Note 17. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is subject to routine legal claims, proceedings, and investigations incident to its business activities, including claims, proceedings, and investigations relating to commercial disputes and employment matters. The Company also receives from time to time information claiming that products sold by the Company infringe or may infringe patent, trademark, or other intellectual property rights of third parties. One or more such claims of potential infringement could lead to litigation, the need to obtain licenses, the need to alter a product to avoid infringement, a settlement or judgment, or some other action or material loss by the Company, which also could adversely affect the Company’s overall ability to protect its product designs and ultimately limit its future success in the marketplace. In addition, the Company is occasionally subject to non-routine claims, proceedings, or investigations.

The Company regularly assesses such matters to determine the degree of probability that the Company will incur a loss as a result of such matters as well as the range of possible loss. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the Company’s financial statements if it is probable the Company will incur a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews all claims, proceedings, and investigations at least quarterly and establishes or adjusts any accruals for such matters to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. All legal costs associated with such matters are expensed as incurred.

Historically, the claims, proceedings and investigations brought against the Company, individually, and in the aggregate, have not had a material adverse effect upon the consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position of the Company. The Company believes that it has valid legal defenses to the matters currently pending against the Company. These matters, including the matters specifically described below, are inherently unpredictable and the resolutions of those matters are subject to many uncertainties and the outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, management is unable to estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary loss, amounts covered by insurance, or the financial impact that will result from such matters. Management believes that the final resolution of the current matters pending against the Company, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s consolidated financial position. It is possible, however, that the Company’s results of operations or cash flows could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Set forth below is a description of certain litigation to which the Company is a party.

The 2006 Pro V1 Golf Ball Patent Infringement Litigation

On February 9, 2006, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Delaware (Case No. C.A. 06-91) asserting patent infringement claims against the Acushnet Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortune Brands, alleging that Acushnet’s Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls infringed nine claims contained in four golf ball patents owned by the Company. The Company prevailed in a December 2007 jury trial on 8 of the 9 patent claims asserted against Acushnet. In November 2008, the Delaware District Court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting continued sales of the infringing Pro V1 golf balls by Acushnet. In August 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The case was retried and on March 29, 2010, a jury found that the claims in the patents asserted by the Company against Acushnet were invalid. On April 21, 2011, the District Court in Delaware denied, in part, the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and denied the Company’s motion for a new trial. The Company has appealed the District Court’s rulings to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 2011-1407.

In 2006 Acushnet filed requests for reexamination of the patents asserted by the Company in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). On March 9, 2011, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) affirmed an examiner’s rejection of the patents, relying on evidence submitted by Acushnet in its requests for reexamination. On April 11, 2011, the Company asked the BPAI to reconsider its decision. On September 24, 2011, the BPAI denied the Company’s request for reconsideration. The Company has appealed the BPAI’s decision to the Federal Circuit, Appeal Nos. 2011-1622, 2011-1623, 2011-1624, and 2011-1625. The Company has asserted in the 2006 Pro V1 Golf Ball Patent Litigation described above that Acushnet breached a 1996 settlement agreement by filing the requests for reexamination of the asserted patents in the PTO. On January 13, 2011, the District Court in Delaware entered an order finding Acushnet breached the 1996 settlement agreement by filing the reexamination requests in the PTO. Damages for Acushnet’s breach of the 1996 settlement agreement have not yet been determined by the Court or by a jury.

On March 15, 2011, the Company filed suit against the Director of the PTO in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 1:11 cv 266, seeking a court order vacating, holding unlawful, and setting aside the PTO’s orders in the reexamination proceedings initiated by Acushnet. Among other things, the Company has alleged that the PTO’s refusal to vacate or stay the reexamination proceedings—in the face of the Delaware court’s order determining that the PTO proceedings were initiated in breach of the 1996 settlement agreement—exceeded the PTO’s jurisdiction and authority and was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise contrary to law. On July 27, 2011, the Court granted the PTO’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the PTO’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the law. The Company has appealed the Court’s decision to the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 2011-1551.

The 2009 Pro V1 Golf Ball Patent Litigation

After the District Court in Delaware issued a permanent injunction barring further sales of the infringing Pro V1 golf balls in November 2008, Acushnet introduced a new version of those golf balls. On March 3, 2009, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. C.A. 09131, asserting claims against Acushnet for patent infringement with regard to the new balls. Specifically, the complaint asserts that two golf ball patents owned by the Company and acquired from Top-Flite are infringed by the new versions of the Pro V1 golf balls introduced in 2009. Acushnet has filed requests for reexamination with the PTO challenging the validity of the two patents asserted by the Company in the 2009 litigation. The PTO has issued final office actions rejecting the claims of the two patents and the Company has appealed those rejections to the BPAI.

On March 3, 2009, Acushnet filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. C.A. 09-130, asserting claims against the Company for patent infringement. Specifically, Acushnet asserts that the Company’s sale of the Company’s Tour golf balls infringe nine Acushnet golf ball patents. Acushnet then dropped one of the patents, but expanded its infringement contentions to allege that seven other models of the Company’s golf balls, using the Company’s patented HX surface geometry, infringe five of the Acushnet patents asserted in its suit. Acushnet is seeking damages and an injunction to prevent alleged infringement by the Company. The case was consolidated for discovery and pretrial with the Company’s March 3, 2009 case against Acushnet, described above.

On February 25, 2011, the District Court in Delaware entered an order temporarily staying the 2009 cases pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. On May 6, 2011, the parties requested, and the District Court agreed, to temporarily continue the stay of the 2009 cases. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the stay remains in place.

Corporate Trade Inc. Litigation

On January 19, 2009, the Company filed suit in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00050363-CU-BC-NC, against Corporate Trade Inc. (“CTI”) seeking damages for breach of contract and for declaratory relief based on the asserted use and transfer of corporate trade credits to the Company in connection with the purchase of assets from Top-Flite in 2003. On January 26, 2009, CTI filed its own suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 09CV0698, asserting claims for breach of contract, account stated and unjust enrichment, and seeking damages of approximately $8,900,000. On February 26, 2009, CTI removed the Company’s San Diego case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On March 1, 2010, the San Diego case was transferred to the Southern District of New York where it was consolidated with the New York case. On January 17, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all disputes; the case was dismissed on January 25, 2012.

Lease Commitments

The Company leases certain warehouse, distribution and office facilities, vehicles as well as office equipment under operating leases. Lease terms range from 1 to 7 years expiring at various dates through February 2018, with options to renew at varying terms. Commitments for minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):


2012	$	14,059
2013		6,318
2014		5,078
2015		3,633
2016		2,137
Thereafter		1,896

	$	33,121

Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $22,318,000, $13,967,000 and $13,567,000, respectively.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations and Other Contractual Obligations

During the normal course of its business, the Company enters into agreements to purchase goods and services, including purchase commitments for production materials, endorsement agreements with professional golfers and other endorsers, employment and consulting agreements, and intellectual property licensing agreements pursuant to which the Company is required to pay royalty fees. It is not possible to determine the amounts the Company will ultimately be required to pay under these agreements as they are subject to many variables including performance-based bonuses, reductions in payment obligations if designated minimum performance criteria are not achieved, and severance arrangements. As of December 31, 2011, the Company has entered into many of these contractual agreements with terms ranging from one to six years. The minimum obligation that the Company is required to pay under these agreements is $79,049,000 over the next six years. In addition, the Company also enters into unconditional purchase obligations with various vendors and suppliers of goods and services in the normal course of operations through purchase orders or other documentation or that are undocumented except for an invoice. Such unconditional purchase obligations are generally outstanding for periods less than a year and are settled by cash payments upon delivery of goods and services and are not reflected in this total. Future purchase commitments as of December 31, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):


2012	$	47,447
2013		20,195
2014		10,926
2015		430
2016		26
Thereafter		25

	$	79,049

Other Contingent Contractual Obligations

During its normal course of business, the Company has made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include (i) intellectual property indemnities to the Company’s customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of Company products, (ii) indemnities to various lessors in connection with facility leases for certain claims arising from such facilities or leases, (iii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to the goods and services provided to the Company or based on the negligence or willful misconduct of the Company and (iv) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts. In addition, the Company has consulting agreements that provide for payment of nominal fees upon the issuance of patents and/or the commercialization of research results. The Company has also issued guarantees in the form of a standby letter of credit as security for contingent liabilities under certain workers’ compensation insurance policies.

The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies, and in certain cases, may be indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation on the maximum amount of future payments the Company could be obligated to make. Historically, costs incurred to settle claims related to indemnities have not been material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, the Company believes the likelihood is remote that material payments will be required under the indemnities, commitments and guarantees described above. The fair value of indemnities, commitments and guarantees that the Company issued during the year ended December 31, 2011 was not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Employment Contracts

The Company has entered into employment contracts with certain of the Company’s officers. These contracts generally provide for severance benefits, including salary continuation, if employment is terminated by the Company for convenience or by the officer for substantial cause. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recognized $16,329,000 in severance benefits in connection with the Reorganization and Reinvestment Initiatives announced in June 2011 (see Note 3). In addition, in order to assure that the officers would continue to provide independent leadership consistent with the Company’s best interests in the event of an actual or threatened change in control of the Company, the contracts also generally provide for certain protections in the event of such a change in control. These protections include the payment of certain severance benefits, including salary continuation, upon the termination of employment following a change in control.