Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 15—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The company has future commitments to purchase chemicals for certain wafer fabrication facilities. In the event the company was to end the agreements, the company would be required to pay future minimum payments of approximately $12.6 million. The company does not accrue for this liability as we expect to use these chemicals in the ordinary course of business. The company’s facilities in South Portland, Maine and West Jordan, Utah have ongoing environmental remediation projects to respond to certain releases of hazardous substances that occurred prior to the leveraged recapitalization of the company from National Semiconductor. Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement with National Semiconductor Corporation, National Semiconductor has agreed to indemnify the company for the future costs of these projects. The terms of the indemnification are without time limit and without maximum amount. The costs incurred to respond to these conditions were not material to the consolidated financial statements for any period presented. National Semiconductor Corporation was purchased by Texas Instruments Incorporated during the fourth quarter of 2011. Pursuant to the 1999 asset agreement to purchase the power device business of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung agreed to indemnify the company for remediation costs and other liabilities related to historical contamination, up to $150 million. The company is unable to estimate the potential amounts of future payments, if any; however, any future payments are not expected to have a material impact on the company’s earnings or financial condition. Patent Litigation with Power Integrations, Inc. There are five outstanding proceedings with Power Integrations. POWI 1: On October 20, 2004, the company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, were sued by Power Integrations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Power Integrations alleged that certain of the company’s pulse width modulation (PWM) integrated circuit products infringed four Power Integrations U.S. patents, and sought a permanent injunction preventing the company from manufacturing, selling or offering the products for sale in the U.S., or from importing the products into the U.S., as well as money damages for past infringement. The trial in the case was divided into three phases. In the first phase of the trial that occurred in October of 2006, a jury returned a verdict finding that thirty-three of the company’s PWM products willfully infringed one or more of seven claims asserted in the four patents and assessed damages against the company. The company voluntarily stopped U.S. sales and importation of those products in 2007 and has been offering replacement products since 2006. Subsequent phases of the trial conducted during 2007 and 2008 focused on the validity and enforceability of the patents. In December of 2008, the judge overseeing the case reduced the jury’s 2006 damages award from $34 million to approximately $6.1 million and ordered a new trial on the issue of willfulness. Following the new trial held in June of 2009, the court found the company’s infringement to have been willful and in January 2011 the court awarded Power Integrations final damages in the amount of $12.2 million. The company appealed the final damages award, willfulness finding, and other issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 26, 2013, the court of appeals vacated almost the entire damages award, ruling that there was no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find Fairchild liable for induced infringement. The court also vacated the earlier ruling of willful patent infringement by Fairchild. While the appeals court instructed the lower court to conduct further proceedings to determine damages based upon approximately $500,000 to $750,000 worth of sales and imports of affected products, Fairchild believes that damages on the basis of that level of infringing activity would not be material to Fairchild. Accordingly, the company released $12.6 million from the reserves relating to this case during the first quarter of 2013. The appeals court denied Power Integrations’ motions to rehear the case. On August 23, 2013, Power Integrations filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking review of various aspects of the court of appeals ruling. On January 13, 2014, the Supreme Court denied Power Integrations’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. POWI 2: On May 23, 2008, Power Integrations filed another lawsuit against the company, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and our wholly owned subsidiary System General Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of three patents. Of the three patents asserted in that lawsuit, two were asserted against the company and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation in the October 2004 lawsuit described above. In 2011, Power Integrations added a fourth patent to this case. On October 14, 2008, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and System General Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Power Integrations in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain PWM integrated circuit products infringe one or more claims of two U.S. patents owned by System General. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and an injunction preventing the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of Power Integrations products found to infringe the asserted patents. Both lawsuits were consolidated and heard together in a jury trial in April of 2012. On April 27, 2012, the jury found that Power Integrations infringed one of the two U.S. patents owned by System General and upheld the validity of both System General patents. In the same case, the jury found that the company infringed two of four U.S. patents asserted by Power Integrations and that the company had induced its customers to infringe the asserted patents. The jury also upheld the validity of the asserted Power Integrations patents. The verdict concluded the first phase of trial in the litigation. Willfulness and damages in the case will be determined in a second phase, which has yet to be scheduled and may occur after appeals of the first phase. POWI 3: On November 4, 2009, Power Integrations filed a complaint for patent infringement against the company and two of the company’s subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that several of our products infringe three of Power Integrations’ patents. Fairchild has filed counterclaims asserting that Power Integrations infringes two Fairchild patents. The trial began in February 2014 and is ongoing. POWI 4: On February 10, 2010, Fairchild and System General filed a lawsuit in Suzhou, China against four Power Integrations entities and seven vendors. The lawsuit claims that Power Integrations violates certain Fairchild/System General patents. Fairchild is seeking an injunction against the Power Integrations products and over $17.0 million in damages. Hearings comparable to a trial in U.S. litigation were held in January, May and July 2012. In December of 2012, the Suzhou court ruled in favor of Power Integrations and denied the claims. The company is appealing the trial court’s judgment to the appeals court in Nanjing, China. POWI 5: On May 1, 2012, Fairchild sued Power Integrations in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit accuses Power Integration’s LinkSwitch-PH LED power conversion products of violating three Fairchild patents. Power Integrations has filed counterclaims of patent infringement against Fairchild asserting five Power Integrations patents. Trial is expected in 2014. Other Legal Claims. From time to time the company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. For example, in December 2013, the customer of one of its distributors filed suit against the company claiming damages of $30 million arising out of the purchase of $20,000 of its products. The company believes that there are no other such ordinary-course pending litigation that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Legal costs are expensed as incurred. The company analyzes potential outcomes from current litigation in accordance with the Contingency Topic of the FASB ASC. Accordingly, the company analyzes such outcomes as loss contingencies, and divides them into three categories based on the possibility that the contingency will give rise to an actual loss. The first category represents contingencies for which management believes the possibility of loss is remote. For contingencies in this category, the company does not record a reserve or assess the range of possible losses. The second category represents contingencies for which losses are believed to be reasonably possible. For this category, the company assesses the range of possible losses but does not record a reserve. There are currently no contingencies in this category. The third category represents contingencies for which losses are believed to be probable. For this category, the company determines the range of probable losses and records a reserve reflecting the best estimate within the range. For contingencies within this category, the company currently believes the range of probable losses is approximately $1.5 million to $4.0 million and the best estimate of losses within this range to be $1.5 million as of September 29, 2013 and has recorded this amount as a reserve. The amount reserved is based upon assessments of the potential liabilities using analysis of claims and historical experience in defending and resolving such claims.

NOTE 15—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The company has future commitments to purchase chemicals for certain wafer fabrication facilities. In the event the company was to end the agreements, the company would be required to pay future minimum payments of approximately $12.6 million. The company does not accrue for this liability as we expect to use these chemicals in the ordinary course of business.

The company’s facilities in South Portland, Maine and West Jordan, Utah have ongoing environmental remediation projects to respond to certain releases of hazardous substances that occurred prior to the leveraged recapitalization of the company from National Semiconductor. Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement with National Semiconductor Corporation, National Semiconductor has agreed to indemnify the company for the future costs of these projects. The terms of the indemnification are without time limit and without maximum amount. The costs incurred to respond to these conditions were not material to the consolidated financial statements for any period presented. National Semiconductor Corporation was purchased by Texas Instruments Incorporated during the fourth quarter of 2011.

Pursuant to the 1999 asset agreement to purchase the power device business of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung agreed to indemnify the company for remediation costs and other liabilities related to historical contamination, up to $150 million. The company is unable to estimate the potential amounts of future payments, if any; however, any future payments are not expected to have a material impact on the company’s earnings or financial condition.

Patent Litigation with Power Integrations, Inc. There are five outstanding proceedings with Power Integrations.

POWI 1: On October 20, 2004, the company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, were sued by Power Integrations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Power Integrations alleged that certain of the company’s pulse width modulation (PWM) integrated circuit products infringed four Power Integrations U.S. patents, and sought a permanent injunction preventing the company from manufacturing, selling or offering the products for sale in the U.S., or from importing the products into the U.S., as well as money damages for past infringement.

The trial in the case was divided into three phases. In the first phase of the trial that occurred in October of 2006, a jury returned a verdict finding that thirty-three of the company’s PWM products willfully infringed one or more of seven claims asserted in the four patents and assessed damages against the company. The company voluntarily stopped U.S. sales and importation of those products in 2007 and has been offering replacement products since 2006. Subsequent phases of the trial conducted during 2007 and 2008 focused on the validity and enforceability of the patents. In December of 2008, the judge overseeing the case reduced the jury’s 2006 damages award from $34 million to approximately $6.1 million and ordered a new trial on the issue of willfulness. Following the new trial held in June of 2009, the court found the company’s infringement to have been willful and in January 2011 the court awarded Power Integrations final damages in the amount of $12.2 million. The company appealed the final damages award, willfulness finding, and other issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 26, 2013, the court of appeals vacated almost the entire damages award, ruling that there was no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find Fairchild liable for induced infringement. The court also vacated the earlier ruling of willful patent infringement by Fairchild. While the appeals court instructed the lower court to conduct further proceedings to determine damages based upon approximately $500,000 to $750,000 worth of sales and imports of affected products, Fairchild believes that damages on the basis of that level of infringing activity would not be material to Fairchild. Accordingly, the company released $12.6 million from the reserves relating to this case during the first quarter of 2013. The appeals court denied Power Integrations’ motions to rehear the case. On August 23, 2013, Power Integrations filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking review of various aspects of the court of appeals ruling. On January 13, 2014, the Supreme Court denied Power Integrations’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

POWI 2: On May 23, 2008, Power Integrations filed another lawsuit against the company, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and our wholly owned subsidiary System General Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of three patents. Of the three patents asserted in that lawsuit, two were asserted against the company and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation in the October 2004 lawsuit described above. In 2011, Power Integrations added a fourth patent to this case.

On October 14, 2008, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and System General Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Power Integrations in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain PWM integrated circuit products infringe one or more claims of two U.S. patents owned by System General. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and an injunction preventing the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of Power Integrations products found to infringe the asserted patents.

Both lawsuits were consolidated and heard together in a jury trial in April of 2012. On April 27, 2012, the jury found that Power Integrations infringed one of the two U.S. patents owned by System General and upheld the validity of both System General patents. In the same case, the jury found that the company infringed two of four U.S. patents asserted by Power Integrations and that the company had induced its customers to infringe the asserted patents. The jury also upheld the validity of the asserted Power Integrations patents. The verdict concluded the first phase of trial in the litigation. Willfulness and damages in the case will be determined in a second phase, which has yet to be scheduled and may occur after appeals of the first phase.

POWI 3: On November 4, 2009, Power Integrations filed a complaint for patent infringement against the company and two of the company’s subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that several of our products infringe three of Power Integrations’ patents. Fairchild has filed counterclaims asserting that Power Integrations infringes two Fairchild patents. The trial began in February 2014 and is ongoing.

POWI 4: On February 10, 2010, Fairchild and System General filed a lawsuit in Suzhou, China against four Power Integrations entities and seven vendors. The lawsuit claims that Power Integrations violates certain Fairchild/System General patents. Fairchild is seeking an injunction against the Power Integrations products and over $17.0 million in damages. Hearings comparable to a trial in U.S. litigation were held in January, May and July 2012. In December of 2012, the Suzhou court ruled in favor of Power Integrations and denied the claims. The company is appealing the trial court’s judgment to the appeals court in Nanjing, China.

POWI 5: On May 1, 2012, Fairchild sued Power Integrations in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit accuses Power Integration’s LinkSwitch-PH LED power conversion products of violating three Fairchild patents. Power Integrations has filed counterclaims of patent infringement against Fairchild asserting five Power Integrations patents. Trial is expected in 2014.

Other Legal Claims. From time to time the company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. For example, in December 2013, the customer of one of its distributors filed suit against the company claiming damages of $30 million arising out of the purchase of $20,000 of its products. The company believes that there are no other such ordinary-course pending litigation that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.

The company analyzes potential outcomes from current litigation in accordance with the Contingency Topic of the FASB ASC. Accordingly, the company analyzes such outcomes as loss contingencies, and divides them into three categories based on the possibility that the contingency will give rise to an actual loss. The first category represents contingencies for which management believes the possibility of loss is remote. For contingencies in this category, the company does not record a reserve or assess the range of possible losses. The second category represents contingencies for which losses are believed to be reasonably possible. For this category, the company assesses the range of possible losses but does not record a reserve. There are currently no contingencies in this category. The third category represents contingencies for which losses are believed to be probable. For this category, the company determines the range of probable losses and records a reserve reflecting the best estimate within the range. For contingencies within this category, the company currently believes the range of probable losses is approximately $1.5 million to $4.0 million and the best estimate of losses within this range to be $1.5 million as of September 29, 2013 and has recorded this amount as a reserve. The amount reserved is based upon assessments of the potential liabilities using analysis of claims and historical experience in defending and resolving such claims.