduled the trial to begin in January 2012, and on June 2, 2011 the Court moved the trial date to permit the parties to address another patent the Company has accused Fairchild of infringing. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in April 2012. On June 28, 2004, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against SG Corporation, a Taiwanese company, and its U.S. subsidiary. The Company's complaint alleged that certain integrated circuits produced by SG infringed and continue to infringe certain of its patents. On June 10, 2005, in response to the initiation of the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation discussed above, the District Court stayed all proceedings. Subsequent to the completion of the ITC proceedings, the District Court temporarily lifted the stay and scheduled a case management conference. On December 6, 2006, SG filed a notice of appeal of the ITC decision as discussed above. In response, and by agreement of the parties, the District Court vacated the scheduled case management conference and renewed the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC determination. On November 19, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's findings in all respects, and SG did not file a petition for review. The parties subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the District Court case without prejudice. On November 4, 2009, the Company re-filed its complaint for patent infringement against SG and its parent corporations, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, to address their continued infringement of patents at issue in the original suit that recently emerged from SG requested reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Company seeks, among other things, an order enjoining Fairchild and SG from infringing the Company's patents and an award of damages resulting from the alleged infringement. Fairchild has denied infringement and asked for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent, that the patents are invalid, and that one of the two patents now at issue in the case is unenforceable. On May 5, 2010, Fairchild and SG filed an amended answer including counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing two patents; the Company contests these new claims vigorously, and since that time Fairchild has withdrawn its claim for infringement of one of the patents it asserted against the Company, leaving just one Fairchild patent in the case. The Court held a claim construction hearing on March 24, 2011, and issued a first claim construction order regarding the Company's asserted patents on July 13, 2011; the Court's order indicated that a separate claim construction order on Fairchild's remaining asserted patent is forthcoming. Discovery is currently under way. In February 2010, Fairchild and System General (“SG”) filed suits for patent infringement against the Company, Power Integrations Netherlands B.V., and representative offices of Power Integrations Netherlands in Shanghai and Shenzhen with the Suzhou Intermediate Court in the People's Republic of China. The proceedings are still in their early stages, with no hearings or trial currently scheduled. The suits assert four Chinese patents and seek an injunction and damages of approximately $17.0 million. Power Integrations Netherlands has filed invalidation proceedings for all four asserted SG patents in the People's Republic of China Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), and all four challenges were accepted by the PRB, with hearings conducted in September 2010 and rulings expected in the coming months. The Company believes the Fairchild and SG claims are without merit and intends to contest them vigorously. On July 11, 2011, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, against David Kappos in his capacity as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as part of the ongoing reexamination proceedings related to one of the patents asserted against Fairchild and SG in the Delaware litigation described above. No schedule has been set for the case. In the quarter ended March 31, 2011, the IRS informed the Company that the IRS intends to propose adjustments to the Company's taxable income for the years 2003 through 2006 related to the Company's intercompany research and development cost-sharing arrangement and related issues (refer to Note 9 for further details). The Company believes that the IRS position is without merit and intends to defend its tax return position vigorously. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of legal proceedings with certainty, and there can be no assurance that Power Integrations will prevail in the above-mentioned unsettled litigations. These litigations, whether or not determined in Power Integrations' favor or settled, will be costly and will divert the efforts and attention of the Company's management and technical personnel from normal business operations, potentially causing a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition and operating results. Currently the company is not able to estimate a loss or a range of loss for the ongoing litigation disclosed above, however adverse determinations in litigation could result in monetary losses, the loss of proprietary rights, subject the Company to significant liabilities, require Power Integrations to seek licenses from third parties or prevent the Company from licensing the technology, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and operating results. The Company is also subject to a variety of other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the Company's view of these matters may change in the future and could result in charges that would have a material adverse impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:

On October 20, 2004, the Company filed a complaint against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (referred to collectively as "Fairchild") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its complaint, the Company alleged that Fairchild has and is infringing four of Power Integrations' patents pertaining to PWM integrated circuit devices. Fairchild denied infringement and asked for a declaration from the court that it does not infringe any Power Integration patent and that the patents are invalid. The Court issued a claim construction order on March 31, 2006 which was favorable to the Company. The Court set a first trial on the issues of infringement, willfulness and damages for October 2, 2006. At the close of the first trial, on October 10, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company finding all asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit to be willfully infringed by Fairchild and awarding $34.0 million in damages. Although the jury awarded damages, at this stage of the proceedings the Company cannot state the amount, if any, which it might ultimately recover from Fairchild, and no benefits have been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as a result of the damages award. Fairchild also raised defenses contending that the asserted patents are invalid or unenforceable, and the court held a second trial on these issues beginning on September 17, 2007. On September 21, 2007, the jury returned a verdict in the Company's favor, affirming the validity of the asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit. Fairchild submitted further materials on the issue of enforceability along with various other post-trial motions, and the Company filed post-trial motions seeking a permanent injunction and increased damages and attorneys' fees, among other things. On September 24, 2008, the Court denied Fairchild's motion regarding enforceability and ruled that all four patents are enforceable. On December 12, 2008, the Court ruled on the remaining post-trial motions, including granting a permanent injunction, reducing the damages award to $6.1 million, granting Fairchild a new trial on the issue of willful infringement in view of an intervening change in the law, and denying the Company's motion for increased damages and attorneys' fees with leave to renew the motion after the resolution of the issue of willful infringement. On December 22, 2008, at Fairchild's request, the Court temporarily stayed the permanent injunction for 90 days to permit Fairchild to petition the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for a further stay. On January 12, 2009, Fairchild filed a notice of appeal challenging the Court's refusal to enter a more permanent stay of the injunction, and Fairchild filed additional motions requesting that both the Federal Circuit and the District Court extend the stay of injunction. The District Court temporarily extended the stay pending the Federal Circuit ruling on Fairchild's pending motion, but the Federal Circuit dismissed Fairchild's appeal and denied its motion on May 5, 2009, and the District Court issued an order on May 13, 2009 confirming the reinstatement of the permanent injunction as originally entered in December 2008. On June 22, 2009, the Court held a brief bench re-trial on the issue of willful infringement, and the parties completed post-trial briefing on the issue of willfulness shortly thereafter. On July 22, 2010, the Court found that Fairchild willfully infringed all four of the asserted patents. The Court also invited briefing on enhanced damages and attorneys' fees, and Fairchild filed a motion requesting that the Court amend its findings regarding willfulness. On January 18, 2011, the Court denied Fairchild's request to amend the findings regarding Fairchild's willful infringement and doubled the damages award against Fairchild but declined to award attorneys' fees. On February 3, 2011, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company for a total damages award of $12.9 million. Fairchild has filed a notice of appeal challenging the final judgment and a number of the underlying rulings, and the Company has filed a cross-appeal seeking to increase the damages award. Briefing on the appeal is under way.

On May 9, 2005, the Company filed a Complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. section 1337 against System General (“SG”). The Company filed a supplement to the complaint on May 24, 2005. The Company alleged infringement of its patents pertaining to pulse width modulation (“PWM”) integrated circuit devices produced by SG, which are used in power conversion applications such as power supplies for computer monitors. The Commission instituted an investigation on June 8, 2005 in response to the Company's complaint. SG filed a response to the ITC complaint asserting that the patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. The Company subsequently and voluntarily narrowed the number of patents and claims in suit, which proceeded to a hearing. The hearing on the investigation was held before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) from January 18 to January 24, 2006. Post-hearing briefs were submitted and briefing concluded February 24, 2006. The ALJ's initial determination was issued on May 15, 2006. The ALJ found all remaining asserted claims valid and infringed, and recommended the exclusion of the infringing products as well as certain downstream products that contain the infringing products. After further briefing, on June 30, 2006 the Commission decided not to review the initial determination on liability, but did invite briefs on remedy, bonding and the public interest. On August 11, 2006 the Commission issued an order excluding from entry into the United States the infringing SG PWM chips, and any LCD computer monitors, AC printer adapters and sample/demonstration circuit boards containing an infringing SG chip. The U.S. Customs Service is authorized to enforce the exclusion order. On October 11, 2006, the presidential review period expired without any action from the President, and the ITC exclusion order is now in full effect. SG appealed the ITC decision, and on November 19, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's findings in all respects. On October 27, 2008, SG filed a petition to modify the exclusion order in view of a recent Federal Circuit opinion in an unrelated case, and the Company responded to oppose any modification, but the Commission modified the exclusion order on February 27, 2009. Nevertheless, the exclusion order still prohibits SG and related entities from importing the infringing SG chips and any LCD computer monitors, AC printer adapters, and sample/demonstration circuit boards containing an infringing SG chip.

On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a complaint against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Fairchild's wholly-owned subsidiary System General Corporation (“SG”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its complaint, the Company alleged that Fairchild has infringed and is infringing three patents pertaining to power supply controller integrated circuit devices. Fairchild answered the Company's complaint on November 7, 2008, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent and that the patents are invalid and unenforceable. Fairchild's answer also included counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing three patents pertaining to primary side power conversion integrated circuit devices. Fairchild had earlier brought these same claims in a separate suit against the Company, also in Delaware, which Fairchild dismissed in favor of adding its claims to the Company's already pending suit against Fairchild. The Company has answered Fairchild's counterclaims, denying infringement and asking for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Fairchild patent and that the Fairchild patents are invalid. Fairchild also filed a motion to stay the case, but the Court denied that motion on December 19, 2008. On March 5, 2009, Fairchild filed a motion for summary judgment to preclude any recovery for post-verdict sales of parts found to infringe in the parties' other ongoing litigation, described above, and the Company filed its opposition and a cross-motion to preclude Fairchild from re-litigating the issues of infringement and damages for those same products. On June 26, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the parties' motions, and on July 9, 2009 the Court issued an order denying the parties' motions but staying proceedings with respect to the products that were found to infringe and which are subject to the injunction in the other Delaware case between the parties pending the entry of final judgment in that case; the remainder of the case is proceeding. On December 18, 2009, the Court issued an order construing certain terms in the asserted claims of the Company's and Fairchild's patents in suit. Following the Court's ruling on claim construction, Fairchild withdrew its claim related to one of its patents and significantly reduced the number of claims asserted for the remaining two patents. The parties thereafter filed and argued a number of motions for summary judgment, and the Court denied the majority of the parties' motions but granted the Company's motion to preclude Fairchild from re-arguing validity positions that were rejected in the prior case between the parties. Because the assigned Judge retired at the end of July 2010, the case was re-assigned to a different Judge, and the Court vacated the trial schedule and had the parties provide their input on the appropriate course of action. The Court thereafter set a trial schedule with the jury trial on infringement and validity to begin in July 2011. On February 10, 2011, the Court issued an order maintaining the stay with respect to the products that were found to infringe and which are subject to the injunction in the other Delaware case pending the appeal in that case. On April 18, 2011, the Court rescheduled the trial to begin in January 2012, and on June 2, 2011 the Court moved the trial date to permit the parties to address another patent the Company has accused Fairchild of infringing. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in April 2012.

On June 28, 2004, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against SG Corporation, a Taiwanese company, and its U.S. subsidiary. The Company's complaint alleged that certain integrated circuits produced by SG infringed and continue to infringe certain of its patents. On June 10, 2005, in response to the initiation of the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation discussed above, the District Court stayed all proceedings. Subsequent to the completion of the ITC proceedings, the District Court temporarily lifted the stay and scheduled a case management conference. On December 6, 2006, SG filed a notice of appeal of the ITC decision as discussed above. In response, and by agreement of the parties, the District Court vacated the scheduled case management conference and renewed the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC determination. On November 19, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's findings in all respects, and SG did not file a petition for review. The parties subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the District Court case without prejudice. On November 4, 2009, the Company re-filed its complaint for patent infringement against SG and its parent corporations, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, to address their continued infringement of patents at issue in the original suit that recently emerged from SG requested reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Company seeks, among other things, an order enjoining Fairchild and SG from infringing the Company's patents and an award of damages resulting from the alleged infringement. Fairchild has denied infringement and asked for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent, that the patents are invalid, and that one of the two patents now at issue in the case is unenforceable. On May 5, 2010, Fairchild and SG filed an amended answer including counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing two patents; the Company contests these new claims vigorously, and since that time Fairchild has withdrawn its claim for infringement of one of the patents it asserted against the Company, leaving just one Fairchild patent in the case. The Court held a claim construction hearing on March 24, 2011, and issued a first claim construction order regarding the Company's asserted patents on July 13, 2011; the Court's order indicated that a separate claim construction order on Fairchild's remaining asserted patent is forthcoming. Discovery is currently under way.

In February 2010, Fairchild and System General (“SG”) filed suits for patent infringement against the Company, Power Integrations Netherlands B.V., and representative offices of Power Integrations Netherlands in Shanghai and Shenzhen with the Suzhou Intermediate Court in the People's Republic of China. The proceedings are still in their early stages, with no hearings or trial currently scheduled. The suits assert four Chinese patents and seek an injunction and damages of approximately $17.0 million. Power Integrations Netherlands has filed invalidation proceedings for all four asserted SG patents in the People's Republic of China Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), and all four challenges were accepted by the PRB, with hearings conducted in September 2010 and rulings expected in the coming months. The Company believes the Fairchild and SG claims are without merit and intends to contest them vigorously.

On July 11, 2011, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, against David Kappos in his capacity as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as part of the ongoing reexamination proceedings related to one of the patents asserted against Fairchild and SG in the Delaware litigation described above. No schedule has been set for the case.

In the quarter ended March 31, 2011, the IRS informed the Company that the IRS intends to propose adjustments to the Company's taxable income for the years 2003 through 2006 related to the Company's intercompany research and development cost-sharing arrangement and related issues (refer to Note 9 for further details). The Company believes that the IRS position is without merit and intends to defend its tax return position vigorously.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of legal proceedings with certainty, and there can be no assurance that Power Integrations will prevail in the above-mentioned unsettled litigations. These litigations, whether or not determined in Power Integrations' favor or settled, will be costly and will divert the efforts and attention of the Company's management and technical personnel from normal business operations, potentially causing a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition and operating results. Currently the company is not able to estimate a loss or a range of loss for the ongoing litigation disclosed above, however adverse determinations in litigation could result in monetary losses, the loss of proprietary rights, subject the Company to significant liabilities, require Power Integrations to seek licenses from third parties or prevent the Company from licensing the technology, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and operating results.

The Company is also subject to a variety of other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the Company's view of these matters may change in the future and could result in charges that would have a material adverse impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.