Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty Reserves

The Company generally provides a warranty on its products for a period of twelve to fifteen months against defects in material and workmanship. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred during the warranty period and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time revenue is recognized. The Company’s estimate is based primarily on historical experience. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary. Settlements of warranty reserves are generally associated with sales that occurred during the 12 to 15 months prior to the year-end and warranty accruals are related to sales during the year.

Changes in the Company’s warranty reserves are as follows:



	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2013			2012
Balance, beginning of the period	$	2,024		$	1,406
Accruals	446			506
Usage	(705		)	(522		)
Balance, end of the period	$	1,765		$	1,390

Warranty reserves are reported in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets within the caption “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities.”

Letter of Credit

As of March 31, 2013, the Company had an irrevocable standby letter of credit with Credit Suisse AG available totaling $40,000 to secure the damages assessment in connection with the ITC litigation discussed in Legal Matters below, which the Company is in the process of appealing. The letter of credit expires on February 25, 2014 with provisions for automatic renewal. Upon draw down of funds, the letter of credit would be collateralized by securities held in the Company’s investment portfolios and reported in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets within the caption “Cash and cash equivalents” and “Marketable securities.” No amounts were outstanding on the letter of credit as of, or during the three months ended March 31, 2013.

Legal Matters

From time to time, the Company is subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. As previously disclosed, in December 2007, the Company completed the acquisition of specific assets and liabilities of the semiconductor division of Applied Precision LLC (“Applied”). As a result of the acquisition, the Company assumed certain liabilities of Applied including a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, by Integrated Technology Corporation (“ITC”) which alleged Applied's PrecisionPoint^™, PrecisionWoRx^® and ProbeWoRx^® products infringed an ITC patent (Integrated Technology Corporation v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., No. CV-06-2182-PHX-ROS). Prior to trial, the District Court ruled that such products sold prior to August of 2007 infringed the ITC patent. In December 2011, a trial verdict was rendered in which the jury found that while the Company’s products manufactured after August of 2007 did not literally infringe ITC’s patent, the products were found to infringe under a rule known as the doctrine of equivalents, a legal principle which expands the language of patent claims to encompass products or processes which may otherwise be found not to literally infringe the patent. The jury awarded $15,475 to ITC in damages for sales made during the years 2000-2011, of which award approximately one-half related to sales made after August 2007. The jury found that for sales made after August of 2007 the infringement was willful. On July 23, 2012, the District Court, responding to post-trial motions filed by the Company and ITC related to the verdict and damages assessment, issued an Order which affirmed the jury's award, applied treble damages to the portion of the jury award related to sales of the products after 2007 and granted ITC’s motion for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest on the verdict and attorney's fees. The District Court also enjoined the Company from future infringement of the ITC patent and from selling or supplying the applicable products with the applicable features from or into the United States. The Company appealed the injunction and are in the process of appealing, the District Court Order and the damages assessment. In October 2012, the injunction was stayed by the Federal Court of Appeals. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and shall continue to vigorously prosecute its appeal. With that, it is reasonably possible that the Company could realize a loss in this matter related to products sold after August of 2007 such that in the event that the Company is ultimately found liable, damage estimates related to this case, which have not been accrued for as of March 31, 2013, range from approximately $25 to $31,641. With regard to products sold before August of 2007, it is probable that the Company could realize a loss in this matter for which the Company has estimated and recorded a liability of approximately $4,293 in “Other liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. While the Company continues to believe that its current PrecisionWoRx^® and ProbeWoRx^® systems do not infringe ITC’s patent, the Company reached an agreement with ITC in October 2012 with regards to a redesign of the products under which ITC agreed that such redesign is permissible under the court’s injunction.

In the Company's patent infringement suit against Camtek, Ltd., of Migdal Hamek, Israel, concerning the Company’s proprietary continuous scan wafer inspection technology, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals issued a ruling on August 22, 2011. In its opinion, the Appellate Court affirmed multiple rulings from trial at the District Court level including (i) finding the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 6,826,298 valid, (ii) the part of the infringement ruling based on the finding that Camtek’s Falcon product strobes “based on velocity,” and (iii) the dismissal of Camtek’s claim against the Company for inequitable conduct against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The court did, however, revise one claim construction ruling made by the District Court in the original case. As a result, the Appellate Court set aside the verdict delivered by the jury for damages and the District Court's decision to enter an injunction against Camtek’s selling Falcon tools in the U.S. and remanded the case back to the trial court for a limited trial on this single infringement issue. No trial date has been set for this limited trial. This lawsuit was initially brought in 2005 by August Technology prior to its merger with the Company.