Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty Reserves

The Company generally provides a warranty on its products for a period of 12 to 15 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 quarter-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,
	2016		2015
Balance, beginning of the period	$	1,894	$	1,574
Accruals	1,261		1,300
Less: Usage	1,319		1,051
Balance, end of the period	$	1,836	$	1,823

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. The Company’s 2015 10-K reflects the status of the Company’s litigation with Integrated Technology Corporation (“ITC”) and Camtek, Ltd. (“Camtek”). The following reflects the material developments during the six months ended June 30, 2016 with regard to these matters.

Integrated Technology Corporation v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., No. CV-06-2182 (PHX-ROS): This matter is fully resolved with the sole exception of the issue of remanded attorney’s fees which were set by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (the “AZ District Court”) at $3,252. A hearing regarding the Company’s appeal of this order was held on October 6, 2015 before the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals (the “Court of Appeals”). The Court of Appeals issued a ruling that the award was improperly established, vacated the amount of the award and remanded the matter back to the AZ District Court for a determination of a proper fee award. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses regarding this issue and intends to continue to vigorously prosecute the matter. The $3,252 is held in escrow and is recorded in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2016. The corresponding liability is recorded under the caption “Other current liabilities” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2016. The Company expects this to be the maximum liability reasonably possible for the attorney’s fees, excluding interest, for this lawsuit with respect to both the pre-August 2007 and the post-August 2007 tools which were the subject of this action.

August Technology Corporation and Rudolph Technologies, Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd., No. 05-CV-01396 (JRT/FLN): Subsequent to the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “MN District Court”) in the Company’s favor that Camtek’s Falcon tools continue to infringe the Company’s patent under the revised claim construction of the patent determined by the Court of Appeals, the MN District Court, on February 9, 2015, issued an Order granting the Company’s Motion for Final Judgment, reinstating the original damages and applying prejudgment interest for a total award of $14,512. In addition, the MN District Court issued a permanent injunction against Camtek from “making, using, selling and offering to sell any of its Falcon machines and any machines that are colorable imitations thereof in the United States, intended for sale and use within the United States, until the expiration of the ‘6,298 patent,” which is projected to be in 2020. While, in March of 2015, Camtek filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals challenging the MN District Court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals denied Camtek’s appeal on February 3, 2016, affirming both the infringement ruling and the damages and interest totaling approximately $14,632 assessed against Camtek by the MN District Court, the payment of which is guaranteed by a supersedeas bond. All of Camtek’s rights to appeal the final judgment have now expired. On March 14, 2016 the Company filed its request to the MN District Court to release payment under the bond which was granted by the MN District Court on June 24, 2016. Payment by Camtek is currently being facilitated. The Company recorded the judgment in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2016 as the gain contingency was realized upon completion of the appeal process.

August Technology Corporation and Rudolph Technologies, Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd., No. 10-CV-2202 (MJD/FLN): With regard to the Company’s subsequently filed lawsuit against Camtek in the MN District Court alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 7,729,528, this lawsuit continues to be stayed pending resolution of a re-examination petition filed by Camtek with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Rudolph Technologies, Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd., No. 15-CV-1246 (ADM/BRT): On March 12, 2015, the Company filed and served on Camtek a complaint asserting infringement of Rudolph ‘6,298 patent by Camtek’s Eagle product with the MN District Court. On April 21, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Camtek’s sale of the Eagle device in the United States which is currently pending. On or about April 20, 2015, Camtek filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “NJ District Court”) seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the jurisdiction and venue of the Minnesota court and seeking to have the NJ District Court find that the ‘6,298 patent is not infringed and, in the alternative, that the ‘6,298 patent is invalid. On August 26, 2015, the MN District Court ruled that Minnesota jurisdiction was appropriate for this matter while at the same time denying the Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Camtek’s complaint filed in the NJ District Court was subsequently dismissed. This matter is currently in discovery phase of the litigation.

Line of Credit

The Company has a credit agreement with a bank that provides for a line of credit which is secured by the marketable securities the Company has with the bank. The Company is permitted to borrow up to a percentage of the value of the marketable securities held at the time the line of credit is accessed. The Company has not utilized the line of credit to date.