Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2012
Legal Proceedings	5. Legal Proceedings When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, the Company assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. The Company discloses information regarding each material claim where the likelihood of a loss contingency is probable or reasonably possible. If a loss contingency is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the loss. In such cases, there may be an exposure to potential loss in excess of the amount accrued. Where a loss is not probable but is reasonably possible or where a loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, the Company discloses an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim if a reasonable estimate can be made, unless the amount of such reasonably possible losses is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 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 footnote, “WD” refers to Western Digital Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries prior to the acquisition of Viviti Technologies Ltd., until recently known as Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Holdings Pte. Ltd. (“HGST”), “HGST” refers to HGST or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the Closing Date, and “the Company” refers to Western Digital Corporation and all of its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis including HGST. Intellectual Property Litigation On June 20, 2008, plaintiff Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against WD, HGST, and one other company alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,473 and 4,916,635. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On October 10, 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. A trial in the matter began on July 18, 2011 and concluded on July 26, 2011 with a verdict against WD and HGST in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. WD and HGST have filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and will evaluate their options for appeal after the Court rules on the post-trial motions. On December 8, 2008, plaintiffs MagSil Corporation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, “MagSil”) filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against WD, HGST and six other companies in the disk drive industry alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,922 and 5,835,314. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The asserted patents allegedly relate to tunneling magneto resistive technology. In January 2010, MagSil amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the ‘922 patent. As disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on August 13, 2010, MagSil and WD settled the matter for an amount that was not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. With respect to the claim pending against HGST, in February 2011, HGST obtained a ruling invalidating the patent on summary judgment, which MagSil appealed. In 2012, the Federal Circuit Court upheld the ruling. If MagSil appeals this decision, HGST intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On December 7, 2009, plaintiff Nazomi Communications (“Nazomi”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against WD and seven other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,080,362 and 7,225,436. Nazomi dismissed the Eastern District of Texas suit after filing a similar complaint in the Central District of California on February 8, 2010. The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California on October 14, 2010. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to processor cores capable of Java hardware acceleration. In August 2012, the Court dismissed WD on summary judgment for non-infringement. If Nazomi appeals this decision, WD intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On January 5, 2010, plaintiff Enova Technology Corporation (“Enova”) filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against WD and Initio Corporation alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,136,995 and 7,386,734. Enova subsequently amended its complaint to include an additional party and additionally allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to real time full disk encryption application specific integrated circuits, or ASICs. A trial in the matter is scheduled to begin on February 25, 2013. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On November 10, 2010, plaintiff Rembrandt Data Storage (“Rembrandt”) filed a complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin against WD alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,995,342 and 6,195,232. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to specific thin film heads having solenoid coils. After a favorable claim construction ruling by the court, WD secured a stipulation from Rembrandt to dismiss the case. Rembrandt appealed the Court’s claim construction ruling, and the Federal Circuit issued a summary affirmance in favor of WD in December 2012. If Rembrandt appeals the decision, WD intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On December 1, 2010, Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 alleging that six “Primary Respondent” semiconductor chip companies and twenty-seven “Customer Respondents,” including HGST, infringe various U.S. patents. On December 29, 2010, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) initiated an investigation into Rambus’s allegations in response to the complaint. HGST is accused of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,591,353; 7,287,109; 7,602,857; 7,602,858; and 7,715,494. The complaint alleges that certain of HGST’s hard drives that contain Double data rate-type memory controllers, Serial Advanced Technology Attachment interfaces, Peripheral Component Interconnect Express interfaces, DisplayPort interfaces, or Serial Attached SCSI interfaces infringe the patents. The complaint seeks to enjoin the importation into the U.S. of the allegedly infringing semiconductor chips and products. It also requests a cease-and-desist order preventing the parties from exhausting allegedly infringing inventory in the U.S. The ITC has found in favor of the respondents in all matters and Rambus has appealed to the Federal Circuit. HGST intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On August 1, 2011, plaintiff Guzik Technical Enterprises (“Guzik”) filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against WD and various of its subsidiaries alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,023,145 and 6,785,085, breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The patents asserted by Guzik allegedly relate to devices used to test hard disk drive heads and media. WD has filed counterclaims against Guzik or patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,420; 5,640,089; 6,891,696; and 7,480,116. The patents asserted by WD relate to devices and methods used in the testing of hard disk drive heads and media. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Seagate Matter On October 4, 2006, plaintiff Seagate Technology LLC (“Seagate”) filed an action in the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, naming as defendants WD and one of its now former employees previously employed by Seagate. The complaint in the action alleged claims based on supposed misappropriation of trade secrets and sought injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. On June 19, 2007, WD’s former employee filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. A motion to stay the litigation as against all defendants and to compel arbitration of all Seagate’s claims was granted on September 19, 2007. On September 23, 2010, Seagate filed a motion to amend its claims and add allegations based on the supposed misappropriation of additional confidential information, and the arbitrator granted Seagate’s motion. The arbitration hearing commenced on May 23, 2011 and concluded on July 11, 2011. On November 18, 2011, the sole arbitrator ruled in favor of WD in connection with five of the eight alleged trade secrets at issue, based on evidence that such trade secrets were known publicly at the time the former employee joined WD. Based on a determination that the employee had fabricated evidence, the arbitrator then concluded that WD had to know of the fabrications. As a sanction, the arbitrator precluded any evidence or defense by WD disputing the validity, misappropriation, or use of the three remaining alleged trade secrets by WD, and entered judgment in favor of Seagate with respect to such trade secrets. Using an unjust enrichment theory of damages, the arbitrator issued an interim award against WD in the amount of $525 million plus pre-award interest at the Minnesota statutory rate of 10% per year. In his decision with respect to these three trade secrets, the arbitrator did not question the relevance, veracity or credibility of any of WD’s ten expert and fact witnesses (other than WD’s former employee), nor the authenticity of any other evidence WD presented. On January 23, 2012, the arbitrator issued a final award adding pre-award interest in the amount of $105.4 million for a total final award of $630.4 million. On January 23, 2012, WD filed a petition in the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota to have the final arbitration award vacated. A hearing on the petition to vacate was held on March 1, 2012. On October 12, 2012, the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota vacated, in full, the $630.4 million final arbitration award. Specifically, the Court confirmed the arbitration award with respect to each of the five trade secret claims that WD and the former employee had won at the arbitration and vacated the arbitration award with respect to the three trade secret claims that WD and the former employee had lost at the arbitration. The Court ordered that a rehearing be held concerning those three alleged trade secret claims before a new arbitrator. On October 30, 2012, Seagate initiated an appeal of the Court’s decision with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Company strongly believes that the Court’s decision was correct and intends to vigorously oppose Seagate’s efforts to appeal the decision. Nevertheless, the Company cannot be certain it will be successful in a new arbitration of the three trade secret claims or in Seagate’s efforts to appeal the decision. In the event Seagate is successful in its efforts to appeal the Court’s decision, the original arbitration award could be reinstated. The statutory interest rate of 10% would apply from the date of the original arbitration award if the award should be reinstated. 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 and is therefore not predictable with assurance, 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, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from those projected.

5. Legal Proceedings

When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, the Company assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. The Company discloses information regarding each material claim where the likelihood of a loss contingency is probable or reasonably possible. If a loss contingency is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the loss. In such cases, there may be an exposure to potential loss in excess of the amount accrued. Where a loss is not probable but is reasonably possible or where a loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, the Company discloses an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim if a reasonable estimate can be made, unless the amount of such reasonably possible losses is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 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 footnote, “WD” refers to Western Digital Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries prior to the acquisition of Viviti Technologies Ltd., until recently known as Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Holdings Pte. Ltd. (“HGST”), “HGST” refers to HGST or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the Closing Date, and “the Company” refers to Western Digital Corporation and all of its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis including HGST.

Intellectual Property Litigation

On June 20, 2008, plaintiff Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against WD, HGST, and one other company alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,473 and 4,916,635. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On October 10, 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. A trial in the matter began on July 18, 2011 and concluded on July 26, 2011 with a verdict against WD and HGST in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. WD and HGST have filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and will evaluate their options for appeal after the Court rules on the post-trial motions.

On December 8, 2008, plaintiffs MagSil Corporation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, “MagSil”) filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against WD, HGST and six other companies in the disk drive industry alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,922 and 5,835,314. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The asserted patents allegedly relate to tunneling magneto resistive technology. In January 2010, MagSil amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the ‘922 patent. As disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on August 13, 2010, MagSil and WD settled the matter for an amount that was not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. With respect to the claim pending against HGST, in February 2011, HGST obtained a ruling invalidating the patent on summary judgment, which MagSil appealed. In 2012, the Federal Circuit Court upheld the ruling. If MagSil appeals this decision, HGST intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On December 7, 2009, plaintiff Nazomi Communications (“Nazomi”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against WD and seven other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,080,362 and 7,225,436. Nazomi dismissed the Eastern District of Texas suit after filing a similar complaint in the Central District of California on February 8, 2010. The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California on October 14, 2010. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to processor cores capable of Java hardware acceleration. In August 2012, the Court dismissed WD on summary judgment for non-infringement. If Nazomi appeals this decision, WD intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On January 5, 2010, plaintiff Enova Technology Corporation (“Enova”) filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against WD and Initio Corporation alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,136,995 and 7,386,734. Enova subsequently amended its complaint to include an additional party and additionally allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to real time full disk encryption application specific integrated circuits, or ASICs. A trial in the matter is scheduled to begin on February 25, 2013. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On November 10, 2010, plaintiff Rembrandt Data Storage (“Rembrandt”) filed a complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin against WD alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,995,342 and 6,195,232. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to specific thin film heads having solenoid coils. After a favorable claim construction ruling by the court, WD secured a stipulation from Rembrandt to dismiss the case. Rembrandt appealed the Court’s claim construction ruling, and the Federal Circuit issued a summary affirmance in favor of WD in December 2012. If Rembrandt appeals the decision, WD intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On December 1, 2010, Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 alleging that six “Primary Respondent” semiconductor chip companies and twenty-seven “Customer Respondents,” including HGST, infringe various U.S. patents. On December 29, 2010, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) initiated an investigation into Rambus’s allegations in response to the complaint. HGST is accused of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,591,353; 7,287,109; 7,602,857; 7,602,858; and 7,715,494. The complaint alleges that certain of HGST’s hard drives that contain Double data rate-type memory controllers, Serial Advanced Technology Attachment interfaces, Peripheral Component Interconnect Express interfaces, DisplayPort interfaces, or Serial Attached SCSI interfaces infringe the patents. The complaint seeks to enjoin the importation into the U.S. of the allegedly infringing semiconductor chips and products. It also requests a cease-and-desist order preventing the parties from exhausting allegedly infringing inventory in the U.S. The ITC has found in favor of the respondents in all matters and Rambus has appealed to the Federal Circuit. HGST intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On August 1, 2011, plaintiff Guzik Technical Enterprises (“Guzik”) filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against WD and various of its subsidiaries alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,023,145 and 6,785,085, breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The patents asserted by Guzik allegedly relate to devices used to test hard disk drive heads and media. WD has filed counterclaims against Guzik or patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,420; 5,640,089; 6,891,696; and 7,480,116. The patents asserted by WD relate to devices and methods used in the testing of hard disk drive heads and media. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Seagate Matter

On October 4, 2006, plaintiff Seagate Technology LLC (“Seagate”) filed an action in the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, naming as defendants WD and one of its now former employees previously employed by Seagate. The complaint in the action alleged claims based on supposed misappropriation of trade secrets and sought injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. On June 19, 2007, WD’s former employee filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. A motion to stay the litigation as against all defendants and to compel arbitration of all Seagate’s claims was granted on September 19, 2007. On September 23, 2010, Seagate filed a motion to amend its claims and add allegations based on the supposed misappropriation of additional confidential information, and the arbitrator granted Seagate’s motion. The arbitration hearing commenced on May 23, 2011 and concluded on July 11, 2011.

On November 18, 2011, the sole arbitrator ruled in favor of WD in connection with five of the eight alleged trade secrets at issue, based on evidence that such trade secrets were known publicly at the time the former employee joined WD. Based on a determination that the employee had fabricated evidence, the arbitrator then concluded that WD had to know of the fabrications. As a sanction, the arbitrator precluded any evidence or defense by WD disputing the validity, misappropriation, or use of the three remaining alleged trade secrets by WD, and entered judgment in favor of Seagate with respect to such trade secrets. Using an unjust enrichment theory of damages, the arbitrator issued an interim award against WD in the amount of $525 million plus pre-award interest at the Minnesota statutory rate of 10% per year. In his decision with respect to these three trade secrets, the arbitrator did not question the relevance, veracity or credibility of any of WD’s ten expert and fact witnesses (other than WD’s former employee), nor the authenticity of any other evidence WD presented. On January 23, 2012, the arbitrator issued a final award adding pre-award interest in the amount of $105.4 million for a total final award of $630.4 million. On January 23, 2012, WD filed a petition in the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota to have the final arbitration award vacated. A hearing on the petition to vacate was held on March 1, 2012.

On October 12, 2012, the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota vacated, in full, the $630.4 million final arbitration award. Specifically, the Court confirmed the arbitration award with respect to each of the five trade secret claims that WD and the former employee had won at the arbitration and vacated the arbitration award with respect to the three trade secret claims that WD and the former employee had lost at the arbitration. The Court ordered that a rehearing be held concerning those three alleged trade secret claims before a new arbitrator.

On October 30, 2012, Seagate initiated an appeal of the Court’s decision with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Company strongly believes that the Court’s decision was correct and intends to vigorously oppose Seagate’s efforts to appeal the decision. Nevertheless, the Company cannot be certain it will be successful in a new arbitration of the three trade secret claims or in Seagate’s efforts to appeal the decision. In the event Seagate is successful in its efforts to appeal the Court’s decision, the original arbitration award could be reinstated. The statutory interest rate of 10% would apply from the date of the original arbitration award if the award should be reinstated.

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 and is therefore not predictable with assurance, 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, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from those projected.