Commitments and contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 28, 2014

Commitments and contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and contingencies

(7) Commitments and contingencies

We are a party to various legal proceedings, claims and assessments that arise in the ordinary course of business, and may continue to incur significant costs in defending or settling legal matters.  The total amount and timing of the expected future payments related to these matters cannot be estimated due to the uncertainty of the duration of the legal proceedings and the ultimate scope of other claims.  However, an unfavorable outcome in a single matter or in multiple legal matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results from operations and cash flows.

We are a defendant in a lawsuit filed in March 2007 by Halo Electronics, Inc. ("Halo") in the United States District Court, District of Nevada. The case is captioned Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00331-PMP-PAL. The plaintiff, Halo, claims that we infringed certain U.S. patents related to an electronic surface mount package, and is seeking injunctive relief and damages. On November 26, 2012, the jury returned a verdict ruling in favor of Halo and found that Pulse willfully infringed on three different patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 5,656,985; 6,297,720; and 6,344,785. The jury verdict also found Pulse liable for approximately $2.0 million for past damages and interest and for a royalty on all future domestic sales under licenses to use these patents.

On May 29, 2013, the District Court entered final judgment in the case. Halo and Pulse have filed cross appeals with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeals are fully briefed and completed as of May 1, 2014.  A hearing before the Federal Circuit is expected to occur in June or July 2014.   In July 2013, the District Court ruled against Halo on the willful infringement issue thereby precluding Halo from seeking treble damages and attorney's fees. In addition, although the District Court granted Halo's motion for a permanent injunction against the eight product groups subject to the jury verdict, the District Court granted Pulse's emergency motion to stay the injunction for 90 days through October 15, 2013. Accordingly, we were free to sell the products subject to a 4.5% royalty on relevant U.S. sales during the stay period. The stay period has expired and we are no longer selling the products subject to the injunction.

In relation to the appeal filed in the Halo legal matter, Pulse was required by the Court to post a $1.6 million bond in the third quarter of 2013.  The amount of the bond is held in an interest-bearing account in the Company's name, but is restricted and has been classified within prepaid expenses and other current assets in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. The restriction will continue until the resolution of this legal matter.

During the three months ended March 28, 2014 and March 29, 2013, we incurred $0.3 million and $0.3 million of legal expenses, respectively, related to this matter.

We are also subject to ongoing tax examinations and governmental assessments in various foreign and domestic jurisdictions. In January 2013, we received a court ruling from the federal tax court in Turkey relating to prior year non-income tax related assessments relating to our former operations, which was upheld in December 2013. The ruling was based on our inability to present certain notarized documents required under Turkish tax law. In January 2014, the Company appealed the decision and requested an annulment of the penalties. The initial judgment ordered us to pay approximately $3.7 million for fines, penalties, and interest on this matter. Accordingly, we recorded a charge to our legal reserve of approximately $3.7 million during fiscal year 2012.  During the three months ended March 28, 2014, we recorded a $0.1 million decrease to the legal reserve due to foreign currency revaluation.