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 same year.

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



	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2016		2015
Balance, beginning of the period	$	1,894	$	1,574
Accruals	2,076		1,937
Less: Usage	1,958		1,651
Balance, end of the period	$	2,012	$	1,860

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 nine months ended September 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. Subsequent to the Company’s successful appeal before the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals (the “Court of Appeals”), the matter was remanded back to the AZ District Court for a determination of a proper fee award. On October 5, 2016, the AZ District Court issue an order determining that the Company is to pay $1,289 to ITC for its attorney’s fees. The payment shall be secured from the escrow the Company established of $3,252 which is recorded as “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2016. The liability of $1,289 was reduced from $3,252 with the benefit recorded in “Research and development” expense and the liability recorded under the caption “Other current liabilities” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2016. The balance of the funds in escrow shall be returned to the Company. Upon payment of the court ordered amount, this matter will be closed.

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 expired. On July 22, 2016, the MN District Court ordered that the full amount of the judgment be paid to the Company. With the payment of the final judgment amount on August 11, 2016, this matter has been closed.

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. In August of 2016, the MN District Court issued rulings on Summary Judgment Motions which found that Camtek is precluded from a) re-litigating the validity of the ‘6,298 patent and b) opening up for claim construction any terms that were defined in the prior litigation. Claims not defined in the prior litigation may be defined in this case. A trial ready date of April 2017 has been set for this 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 70% of the value of eligible securities held at the time the line of credit is accessed. The available line of credit as of September 30, 2016 was approximately $60,000. The Company terminated a prior credit agreement and entered into a new credit agreement in June 2016. The credit agreement is available to the Company until such time that either party terminates the arrangement at their discretion. The Company has not utilized the line of credit to date.