Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Unless otherwise stated below, for each of the matters described below, the Company has either recorded an accrual for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable or has determined that, while a loss is reasonably possible (including potential losses in excess of the amounts accrued by the Company), a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss or range of possible losses with respect to the claim or in excess of amounts already accrued by the Company cannot be made. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management’s estimates. Solely for purposes of this note, “WD” refers to Western Digital Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries excluding HGST prior to the closing of the Company’s acquisition of HGST on March 8, 2012 (the “HGST Closing Date”) and SanDisk prior to the SanDisk Closing Date; “HGST” refers to Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Holdings Pte. Ltd. or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the HGST Closing Date; “SanDisk” refers to SanDisk Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the SanDisk Closing Date; and “the Company” refers to Western Digital Corporation and all of its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis including HGST and SanDisk. Intellectual Property Litigation In June 2008, Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against WD, HGST, and two other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,473 and 4,916,635. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. In October 2008, Convolve amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the ’473 patent. The ’473 patent allegedly relates to interface technology to select between certain modes of a disk drive’s operations relating to speed and noise. In July 2011, a verdict was rendered against WD and HGST in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, for which the Company previously recorded an accrual. In March 2015, WD and HGST filed notices of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). In April 2015, Convolve filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment. In June 2017, the District Court vacated the judgment against WD and HGST with respect to infringement, willfulness, and damages and denied Convolve’s motion for reconsideration. WD and HGST intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in this matter. In May 2016, Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC (“Lambeth”) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against WD and certain of its subsidiaries alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The ’988 patent, entitled “Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods,” allegedly relates to a magnetic material structure for hard disk drive devices. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. In December 2016, Memory Technologies, LLC (“MTL”), a subsidiary of Pendrell Corporation, filed two complaints - one with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and the other with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - against WD and certain of its subsidiaries alleging infringement of various patents. In the ITC complaint, MTL asserted that certain of the Company’s Secure Digital (“SD”) and microSD products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. RE45,542; RE45,486; 7,565,469; 9,063,850; and 8,307,180. The ITC complaint sought an exclusion order barring the accused products, and components thereof, from entry into the U.S. In the other complaint, MTL asserted that certain of the Company’s SD, microSD and/or eMMC products infringe the same patents asserted in the ITC complaint, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,275,186; 7,827,370; and 7,739,487. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages. In June 2017, the parties entered into a settlement and patent license agreement. The agreement fully resolves all pending litigation between the parties and grants the Company a license to Pendrell patents relating to memory and storage technologies. The settlement terms are not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Antitrust In June 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that SanDisk violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by SanDisk and SanDisk-controlled joint ventures from June 2006 through the present. The complaint alleged that SanDisk 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. The complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. In February 2011, Dr. Harari was dismissed as a defendant. Between 2013 and 2014, Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, was substituted in as named plaintiff and CPM Electronics Inc., E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. and Mflash, Inc. were added as named plaintiffs. In May 2015, the District Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In April 2016, the District Court granted SanDisk’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk’s favor as to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. In May 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In July 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of SanDisk’s motion for summary judgment. In July 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed an action against Panasonic and SD-3C LLC (“SD-3C”) with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and fees and costs. SanDisk is not a defendant in this case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning SanDisk. As a member of SD-3C, SanDisk could be responsible for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief, if granted, could result in a loss of revenue to SanDisk. In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the District Court stayed the litigation pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration between Samsung and Toshiba. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay is lifted. The arbitration between Samsung and Toshiba was concluded in May 2017, and the District Court lifted its stay of the litigation in July 2017. In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C, Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards. The complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, as well as common law claims. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al., described above. In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ federal law claims. In October 2016, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion with leave to amend and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the pleading stage. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Securities Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Two complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk’s securities between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk’s securities between April 2014 and April 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees’ Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund (collectively, the “Institutional Investor Group”). In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, the District Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Toshiba Matters Toshiba litigation against the Company In July 2017, the Company received a petition for provisional disposition that was filed by Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba Memory Corporation in the Tokyo District Court. The petition alleges that the Company has engaged in acts of defamation and wrongful acquisition and use of trade secrets in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The petition requests injunctive relief. In June 2017, Toshiba issued a press release announcing that it also brought suit for a permanent injunction, damages and payment of 120 billion Japanese yen. The Company has not received Toshiba’s announced filing or any formal notice of such lawsuit. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. SanDisk litigation against Toshiba In May 2017, several of the Company’s SanDisk subsidiaries (the “SanDisk Subsidiaries”) filed a request for arbitration with the ICC International Court of Arbitration seeking an order requiring Toshiba Corporation to unwind the transfer of its interests in Flash Ventures to its affiliate, Toshiba Memory Corporation, and injunctive relief preventing Toshiba from further breaching the Flash Ventures agreements by transferring its interests in Flash Ventures without SanDisk’s consent. In June 2017, the SanDisk Subsidiaries sought preliminary injunctive relief in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to prevent Toshiba from transferring its interests in Flash Ventures until the request of the SanDisk Subsidiaries for injunctive relief in arbitration is decided by the arbitral tribunal. In July 2017, the Superior Court entered a stipulated order requiring Toshiba to give the SanDisk Subsidiaries at least 14 days’ advance notice of any transfer involving Toshiba’s interests in Flash Ventures, in order to ensure that the issue is preserved for arbitration. In July 2017, SanDisk LLC filed a request for arbitration with the ICC International Court of Arbitration against Toshiba seeking damages and injunctive relief for, among other things, blocking certain employees of SanDisk’s affiliates from accessing shared databases regarding Flash Ventures and from refusing to ship certain engineering wafers and samples to SanDisk’s affiliates in breach of the JV agreements. SanDisk LLC also sought injunctive relief, a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), in aid of that arbitration from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. On July 11, 2017, the Superior Court granted a TRO in favor of SanDisk. Toshiba filed a notice of appeal, and on July 18, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, issued a temporary stay of the TRO while it reviewed Toshiba’s petition for a permanent stay of the TRO pending appeal. On July 24, SanDisk LLC amended its request for arbitration to, among other things, add Toshiba Memory Corporation as a defendant. On August 2, 2017, the Court of Appeal denied Toshiba’s petition for a permanent stay of the TRO and dissolved the temporary stay. On August 14, the Superior Court granted SanDisk’s request for a preliminary injunction. On August 18, Toshiba withdrew its appeal of the TRO, and filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction. Copyright In December 2011, the German Central Organization for Private Copying Rights (Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte) (“ZPÜ”), an organization consisting of several copyright collecting societies, instituted arbitration proceedings against WD’s German subsidiary (“WD Germany”) before the Copyright Arbitration Board (“CAB”) claiming copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany from January 2008 through December 2010. In February 2013, WD Germany filed a declaratory relief action against ZPÜ in the Higher Regional Court of Munich (the “Higher Court”), seeking an order from the Higher Court to determine the copyright levy issue. In May 2013, ZPÜ filed a counter-claim against WD Germany with the Higher Court, seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce from January 2008 through December 2010 based on tariffs published by ZPÜ in November 2011. In January 2015, the Higher Court ruled in favor of ZPÜ. In its ruling, the Higher Court declared that WD Germany must pay certain levies on certain products which it sold in Germany between January 2008 and December 2010. The judgment specified levy amounts on certain products sold from January 2008 through December 2010 and directed WD Germany to disclose applicable sales data to ZPÜ. The exact amount of the judgment had not been determined. ZPÜ and WD Germany filed appeals with the German Federal Court of Justice in February 2015. In March 2017, the German Federal Court of Justice rendered a judgment affirming ZPÜ’s claim concerning the disclosure of WD Germany’s sales data regarding HDDs sold between January 2008 and December 2010. The German Federal Court of Justice also set aside the Higher Court’s decision on the levy amounts and referred the case back to the Higher Court for further fact finding and decision on the levy amounts. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. In December 2014, ZPÜ submitted a pleading to the CAB seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany between January 2012 and December 2013. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. The Company has recorded an accrual for German copyright levies in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows; however, it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses totaling up to $155 million, inclusive of amounts accrued, if it does not prevail in this matter. Other Matters In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of probable monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these other matters is subject to many uncertainties, management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters, individually and in the aggregate, would not be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, any monetary liability and financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from the Company’s expectations.

Legal Proceedings

Unless otherwise stated below, for each of the matters described below, the Company has either recorded an accrual for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable or has determined that, while a loss is reasonably possible (including potential losses in excess of the amounts accrued by the Company), a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss or range of possible losses with respect to the claim or in excess of amounts already accrued by the Company cannot be made. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management’s estimates.

Solely for purposes of this note, “WD” refers to Western Digital Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries excluding HGST prior to the closing of the Company’s acquisition of HGST on March 8, 2012 (the “HGST Closing Date”) and SanDisk prior to the SanDisk Closing Date; “HGST” refers to Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Holdings Pte. Ltd. or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the HGST Closing Date; “SanDisk” refers to SanDisk Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the SanDisk Closing Date; and “the Company” refers to Western Digital Corporation and all of its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis including HGST and SanDisk.

Intellectual Property Litigation

In June 2008, Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against WD, HGST, and two other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,473 and 4,916,635. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. In October 2008, Convolve amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the ’473 patent. The ’473 patent allegedly relates to interface technology to select between certain modes of a disk drive’s operations relating to speed and noise. In July 2011, a verdict was rendered against WD and HGST in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, for which the Company previously recorded an accrual. In March 2015, WD and HGST filed notices of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). In April 2015, Convolve filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment. In June 2017, the District Court vacated the judgment against WD and HGST with respect to infringement, willfulness, and damages and denied Convolve’s motion for reconsideration. WD and HGST intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in this matter.

In May 2016, Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC (“Lambeth”) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against WD and certain of its subsidiaries alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The ’988 patent, entitled “Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods,” allegedly relates to a magnetic material structure for hard disk drive devices. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

In December 2016, Memory Technologies, LLC (“MTL”), a subsidiary of Pendrell Corporation, filed two complaints - one with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and the other with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - against WD and certain of its subsidiaries alleging infringement of various patents. In the ITC complaint, MTL asserted that certain of the Company’s Secure Digital (“SD”) and microSD products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. RE45,542; RE45,486; 7,565,469; 9,063,850; and 8,307,180. The ITC complaint sought an exclusion order barring the accused products, and components thereof, from entry into the U.S. In the other complaint, MTL asserted that certain of the Company’s SD, microSD and/or eMMC products infringe the same patents asserted in the ITC complaint, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,275,186; 7,827,370; and 7,739,487. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages. In June 2017, the parties entered into a settlement and patent license agreement. The agreement fully resolves all pending litigation between the parties and grants the Company a license to Pendrell patents relating to memory and storage technologies. The settlement terms are not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Antitrust

In June 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that SanDisk violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by SanDisk and SanDisk-controlled joint ventures from June 2006 through the present. The complaint alleged that SanDisk 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. The complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. In February 2011, Dr. Harari was dismissed as a defendant. Between 2013 and 2014, Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, was substituted in as named plaintiff and CPM Electronics Inc., E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. and Mflash, Inc. were added as named plaintiffs. In May 2015, the District Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In April 2016, the District Court granted SanDisk’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk’s favor as to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. In May 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In July 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of SanDisk’s motion for summary judgment.

In July 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed an action against Panasonic and SD-3C LLC (“SD-3C”) with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and fees and costs. SanDisk is not a defendant in this case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning SanDisk. As a member of SD-3C, SanDisk could be responsible for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief, if granted, could result in a loss of revenue to SanDisk. In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the District Court stayed the litigation pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration between Samsung and Toshiba. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay is lifted. The arbitration between Samsung and Toshiba was concluded in May 2017, and the District Court lifted its stay of the litigation in July 2017.

In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C, Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards. The complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, as well as common law claims. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al., described above. In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ federal law claims. In October 2016, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion with leave to amend and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the pleading stage. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Securities

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Two complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk’s securities between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk’s securities between April 2014 and April 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees’ Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund (collectively, the “Institutional Investor Group”). In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, the District Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Toshiba Matters

Toshiba litigation against the Company

In July 2017, the Company received a petition for provisional disposition that was filed by Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba Memory Corporation in the Tokyo District Court. The petition alleges that the Company has engaged in acts of defamation and wrongful acquisition and use of trade secrets in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The petition requests injunctive relief.

In June 2017, Toshiba issued a press release announcing that it also brought suit for a permanent injunction, damages and payment of 120 billion Japanese yen. The Company has not received Toshiba’s announced filing or any formal notice of such lawsuit. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

SanDisk litigation against Toshiba

In May 2017, several of the Company’s SanDisk subsidiaries (the “SanDisk Subsidiaries”) filed a request for arbitration with the ICC International Court of Arbitration seeking an order requiring Toshiba Corporation to unwind the transfer of its interests in Flash Ventures to its affiliate, Toshiba Memory Corporation, and injunctive relief preventing Toshiba from further breaching the Flash Ventures agreements by transferring its interests in Flash Ventures without SanDisk’s consent. In June 2017, the SanDisk Subsidiaries sought preliminary injunctive relief in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to prevent Toshiba from transferring its interests in Flash Ventures until the request of the SanDisk Subsidiaries for injunctive relief in arbitration is decided by the arbitral tribunal. In July 2017, the Superior Court entered a stipulated order requiring Toshiba to give the SanDisk Subsidiaries at least 14 days’ advance notice of any transfer involving Toshiba’s interests in Flash Ventures, in order to ensure that the issue is preserved for arbitration.

In July 2017, SanDisk LLC filed a request for arbitration with the ICC International Court of Arbitration against Toshiba seeking damages and injunctive relief for, among other things, blocking certain employees of SanDisk’s affiliates from accessing shared databases regarding Flash Ventures and from refusing to ship certain engineering wafers and samples to SanDisk’s affiliates in breach of the JV agreements. SanDisk LLC also sought injunctive relief, a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), in aid of that arbitration from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. On July 11, 2017, the Superior Court granted a TRO in favor of SanDisk. Toshiba filed a notice of appeal, and on July 18, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, issued a temporary stay of the TRO while it reviewed Toshiba’s petition for a permanent stay of the TRO pending appeal. On July 24, SanDisk LLC amended its request for arbitration to, among other things, add Toshiba Memory Corporation as a defendant. On August 2, 2017, the Court of Appeal denied Toshiba’s petition for a permanent stay of the TRO and dissolved the temporary stay. On August 14, the Superior Court granted SanDisk’s request for a preliminary injunction. On August 18, Toshiba withdrew its appeal of the TRO, and filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction.

In December 2011, the German Central Organization for Private Copying Rights (Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte) (“ZPÜ”), an organization consisting of several copyright collecting societies, instituted arbitration proceedings against WD’s German subsidiary (“WD Germany”) before the Copyright Arbitration Board (“CAB”) claiming copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany from January 2008 through December 2010. In February 2013, WD Germany filed a declaratory relief action against ZPÜ in the Higher Regional Court of Munich (the “Higher Court”), seeking an order from the Higher Court to determine the copyright levy issue. In May 2013, ZPÜ filed a counter-claim against WD Germany with the Higher Court, seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce from January 2008 through December 2010 based on tariffs published by ZPÜ in November 2011. In January 2015, the Higher Court ruled in favor of ZPÜ. In its ruling, the Higher Court declared that WD Germany must pay certain levies on certain products which it sold in Germany between January 2008 and December 2010. The judgment specified levy amounts on certain products sold from January 2008 through December 2010 and directed WD Germany to disclose applicable sales data to ZPÜ. The exact amount of the judgment had not been determined. ZPÜ and WD Germany filed appeals with the German Federal Court of Justice in February 2015. In March 2017, the German Federal Court of Justice rendered a judgment affirming ZPÜ’s claim concerning the disclosure of WD Germany’s sales data regarding HDDs sold between January 2008 and December 2010. The German Federal Court of Justice also set aside the Higher Court’s decision on the levy amounts and referred the case back to the Higher Court for further fact finding and decision on the levy amounts. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

In December 2014, ZPÜ submitted a pleading to the CAB seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany between January 2012 and December 2013. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

The Company has recorded an accrual for German copyright levies in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows; however, it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses totaling up to $155 million, inclusive of amounts accrued, if it does not prevail in this matter.

Other Matters

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of probable monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these other matters is subject to many uncertainties, management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters, individually and in the aggregate, would not be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, any monetary liability and financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from the Company’s expectations.