Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation The flash memory industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other intellectual property rights. The Company’s patent and other intellectual property rights are primarily responsible for generating license and royalty revenue. The Company seeks to protect its intellectual property through patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, confidentiality agreements and other methods, and has been and likely will continue to enforce such rights as appropriate through litigation and related proceedings. The Company expects that its competitors and others who hold intellectual property rights related to its industry will pursue similar strategies. From time-to-time, it has been and may continue to be necessary to initiate or defend litigation against third parties. These and other parties could bring suit against the Company. In each case listed below where the Company is the defendant, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that losses related to the litigation described below have occurred beyond the amounts, if any, which have been accrued. However, legal discovery and litigation is highly unpredictable and future legal developments may cause current estimates to change in future periods. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On October 24, 2007, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against the following defendants: Phison Electronics Corp. (“Phison”); Silicon Motion Technology Corp., Silicon Motion, Inc. (Taiwan), Silicon Motion, Inc. (California), and Silicon Motion International, Inc. (collectively, “Silicon Motion”); Synergistic Sales, Inc. (“Synergistic”); USBest Technology, Inc. dba Afa Technologies, Inc. (“USBest”); Skymedi Corp. (“Skymedi”); Chipsbank Microelectronics (HK) Co., Ltd., Chipsbank Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Chipsbank Microelectronics Co., Ltd., (collectively, “Chipsbank”); Infotech Logistic LLC (“Infotech”); Zotek Electronic Co., Ltd., dba Zodata Technology Ltd. (collectively, “Zotek”); Power Quotient International Co., Ltd., and PQI Corp. (collectively, “PQI”); PNY Technologies, Inc. (“PNY”); Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Kingston Technology Corp., Payton Technology Corp., and MemoSun, Inc. (collectively, “Kingston”); Buffalo, Inc., Melco Holdings, Inc., and Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Buffalo”); Verbatim Corp. (“Verbatim”); Transcend Information Inc. (Taiwan), Transcend Information Inc. (California, U.S.A.), and Transcend Information Maryland, Inc., (collectively, “Transcend”); Imation Corp., Imation Enterprises Corp., and Memorex Products, Inc. (collectively, “Imation”); Add-On Computer Peripherals, Inc. and Add-On Computer Peripherals, LLC (collectively, “Add-On Computer Peripherals”); Add-On Technology Co., A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., and A-Data Technology (USA) Co., Ltd., (collectively, “A-DATA”); Apacer Technology Inc. and Apacer Memory America, Inc. (collectively, “Apacer”); Acer, Inc.; Behavior Tech Computer Corp. and Behavior Tech Computer (USA) Corp. (collectively, “Behavior”); Corsair Memory, Inc. (“Corsair”); Dane-Elec Memory S.A., and Dane-Elec Corp. USA, (collectively, “Dane-Elec”) EDGE Tech Corp. (“EDGE”); Interactive Media Corp, (“Interactive”); LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., (collectively, “LG”); TSR Silicon Resources Inc. (“TSR”); and Welldone Co. (“Welldone”). In this action (the “’607 Action”), the Company initially asserted that the defendants infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,719,808 (the “’808 patent”), 6,763,424 (the “’424 patent”); 6,426,893 (the “’893 patent”); 6,947,332 (the “’332 patent”); and 7,137,011 (the “’011 patent”). The Company entered into a stipulation dismissing the ’332 patent. The Company concurrently filed a second Complaint for patent infringement in the same District Court against the following defendants: Phison, Silicon Motion, Synergistic, USBest, Skymedi, Zotek, Infotech, PQI, PNY, Kingston, Buffalo, Verbatim, Transcend, A-DATA, Apacer, Behavior, and Dane-Elec. In this action (the “’605 Action”), the Company asserted that the defendants infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,149,316 (the “’316 patent”) and 6,757,842 (the “’842 patent”). The Company seeks damages and injunctive relief in both actions. Settlement agreements were reached with, and the Company has dismissed its claims against, Imation, Phison, Silicon Motion, Skymedi, Verbatim, Corsair, Add-On Computer Peripherals, EDGE, Infotech, Interactive, PNY, TSR and Welldone. In addition, the Company’s claims against Chipsbank, Acer, Behavior, Dane-Elec, LG, PQI, USBest, Transcend, A-DATA, Apacer, Buffalo and Synergistic were dismissed without prejudice. In light of these settlements and dismissals, Kingston is the only remaining defendant. The District Court consolidated the ’605 and ’607 Actions and stayed these actions during the pendency of related proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission, which are now closed. After lifting the stay, the District Court set the trial to begin on February 28, 2011. On September 22, 2010, the District Court issued a Markman Order construing certain terms from the remaining patents. In light of the District Court’s Markman Order, the Company withdrew its allegations regarding the ’808 and ’893 patents. On February 15, 2011, the District Court issued a Summary Judgment Order that found that certain Kingston products with a Phison PS3006 controller contributorily infringed claims 20, 24, 28 and 30 of the ’424 patent. In doing so, the District Court found that there were no substantial non-infringing uses for these Kingston products. As part of the order, the District Court also ruled that the majority of accused Kingston products (ones that did not contain the Phison PS3006 controller) did not infringe the asserted claims of the ’424 patent. The Summary Judgment Order further found that none of the accused Kingston products infringed the asserted claims of the ’842 and ’316 patents. The Summary Judgment Order also found that the Company had standing to sue Kingston on the ’842 and ’316 patents and that the Company was not entitled to damages for Kingston’s sales prior to October 2007. The Company disagrees with various aspects of the District Court’s rulings in the Summary Judgment Order. On February 17, 2011, the Company and Kingston filed a stipulated dismissal with the District Court, stating that rather than proceeding to trial against Kingston products containing the Phison PS3006 controller, which represented a small amount of damages, the Company agreed to dismiss its claim against the Kingston PS3006 product and Kingston agreed to dismiss its invalidity and/or enforceability counterclaims against the Company’s patents, thereby allowing either party to appeal. Under the terms of the stipulated dismissal, the Company and Kingston have the right to re-file the dismissed claims if (a) an appellate court reverses, remands, or vacates, in whole or in part, the District Court’s September 22, 2010 Claim Construction Order, or the District Court’s February 15, 2010 Summary Judgment, and (b) the case is returned to the District Court for further proceedings. The stipulation for dismissal does not prejudice either the Company or Kingston’s right to appeal this matter in whole or in part. The District Court entered an amended final judgment dismissing these actions on March 29, 2011. The Company filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment on April 19, 2011, and the appeal was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7, 2012. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On May 4, 2010, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against Kingston and Imation. The Company has since dismissed its claims against Imation in light of a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. In this action, the Company asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 7,397,713; 7,492,660; 7,657,702; 7,532,511; 7,646,666; 7,646,667; and 6,968,421. The Company seeks damages and injunctive relief. Kingston has answered the Complaint denying infringement and raising several affirmative defenses and related counterclaims. These defenses and related counterclaims include, among others, non-infringement, invalidity, implied license, express license, unenforceability for alleged patent misuse, lack of standing and bad faith litigation. Kingston also asserted antitrust counterclaims against the Company alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization and agreement in restraint of trade, all under the Sherman Act. Kingston also asserted state law unfair competition counterclaims. The Company has denied Kingston’s counterclaims. The District Court issued a Markman Order construing certain claim terms of the patents on March 16, 2011. On June 10, 2011, the Company filed a motion seeking a summary judgment in connection with Kingston’s antitrust counterclaims and Kingston’s implied license defense. On June 10, 2011, Kingston filed a motion seeking a summary judgment of non-infringement concerning all of the Company’s asserted patent claims, invalidity of certain of those claims, and in connection with certain of the Company’s damages claims. On August 12, 2011, the District Court granted Kingston’s motion for summary judgment as to all of the Company’s infringement claims. On October 13, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims, but denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s federal agreement-in-restraint-of-trade counterclaim and state law unfair competition counterclaim. A bench trial on Kingston’s remaining counterclaims was held the week of November 7, 2011. On March 27, 2012, the District Court issued a decision finding in favor of the Company on Kingston’s remaining federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. The District Court issued a final judgment on April 20, 2012, entering judgment in Kingston’s favor on all of the Company’s infringement claims and judgment in the Company’s favor on all of Kingston’s federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. On April 30, 2012, Kingston filed a notice of appeal. The Company filed a notice of appeal on May 18, 2012. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk (United Kingdom). On April 4, 2011, following the detention by Customs Authorities in the United Kingdom of several consignments of Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) flash drive products imported by Kingston Digital Europe Limited (“KDEL”), SanDisk IL Ltd. and the Company commenced patent infringement proceedings against KDEL in the Patents Court in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The subject matter of the proceedings concerns Kingston USB flash drive products suspected of infringing three Company patents, being European patents (UK) numbered 1,092,193, 1,548,604 and 1,746,513. The Company seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and associated remedies in those proceedings. A further related company, Kingston Technology Europe Limited, was initially named in the proceedings but was removed after KDEL admitted to all importation of the relevant products. KDEL filed its Defence (i.e., Defense) on May 19, 2011 denying infringement and seeking revocation of all three patents. Two further Kingston companies - Kingston Technology Co., Inc. (“KTCI”) and Kingston Technology Corporation (“KTC”) - were added to the proceedings by Court Order dated March 15, 2012. KTC and KTCI served a Joint Defence with KDEL on April 30, 2012, which was substantially similar to the latest form of KDEL’s Defence. Trial is expected to commence in 2014. Patent Litigation Initiated By SanDisk. On October 27, 2011, in response to infringement allegations by Round Rock Research LLC (“Round Rock”), the Company filed a lawsuit against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”). The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that eleven Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. On March 1, 2012, Round Rock filed its answer and counterclaim, in which it asserted that the eleven patents-in-suit are valid and infringed by the Company. On May 3, 2012, the Company amended its complaint to add a twelfth patent. On May 17, 2012, Round Rock answered and counterclaimed, asserting that the Company infringed the twelfth patent added to the case. The Company filed motions for summary judgment of invalidity of two of the asserted patents on July 5, 2012, and Round Rock withdrew both patents on July 19, 2012. In addition, Round Rock filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on May 3, 2012, asserting that the Company is infringing eleven patents. The patents being asserted against the Company in the lawsuit in the District of Delaware include one patent that is also being litigated between the parties in the action pending in the District Court. Round Rock subsequently filed an amended complaint in Delaware alleging that the Company’s alleged infringement was willful. Federal Civil Antitrust Class Actions. Between August 31, 2007 and December 14, 2007, the Company (along with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), in eight purported class action complaints. On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in a purported class action captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs and disgorgement of profits. The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. On March 31, 2010, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ class certification motion, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to substitute certain class representatives. On April 5, 2011, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the class certification decision and on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) to request permission to appeal that decision. On June 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied that petition. On July 12, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied on August 24, 2011. In May 2012, following a settlement with individual indirect purchasers, the case against the Company was dismissed with prejudice. Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. In addition, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of its Order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss based on Ritz’s lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. The Company answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of Ritz’s allegations of wrongdoing. On September 7, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the Company’s petition. The briefing on appeal has been completed. The Federal Circuit has not set a date for oral argument. Samsung Federal Antitrust Action Against Panasonic and SD-3C. On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) alleging various claims against Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) and SD-3C, LLC (“SD-3C”) under federal antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and under California antitrust and unfair competition laws. Such claims are based on, inter alia, alleged conduct related to the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The Complaint further seeks a declaration that Panasonic and SD-3C engaged in patent misuse and that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the Complaint includes various factual allegations concerning the Company. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and thereafter Samsung filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 14, 2010, which was also based on alleged conduct related to the licensing practices and operations of the SD-3C, and contained the same claims as the original Complaint. On August 25, 2011, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC. The District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with prejudice, but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On September 16, 2011, Samsung filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which continued to assert claims based on alleged conduct related to the licensing practices and operations of the SD-3C and contained the same claims as the original complaint, except for the patent misuse claim. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC on October 6, 2011. By Order dated January 3, 2012, the Court granted defendants’ motion without leave to amend. Samsung filed a notice of appeal, dated January 25, 2012. The briefing on appeal has been completed. Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD‑3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Secure Digital (“SD”) cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. Plaintiffs allege the Company (along with the other members of SD‑3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD‑3C LLC described above. On November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, and on February 21, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On June 20 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The Company received two demand letters dated March 30, 2011, and one demand letter dated February 13, 2012, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A §9 (“93A Demand Letters”). The letters gave notice of intention to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under Massachusetts unfair competition law if the Defendants do not tender a settlement. These letters generally repeat the allegations in the antitrust cases filed against SD‑3C and Panasonic defendants in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al. and against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic defendants, and Toshiba defendants in Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al. On April 21, 2011, the Company responded to the March 30, 2011 letters detailing their deficiencies. On March 21, 2012, the Company responded to the February 13, 2012 letter similarly detailing its deficiencies.

Litigation

The flash memory industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other intellectual property rights. The Company’s patent and other intellectual property rights are primarily responsible for generating license and royalty revenue. The Company seeks to protect its intellectual property through patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, confidentiality agreements and other methods, and has been and likely will continue to enforce such rights as appropriate through litigation and related proceedings. The Company expects that its competitors and others who hold intellectual property rights related to its industry will pursue similar strategies. From time-to-time, it has been and may continue to be necessary to initiate or defend litigation against third parties. These and other parties could bring suit against the Company. In each case listed below where the Company is the defendant, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that losses related to the litigation described below have occurred beyond the amounts, if any, which have been accrued. However, legal discovery and litigation is highly unpredictable and future legal developments may cause current estimates to change in future periods.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On October 24, 2007, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against the following defendants: Phison Electronics Corp. (“Phison”); Silicon Motion Technology Corp., Silicon Motion, Inc. (Taiwan), Silicon Motion, Inc. (California), and Silicon Motion International, Inc. (collectively, “Silicon Motion”); Synergistic Sales, Inc. (“Synergistic”); USBest Technology, Inc. dba Afa Technologies, Inc. (“USBest”); Skymedi Corp. (“Skymedi”); Chipsbank Microelectronics (HK) Co., Ltd., Chipsbank Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Chipsbank Microelectronics Co., Ltd., (collectively, “Chipsbank”); Infotech Logistic LLC (“Infotech”); Zotek Electronic Co., Ltd., dba Zodata Technology Ltd. (collectively, “Zotek”); Power Quotient International Co., Ltd., and PQI Corp. (collectively, “PQI”); PNY Technologies, Inc. (“PNY”); Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Kingston Technology Corp., Payton Technology Corp., and MemoSun, Inc. (collectively, “Kingston”); Buffalo, Inc., Melco Holdings, Inc., and Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Buffalo”); Verbatim Corp. (“Verbatim”); Transcend Information Inc. (Taiwan), Transcend Information Inc. (California, U.S.A.), and Transcend Information Maryland, Inc., (collectively, “Transcend”); Imation Corp., Imation Enterprises Corp., and Memorex Products, Inc. (collectively, “Imation”); Add-On Computer Peripherals, Inc. and Add-On Computer Peripherals, LLC (collectively, “Add-On Computer Peripherals”); Add-On Technology Co., A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., and A-Data Technology (USA) Co., Ltd., (collectively, “A-DATA”); Apacer Technology Inc. and Apacer Memory America, Inc. (collectively, “Apacer”); Acer, Inc.; Behavior Tech Computer Corp. and Behavior Tech Computer (USA) Corp. (collectively, “Behavior”); Corsair Memory, Inc. (“Corsair”); Dane-Elec Memory S.A., and Dane-Elec Corp. USA, (collectively, “Dane-Elec”) EDGE Tech Corp. (“EDGE”); Interactive Media Corp, (“Interactive”); LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., (collectively, “LG”); TSR Silicon Resources Inc. (“TSR”); and Welldone Co. (“Welldone”). In this action (the “’607 Action”), the Company initially asserted that the defendants infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,719,808 (the “’808 patent”), 6,763,424 (the “’424 patent”); 6,426,893 (the “’893 patent”); 6,947,332 (the “’332 patent”); and 7,137,011 (the “’011 patent”). The Company entered into a stipulation dismissing the ’332 patent. The Company concurrently filed a second Complaint for patent infringement in the same District Court against the following defendants: Phison, Silicon Motion, Synergistic, USBest, Skymedi, Zotek, Infotech, PQI, PNY, Kingston, Buffalo, Verbatim, Transcend, A-DATA, Apacer, Behavior, and Dane-Elec. In this action (the “’605 Action”), the Company asserted that the defendants infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,149,316 (the “’316 patent”) and 6,757,842 (the “’842 patent”). The Company seeks damages and injunctive relief in both actions. Settlement agreements were reached with, and the Company has dismissed its claims against, Imation, Phison, Silicon Motion, Skymedi, Verbatim, Corsair, Add-On Computer Peripherals, EDGE, Infotech, Interactive, PNY, TSR and Welldone. In addition, the Company’s claims against Chipsbank, Acer, Behavior, Dane-Elec, LG, PQI, USBest, Transcend, A-DATA, Apacer, Buffalo and Synergistic were dismissed without prejudice. In light of these settlements and dismissals, Kingston is the only remaining defendant.

The District Court consolidated the ’605 and ’607 Actions and stayed these actions during the pendency of related proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission, which are now closed. After lifting the stay, the District Court set the trial to begin on February 28, 2011. On September 22, 2010, the District Court issued a Markman Order construing certain terms from the remaining patents. In light of the District Court’s Markman Order, the Company withdrew its allegations regarding the ’808 and ’893 patents. On February 15, 2011, the District Court issued a Summary Judgment Order that found that certain Kingston products with a Phison PS3006 controller contributorily infringed claims 20, 24, 28 and 30 of the ’424 patent. In doing so, the District Court found that there were no substantial non-infringing uses for these Kingston products. As part of the order, the District Court also ruled that the majority of accused Kingston products (ones that did not contain the Phison PS3006 controller) did not infringe the asserted claims of the ’424 patent. The Summary Judgment Order further found that none of the accused Kingston products infringed the asserted claims of the ’842 and ’316 patents. The Summary Judgment Order also found that the Company had standing to sue Kingston on the ’842 and ’316 patents and that the Company was not entitled to damages for Kingston’s sales prior to October 2007. The Company disagrees with various aspects of the District Court’s rulings in the Summary Judgment Order. On February 17, 2011, the Company and Kingston filed a stipulated dismissal with the District Court, stating that rather than proceeding to trial against Kingston products containing the Phison PS3006 controller, which represented a small amount of damages, the Company agreed to dismiss its claim against the Kingston PS3006 product and Kingston agreed to dismiss its invalidity and/or enforceability counterclaims against the Company’s patents, thereby allowing either party to appeal. Under the terms of the stipulated dismissal, the Company and Kingston have the right to re-file the dismissed claims if (a) an appellate court reverses, remands, or vacates, in whole or in part, the District Court’s September 22, 2010 Claim Construction Order, or the District Court’s February 15, 2010 Summary Judgment, and (b) the case is returned to the District Court for further proceedings. The stipulation for dismissal does not prejudice either the Company or Kingston’s right to appeal this matter in whole or in part.

The District Court entered an amended final judgment dismissing these actions on March 29, 2011. The Company filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment on April 19, 2011, and the appeal was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7, 2012.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On May 4, 2010, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against Kingston and Imation. The Company has since dismissed its claims against Imation in light of a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. In this action, the Company asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 7,397,713; 7,492,660; 7,657,702; 7,532,511; 7,646,666; 7,646,667; and 6,968,421. The Company seeks damages and injunctive relief. Kingston has answered the Complaint denying infringement and raising several affirmative defenses and related counterclaims. These defenses and related counterclaims include, among others, non-infringement, invalidity, implied license, express license, unenforceability for alleged patent misuse, lack of standing and bad faith litigation. Kingston also asserted antitrust counterclaims against the Company alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization and agreement in restraint of trade, all under the Sherman Act. Kingston also asserted state law unfair competition counterclaims. The Company has denied Kingston’s counterclaims. The District Court issued a Markman Order construing certain claim terms of the patents on March 16, 2011. On June 10, 2011, the Company filed a motion seeking a summary judgment in connection with Kingston’s antitrust counterclaims and Kingston’s implied license defense. On June 10, 2011, Kingston filed a motion seeking a summary judgment of non-infringement concerning all of the Company’s asserted patent claims, invalidity of certain of those claims, and in connection with certain of the Company’s damages claims. On August 12, 2011, the District Court granted Kingston’s motion for summary judgment as to all of the Company’s infringement claims. On October 13, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims, but denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s federal agreement-in-restraint-of-trade counterclaim and state law unfair competition counterclaim. A bench trial on Kingston’s remaining counterclaims was held the week of November 7, 2011. On March 27, 2012, the District Court issued a decision finding in favor of the Company on Kingston’s remaining federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. The District Court issued a final judgment on April 20, 2012, entering judgment in Kingston’s favor on all of the Company’s infringement claims and judgment in the Company’s favor on all of Kingston’s federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. On April 30, 2012, Kingston filed a notice of appeal. The Company filed a notice of appeal on May 18, 2012.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk (United Kingdom). On April 4, 2011, following the detention by Customs Authorities in the United Kingdom of several consignments of Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) flash drive products imported by Kingston Digital Europe Limited (“KDEL”), SanDisk IL Ltd. and the Company commenced patent infringement proceedings against KDEL in the Patents Court in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The subject matter of the proceedings concerns Kingston USB flash drive products suspected of infringing three Company patents, being European patents (UK) numbered 1,092,193, 1,548,604 and 1,746,513. The Company seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and associated remedies in those proceedings. A further related company, Kingston Technology Europe Limited, was initially named in the proceedings but was removed after KDEL admitted to all importation of the relevant products. KDEL filed its Defence (i.e., Defense) on May 19, 2011 denying infringement and seeking revocation of all three patents. Two further Kingston companies - Kingston Technology Co., Inc. (“KTCI”) and Kingston Technology Corporation (“KTC”) - were added to the proceedings by Court Order dated March 15, 2012. KTC and KTCI served a Joint Defence with KDEL on April 30, 2012, which was substantially similar to the latest form of KDEL’s Defence. Trial is expected to commence in 2014.

Patent Litigation Initiated By SanDisk. On October 27, 2011, in response to infringement allegations by Round Rock Research LLC (“Round Rock”), the Company filed a lawsuit against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”). The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that eleven Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. On March 1, 2012, Round Rock filed its answer and counterclaim, in which it asserted that the eleven patents-in-suit are valid and infringed by the Company. On May 3, 2012, the Company amended its complaint to add a twelfth patent. On May 17, 2012, Round Rock answered and counterclaimed, asserting that the Company infringed the twelfth patent added to the case. The Company filed motions for summary judgment of invalidity of two of the asserted patents on July 5, 2012, and Round Rock withdrew both patents on July 19, 2012.

In addition, Round Rock filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on May 3, 2012, asserting that the Company is infringing eleven patents. The patents being asserted against the Company in the lawsuit in the District of Delaware include one patent that is also being litigated between the parties in the action pending in the District Court. Round Rock subsequently filed an amended complaint in Delaware alleging that the Company’s alleged infringement was willful.

Federal Civil Antitrust Class Actions. Between August 31, 2007 and December 14, 2007, the Company (along with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), in eight purported class action complaints. On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in a purported class action captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs and disgorgement of profits. The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. On March 31, 2010, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ class certification motion, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to substitute certain class representatives. On April 5, 2011, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the class certification decision and on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) to request permission to appeal that decision. On June 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied that petition. On July 12, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied on August 24, 2011. In May 2012, following a settlement with individual indirect purchasers, the case against the Company was dismissed with prejudice.

Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. In addition, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of its Order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss based on Ritz’s lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. The Company answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of Ritz’s allegations of wrongdoing. On September 7, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the Company’s petition. The briefing on appeal has been completed. The Federal Circuit has not set a date for oral argument.

Samsung Federal Antitrust Action Against Panasonic and SD-3C. On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) alleging various claims against Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) and SD-3C, LLC (“SD-3C”) under federal antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and under California antitrust and unfair competition laws. Such claims are based on, inter alia, alleged conduct related to the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The Complaint further seeks a declaration that Panasonic and SD-3C engaged in patent misuse and that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the Complaint includes various factual allegations concerning the Company. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and thereafter Samsung filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 14, 2010, which was also based on alleged conduct related to the licensing practices and operations of the SD-3C, and contained the same claims as the original Complaint. On August 25, 2011, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC. The District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with prejudice, but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On September 16, 2011, Samsung filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which continued to assert claims based on alleged conduct related to the licensing practices and operations of the SD-3C and contained the same claims as the original complaint, except for the patent misuse claim. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC on October 6, 2011. By Order dated January 3, 2012, the Court granted defendants’ motion without leave to amend. Samsung filed a notice of appeal, dated January 25, 2012. The briefing on appeal has been completed.

Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD‑3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Secure Digital (“SD”) cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. Plaintiffs allege the Company (along with the other members of SD‑3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD‑3C LLC described above. On November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, and on February 21, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On June 20 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The Company received two demand letters dated March 30, 2011, and one demand letter dated February 13, 2012, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A §9 (“93A Demand Letters”). The letters gave notice of intention to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under Massachusetts unfair competition law if the Defendants do not tender a settlement. These letters generally repeat the allegations in the antitrust cases filed against SD‑3C and Panasonic defendants in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al. and against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic defendants, and Toshiba defendants in Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al. On April 21, 2011, the Company responded to the March 30, 2011 letters detailing their deficiencies. On March 21, 2012, the Company responded to the February 13, 2012 letter similarly detailing its deficiencies.