Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 26, 2016
Contingencies	Note 8 – Contingencies Litigation From time to time, the company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We analyze potential outcomes from current and potential litigation as loss contingencies in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Since most potential claims against the company may involve the enforcement of complex intellectual property rights or complicated damages calculations, we generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of pending matters, the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or the magnitude of the eventual loss related to each pending matter. For a limited number of matters disclosed in this note for which a loss, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, is reasonably possible in future periods, we estimate a range of possible loss. In determining whether it is possible to estimate a range of possible loss, we review and evaluate our material litigation on an ongoing basis in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. These may include information learned through the discovery process, legal analysis and opinions of counsel, rulings on motions, settlement discussions, and other rulings by courts, arbitrators or others. If we possess sufficient information to develop an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, that estimate is disclosed either individually or in the aggregate. Finally, for loss contingencies for which we believe the possibility of loss is remote, we do not record a reserve or assess the range of possible losses. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond our control, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period. 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 $34.0 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. In March 2013, the court of appeals vacated almost the entire damages award, ruling that there was no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find the company liable for induced infringement. The court also vacated the earlier judgment of willful patent infringement by the company. The full court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States have since denied Power Integrations’ requests to review the appeals court ruling. Although 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, the company believes that damages on the basis of that level of infringing activity would not be material. Accordingly, the company released $12.6 million from its reserves relating to this case during the first quarter of 2013. POWI 2: In May 2008, Power Integrations filed another lawsuit against the company, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, System General Corporation (now named Fairchild (Taiwan) 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. In October 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. 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 verdict, 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 court later ruled that the company infringed one other asserted Power Integrations patent that the jury found was not infringed.) The jury also upheld the validity of the asserted Power Integrations patents. The verdict concluded the first phase of trial in this case. On June 30, 2014, the court issued an order enjoining Fairchild from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing into the United States the products found to infringe the Power Integrations patents in the case as well as certain products that were similar to the products found to infringe. Willfulness and damages in the case will be determined in a second phase, which has yet to be scheduled and will occur after appeals of the first phase. The company and Power Integrations have filed appeals from the first phase. These appeals were argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 8, 2016. A ruling on the appeals is expected in the next several months. POWI 3: On November 4, 2009, Power Integrations filed another patent infringement lawsuit against the company, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, System General Corporation (now named Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that several of its products infringe three of Power Integrations’ patents. Fairchild filed counterclaims asserting that Power Integrations infringes two Fairchild patents. A trial was held February 2014 on two Power Integrations’ patents and one Fairchild patent. On March 4, 2014, a jury returned a verdict finding that Fairchild willfully infringed both Power Integrations patents, awarding Power Integrations $105.0 million in damages, and finding that Power Integrations did not infringe the Fairchild patent. Both parties filed various post-trial motions, which were denied by the court with the exception of Fairchild’s motion to set aside the jury’s determination that it acted willfully. The court granted the company’s motion and determined that, as a matter of law, Fairchild’s actions were not willful. In addition to the ruling on willfulness, the company continued to challenge several other aspects of the verdict during post-trial review. Specifically, the company asserted that the damages award included legal and evidentiary defects that were inconsistent with rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On November 25, 2014, the trial court ruled that the jury lacked sufficient evidence on which to base its damages award and, consequently, vacated the $105.0 million verdict and ordered a second trial on damages. The court later denied Power Integrations’ request to enjoin the Fairchild products that were found to infringe, finding, among other things, that the evidence at trial failed to establish a causal connection between the alleged harm and the alleged infringement. The court ruled that Power Integrations can request an injunction after the second trial on damages. The second damages trial was held in December 2015. On December 17, 2015, a jury returned a verdict awarding Power Integrations $139.8 million in damages. The company has filed a number of post-trial motions challenging the verdict on several grounds, including several that are similar to challenges to the earlier damages verdict in the case. If the current damages award is not vacated or significantly reduced in post-trial proceedings, the company plans to appeal the current damages award. The company also plans to appeal the 2014 verdict finding that the asserted Power Integrations’ patents were infringed and valid. POWI 4: In May 2012, the company sued Power Integrations in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit accuses Power Integration’s LinkSwitch-PH LED power conversion products of violating three of the company’s patents. Power Integrations filed counterclaims of patent infringement against the company, asserting five Power Integrations patents. Of those five patents, the court granted Fairchild summary judgment of no infringement on one, Power Integration voluntarily withdrew a second and was forced to remove a third patent during the trial. In June 2015, a jury found that Power Integrations induced infringement of Fairchild’s patent rights, and awarded Fairchild $2.4 million in damages. The same jury found that Fairchild did not infringe one of the two remaining Power Integrations patents, found that Fairchild infringed two claims of the last Power Integrations patent, and awarded Power Integrations damages of $0.1 million. On July 15, 2016, Fairchild filed a motion for a permanent injunction that, if granted, would prohibit Power Integrations from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing into the United States the Power Integrations products found to infringe the Fairchild patent, which were the basis for the jury’s inducement finding. In the alternative, Fairchild asked the court to determine an ongoing royalty applicable to sales of the Power Integrations products found to infringe. Those motions are pending before the court. POWI 5: On October 21, 2015, Power Integrations filed another complaint for patent infringement against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges certain products infringe two Power Integrations patents. The company is vigorously defending the lawsuit, which is in its earliest stages. Other Legal Claims From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We believe we have valid defenses with respect to matters currently pending against us and we intend to vigorously defend against those claims. For example, in December 2013, a customer of one of our distributors filed suit against us claiming damages of $30.0 million arising out of the purchase of $20,000 of our products. We are contesting that claim vigorously. We believe there is no such ordinary-course pending litigation that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. For matters where an estimate of the range of possible loss is reasonably possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss, in excess of amounts accrued for outstanding matters, is $1.2 million to $18.4 million. The estimated range of reasonably possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range. Therefore, this estimated range of possible loss represents what we believe to be an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent our maximum exposure.

Note 8 – Contingencies

Litigation

From time to time, the company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We analyze potential outcomes from current and potential litigation as loss contingencies in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Since most potential claims against the company may involve the enforcement of complex intellectual property rights or complicated damages calculations, we generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of pending matters, the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or the magnitude of the eventual loss related to each pending matter.

For a limited number of matters disclosed in this note for which a loss, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, is reasonably possible in future periods, we estimate a range of possible loss. In determining whether it is possible to estimate a range of possible loss, we review and evaluate our material litigation on an ongoing basis in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. These may include information learned through the discovery process, legal analysis and opinions of counsel, rulings on motions, settlement discussions, and other rulings by courts, arbitrators or others. If we possess sufficient information to develop an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, that estimate is disclosed either individually or in the aggregate. Finally, for loss contingencies for which we believe the possibility of loss is remote, we do not record a reserve or assess the range of possible losses.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond our control, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

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 $34.0 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. In March 2013, the court of appeals vacated almost the entire damages award, ruling that there was no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find the company liable for induced infringement. The court also vacated the earlier judgment of willful patent infringement by the company. The full court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States have since denied Power Integrations’ requests to review the appeals court ruling. Although 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, the company believes that damages on the basis of that level of infringing activity would not be material. Accordingly, the company released $12.6 million from its reserves relating to this case during the first quarter of 2013.

POWI 2: In May 2008, Power Integrations filed another lawsuit against the company, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, System General Corporation (now named Fairchild (Taiwan) 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.

In October 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. 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 verdict, 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 court later ruled that the company infringed one other asserted Power Integrations patent that the jury found was not infringed.) The jury also upheld the validity of the asserted Power Integrations patents. The verdict concluded the first phase of trial in this case. On June 30, 2014, the court issued an order enjoining Fairchild from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing into the United States the products found to infringe the Power Integrations patents in the case as well as certain products that were similar to the products found to infringe. Willfulness and damages in the case will be determined in a second phase, which has yet to be scheduled and will occur after appeals of the first phase. The company and Power Integrations have filed appeals from the first phase. These appeals were argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 8, 2016. A ruling on the appeals is expected in the next several months.

POWI 3: On November 4, 2009, Power Integrations filed another patent infringement lawsuit against the company, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, System General Corporation (now named Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that several of its products infringe three of Power Integrations’ patents. Fairchild filed counterclaims asserting that Power Integrations infringes two Fairchild patents. A trial was held February 2014 on two Power Integrations’ patents and one Fairchild patent. On March 4, 2014, a jury returned a verdict finding that Fairchild willfully infringed both Power Integrations patents, awarding Power Integrations $105.0 million in damages, and finding that Power Integrations did not infringe the Fairchild patent. Both parties filed various post-trial motions, which were denied by the court with the exception of Fairchild’s motion to set aside the jury’s determination that it acted willfully. The court granted the company’s motion and determined that, as a matter of law, Fairchild’s actions were not willful.

In addition to the ruling on willfulness, the company continued to challenge several other aspects of the verdict during post-trial review. Specifically, the company asserted that the damages award included legal and evidentiary defects that were inconsistent with rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On November 25, 2014, the trial court ruled that the jury lacked sufficient evidence on which to base its damages award and, consequently, vacated the $105.0 million verdict and ordered a second trial on damages. The court later denied Power Integrations’ request to enjoin the Fairchild products that were found to infringe, finding, among other things, that the evidence at trial failed to establish a causal connection between the alleged harm and the alleged infringement. The court ruled that Power Integrations can request an injunction after the second trial on damages. The second damages trial was held in December 2015. On December 17, 2015, a jury returned a verdict awarding Power Integrations $139.8 million in damages. The company has filed a number of post-trial motions challenging the verdict on several grounds, including several that are similar to challenges to the earlier damages verdict in the case. If the current damages award is not vacated or significantly reduced in post-trial proceedings, the company plans to appeal the current damages award. The company also plans to appeal the 2014 verdict finding that the asserted Power Integrations’ patents were infringed and valid.

POWI 4: In May 2012, the company sued Power Integrations in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit accuses Power Integration’s LinkSwitch-PH LED power conversion products of violating three of the company’s patents. Power Integrations filed counterclaims of patent infringement against the company, asserting five Power Integrations patents. Of those five patents, the court granted Fairchild summary judgment of no infringement on one, Power Integration voluntarily withdrew a second and was forced to remove a third patent during the trial. In June 2015, a jury found that Power Integrations induced infringement of Fairchild’s patent rights, and awarded Fairchild $2.4 million in damages. The same jury found that Fairchild did not infringe one of the two remaining Power Integrations patents, found that Fairchild infringed two claims of the last Power Integrations patent, and awarded Power Integrations damages of $0.1 million. On July 15, 2016, Fairchild filed a motion for a permanent injunction that, if granted, would prohibit Power Integrations from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing into the United States the Power Integrations products found to infringe the Fairchild patent, which were the basis for the jury’s inducement finding. In the alternative, Fairchild asked the court to determine an ongoing royalty applicable to sales of the Power Integrations products found to infringe. Those motions are pending before the court.

POWI 5: On October 21, 2015, Power Integrations filed another complaint for patent infringement against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges certain products infringe two Power Integrations patents. The company is vigorously defending the lawsuit, which is in its earliest stages.

Other Legal Claims

From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We believe we have valid defenses with respect to matters currently pending against us and we intend to vigorously defend against those claims. For example, in December 2013, a customer of one of our distributors filed suit against us claiming damages of $30.0 million arising out of the purchase of $20,000 of our products. We are contesting that claim vigorously. We believe there is no such ordinary-course pending litigation that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

For matters where an estimate of the range of possible loss is reasonably possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss, in excess of amounts accrued for outstanding matters, is $1.2 million to $18.4 million. The estimated range of reasonably possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range. Therefore, this estimated range of possible loss represents what we believe to be an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent our maximum exposure.