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:



	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2014		2013
Balance, beginning of the period	$	1,551	$	2,024
Accruals	961		1,033
Less: Usage	1,035		1,365
Balance, end of the period	$	1,477	$	1,692

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

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 (the “pre-August 2007 tools”) infringed the ITC patent. At trial in December of 2011, a trial verdict was rendered in which the jury found that while the Company’s products manufactured after August of 2007 (the “post-August 2007 tools”) 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 for pre-August 2007 tools. The jury found that for the sales of the post-August 2007 tools, the infringement was willful. On July 23, 2012, the District Court issued an Order which affirmed the jury’s award, applied treble damages to the portion of the jury award related to post-August 2007 tool sales and granted ITC’s motion for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest on the verdict and attorney’s fees. At that time, 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, the District Court Order and the damages assessment. In October 2012, the injunction was stayed by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals and thereafter in June of 2013, the patent expired. On November 4, 2013, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals issued a ruling which reversed the judgment of infringement against all post-August 2007 tools, reversed the finding of willfulness, vacated the treble damages award, vacated the award of attorney’s fees and costs, remanded the issue back to the District Court for further review, and affirmed the award of damages and interest for the pre-August 2007 tools. As a result, the matter is resolved with regard to the alleged infringement of the post-August 2007 tools in the Company’s favor. With regard to the damages assessment against the pre-August 2007 tools, on March 4, 2014, the Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal the basis of the Federal Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the damages award for the pre-August 2007 tools. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the Company’s Petition and as a result, the Company increased its related litigation accrual by $9,622 for a total accrual of $13,833. On July 22, 2014, the Company then paid to ITC $10,613 which represented only the damages and interest portion of the judgment. Since the patent expired in June of 2013 and payment of the judgment has been made, this matter is fully resolved with the sole exception of the issue of the remanded attorney’s fees. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses regarding this issue and intends to continue to vigorously prosecute the matter. Included in the total accrual of $13,833, which is recorded under the caption, “Other current liabilities,” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, is $3,250 related to the remanded attorney’s fees. The Company expects that this is the maximum liability reasonably possible for the attorney’s fees, including interest, for this lawsuit with respect to both the pre-August 2007 and post-2007 August tools.

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. On March 31, 2014, the District Court ruled in the Company’s favor, finding that Camtek’s Falcon tools continue to infringe the Company’s patent even under the revised claim construction of the patent, obviating the need for the limited trial. The Company intends to petition the court to reinstate a permanent injunction against the sale by Camtek of its infringing semiconductor inspection systems. The Company also anticipates that the damages originally awarded by the jury in 2009 will be reinstated, as well as related interest and all subsequently awarded damages. This lawsuit was initially brought in 2005 by August Technology prior to its merger with the Company. A subsequent lawsuit has been filed by Rudolph against Camtek alleging infringement of Rudolph’s U.S. Patent No. 7,729,528, also related to the Company’s proprietary continuous scan wafer inspection technology. This lawsuit is currently stayed pending resolution of a re-examination petition filed by Camtek with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Letter of Credit

As of June 30, 2014, the Company had a $40,000 irrevocable standby letter of credit with Credit Suisse AG available to secure the damages assessment in connection with the ITC litigation discussed in Legal Matters above. On July 22, 2014, the Company paid $10,613 to ITC through a draw down of the letter of credit. Pursuant to the terms of the letter of credit, upon draw down of the funds, the letter of credit was collateralized by securities held in the Company’s investment portfolios which were immediately sold to satisfy the letter of credit payment. The letter of credit was subsequently canceled upon completion of this payment.