Commitments and Contingencies

Warranties

The following table summarizes the changes in the Company's product warranty liabilities (in thousands):



Balance at September 25, 2011	$	3,860
Measurement period acquisition related warranty (See Note 2)	3,023
Warranties accrued in current period	323
Changes in estimates for pre-existing warranties	(400		)
Expenditures	(958		)
Balance at December 25, 2011	$	5,848

Product warranties are provided for at the time the Company recognizes revenue. The warranty periods range from ninety days to ten years. The Company estimates these warranty liabilities as a percentage of revenue, based on historical knowledge of warranty costs and expected future warranty costs. If actual product failure rates materially differ from these estimates, revisions to the estimated warranty liability would be required. The Company evaluates its warranty reserve on a quarterly basis.

Litigation

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings. Information regarding material legal proceedings is contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 26, 2011, and updates to that disclosure, including with respect to the proceedings discussed below, are contained in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 25, 2011. The following is provided as an update to the Company's legal proceedings as contained in those reports. Unless otherwise indicated, the potential losses for claims against the Company in these matters are not reasonably estimable.

Dow Corning Litigation

As previously reported, Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on September 27, 2011. The complaint, as subsequently amended, seeks a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff does not infringe three U.S. patents owned by the Company relating to high quality silicon carbide materials and that the patents are invalid. The Company has moved the court to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that at the time the complaint was filed there was no substantial or immediate controversy between the parties regarding the patents-in-suit.

Osram Sylvania and Lighting Science Group Litigation

As previously reported, Ruud Lighting, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Osram Sylvania, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 2, 2010 and Lighting Science Group Corporation intervened as a co-defendant in the action. In November 2011, the action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties.

Cooper Lighting Litigation

As previously reported, Illumination Management Solutions, Inc., a subsidiary of Cooper Lighting, LLC, filed a complaint for patent infringement against Ruud Lighting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 7, 2010. The action was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As amended in January 2012, the complaint alleges that Ruud Lighting is infringing two U.S. patents owned by Illumination Management Solutions, No. 7,674,018 and No. 7,993,036, each entitled "LED Device for Wide Beam Generation." It also alleges that Ruud Lighting and its then president, Alan Ruud, who served on the plaintiff's board of directors in 2006 and 2007 when Ruud Lighting was a shareholder of the plaintiff, conspired to misuse confidential information obtained from the plaintiff to file patent applications and to obtain patents assigned to Ruud Lighting. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages and ownership of any interest in the patent applications and patents alleged to have been wrongfully filed and obtained.

As also previously reported, Ruud Lighting is a defendant in an action commenced by Illumination Management Solutions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2010 and later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As amended in December 2011, the complaint names as defendants Ruud Lighting and two of its employees, Alan Ruud and Christopher Ruud, and asserts that the defendants engaged in wrongful acts arising out of the relationship between the plaintiff and Ruud Lighting in 2006 and 2007 when Ruud Lighting was a shareholder of the plaintiff and Alan Ruud served on the plaintiff's board of directors. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties and otherwise acted improperly by pursuing a plan to compete with the plaintiff and that the defendants misused trade secrets and other information obtained from the plaintiff as fiduciaries and subject to a non-disclosure agreement. These allegedly wrongful acts included filing patent applications and obtaining patents assigned to Ruud Lighting on inventions claimed by the plaintiff. The complaint also alleges that Ruud Lighting: (a) marketed its LED products without reference to certain optical technology claimed by the plaintiff, thereby breaching a marketing agreement with the plaintiff and engaging in unfair competition and false advertising; (b) breached the marketing agreement by failing to give the plaintiff a right of first refusal to integrate the plaintiff's optical technology into Ruud Lighting LED products; and (c) committed fraud by entering into the marketing agreement without any intention to perform it. The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to a correction of the inventors named in one or more patents to add a founder of the plaintiff as an inventor. The complaint seeks to recover damages, all profits and other gains realized by defendants as a result of the acts complained of, attorneys' fees, ownership of any interest in the patent applications and patents alleged to have been wrongfully filed and obtained, and correction of the named inventors on one or more patents.