Commitments and Contingencies

Intellectual Property Indemnification Obligations

The Company has entered into agreements with customers that include limited intellectual property indemnification obligations that are customary in the industry. These guarantees generally require the Company to compensate the other party for certain damages and costs incurred as a result of third party intellectual property claims arising from these transactions. The nature of the intellectual property indemnification obligations prevents the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required to pay to its customers. Historically, the Company has not made any indemnification payments under such agreements and no amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated financial statements with respect to these indemnification guarantees.

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:



	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2017			2016
Balance, beginning of the period	$	1,788		$	1,894
Accruals	1,659			1,261
Usage	(1,311		)	(1,319		)
Balance, end of the period	$	2,136		$	1,836

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 following reflects an overview of the material activities with regard to these matters through June 30, 2017.

August Technology Corporation and Rudolph Technologies, Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd., No. 11-CV-03707 (MJD/TNL): A lawsuit against Camtek, Ltd. (“Camtek”), of Migdal Hamek, Israel, was filed by the Company on June 1, 2011 alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 7,729,528 related to its proprietary continuous scan wafer inspection technology. The relief sought in the lawsuit includes the payment of damages and a permanent injunction against any products found to be infringing. Camtek filed an inter partes reexamination petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) on January 19, 2012 asserting that certain claims of the patent are unpatentable. In the course of this proceeding the PTO issued a final determination that 35 claims of the patent were valid and 18 claims were rejected. The Company appealed the PTO’s rejection of the 18 claims to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 22, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTO’s rejection of three of the 18 patent claims, affirmed the PTO’s rejection of nine of the 18 patent claims, and dismissed the remaining six patent claims for procedural reasons. Thus, 38 claims are available to be asserted under the ‘528 patent in this lawsuit. During the pendency of the reexamination process, the parties had stipulated that the lawsuit be stayed. With resolution of Camtek’s petition, the stay in the lawsuit has been lifted and the parties are proceeding with litigation.

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’s U.S. Patent No. 6,826,298 by Camtek’s Eagle product with the U.S. District Court in Minnesota. The ‘6,298 patent is also related to our proprietary continuous scan wafer inspection technology and was the subject of Rudolph’s prior litigation against the Camtek Falcon system (the “Falcon Litigation”) in which Rudolph prevailed with a final judgment of infringement and damages of $14.6 million assessed against Camtek. The relief sought in the lawsuit includes the payment of damages and a permanent injunction against any products found to be infringing. 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. On or about April 20, 2015, Camtek filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the jurisdiction and venue of the Minnesota District Court and seeking to have the New Jersey 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 U.S. District Court in Minnesota 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 U.S. District Court in New Jersey was subsequently dismissed. On August 8, 2016 the Minnesota District Court issued an order regarding motions for partial summary judgment which we had filed in March 2016 granting (i) that the ‘6,298 patent is valid and Camtek is precluded from contesting its validity at trial, and (ii) that the claim constructions adopted in the Falcon Litigation for four terms are entitled to a preclusive effect and will apply in the course of the present litigation. The Minnesota District Court also ruled that three phrases not subject to claim construction in the Falcon Litigation may be defined in the present case. This matter is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota with no trial date set.

Camtek, Ltd. v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., No.: 1:17-CV-11127-PBS: On June 19, 2017, Camtek filed with the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts and served on Rudolph a complaint alleging infringement by Rudolph’s NSX product of Camtek’s U.S. Patent No. 6,192,289 related to kerf inspection. The relief sought in the lawsuit includes the payment of damages and a permanent injunction against any products found to be infringing. This newly served matter is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts with no trial date set.

Subsequent to the close of the 2017 second quarter, on July 28, 2017, Rudolph and Camtek entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) resolving each of the three litigations referenced above (the “Litigations”). Pursuant to the Agreement, in exchange for a $13.0 million cash payment from Camtek to be paid to Rudolph, the parties each agreed to dismiss with prejudice and release the other party from all claims, damages and expenses incurred or raised in the Litigations. The parties also mutually agreed not to pursue further legal actions on any of the claims reflected in the patents which were the subject of the Litigations. Further, subject to limited exceptions, Rudolph and Camtek have agreed not to bring suit against each other for a three year period from the date of the Agreement. Each party expressly denies any liability to the other party with respect to any of the Litigations.

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 June 30, 2017 was approximately $86 million with an available interest rate of 2.8%. 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.