Commitments and Contingencies

Guarantees

As of April 1, 2018, the Company’s financial guarantees consisted of guarantees and standby letters of credit, which are primarily related to the Company’s electrical utilities in Malaysia, consumption tax in Japan, office rental in Italy and a workers’ compensation plan in the United States. The maximum amount of potential future payments under these arrangements is approximately $1.8 million.

Commitments

Although the Company owns its corporate headquarters in San Jose, California, the Company leases various administrative facilities under operating leases which expire at various dates through fiscal 2025.

As of April 1, 2018, aggregate future minimum commitments for the next five fiscal years and thereafter under all operating leases were as follows (in thousands):



Fiscal Year	Amount
2019	$	7,092
2020	5,634
2021	2,568
2022	1,970
2023 and thereafter	1,234
Total	$	18,498

Rent expense for the fiscal years ended April 1, 2018, April 2, 2017 and April 3, 2016 totaled approximately $8.2 million, $5.9 million and $3.2 million, respectively. Other supplier obligations including payments due under various software design tool and technology license agreements totaled $5.0 million, $7.1 million, and $11.6 million as of April 1, 2018, April 2, 2017 and April 3, 2016, respectively.

The Company has machinery and equipment that are accounted for as capital leases. The related liabilities are included in current other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of April 1, 2018, aggregate future commitments for fiscal 2019 were $0.6 million.

Indemnification

During the normal course of business, the Company makes certain indemnifications and commitments under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. In addition to indemnifications related to non-infringement of patents and intellectual property, other indemnifications include indemnification of the Company’s directors and officers in connection with legal proceedings, indemnification of various lessors in connection with facility leases for certain claims arising from such facility or lease, and indemnification of other parties to certain acquisition agreements. The duration of these indemnifications and commitments varies, and in certain cases, is indefinite. The Company believes that substantially all of its indemnities and commitments provide for limitations on the maximum potential future payments the Company could be obligated to make. However, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum amount of liability related to its indemnities and commitments because such liabilities are contingent upon the occurrence of events which are not reasonably determinable. The Company believes that any liability for these indemnities and commitments would not be material to its consolidated financial statements.

The Company maintains an accrual for obligations it incurs under its standard product warranty program and customer, part, or process specific matters. The Company’s standard warranty period is one year; however, in certain instances the warranty period may be extended to as long as two years. Management estimates the fair value of the Company’s warranty liability based on actual past warranty claims experience, its policies regarding customer warranty returns and other estimates about the timing and disposition of product returned under the standard program. Customer, part, or process specific accruals are estimated using a specific identification method. Historical profit and loss impact related to warranty returns activity has been minimal. The total warranty accrual was $0.3 million as of both April 1, 2018 and April 2, 2017.

Litigation

On March 23, 2018, a compliant for patent infringement was served on the Company by DIFF Scale Operations Research, LLC (“DSOR”) in the Federal Court for the District of Delaware. DSOR alleged to be the owner of a certain collection of patents previously owned by ADC Communications, some of which are the subject of the litigation against the Company. During the same approximate period, DSOR filed complaints alleging infringement of certain of the same collection of patents against several other technology companies in various U.S. federal courts. DSOR seeks an award of damages in an amount to be established at trial. As alleged in the complaint, the patents purport to cover technology in digital phase locked loop (D-PLL) and service clock recovery integrated circuits (“ICs”). The Company had no prior notice of the allegations, the patents at issue, nor the existence of DSOR prior to being served the complaint. Although this matter is in its early stages, the Company intends to continue to assess the merits of the case and appropriately defend itself against DSOR’s claims.

On February 13, 2017, the Company and GigPeak announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 13, 2017. On February 17, 2017, a purported class action was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, (Carbajal v. GigPeak, Inc., et al, Case No. 17-cv-306571). On March 8, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court of Delaware (Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. GigPeak, Case No. 1:17-cv-00241-VAC SRF). On March 13, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Mendoza v. GigPeak, Inc. et al, Case No. 3;17-cv-01351-WHO). On March 16, a second purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Travis v. GigPeak, Inc. et al, Case No. 5:17-cv-01441-LKH). The Company was named as a defendant in the Carbajal and Gusinsky complaints. The Carbajal complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, including that defendants have failed to secure adequate deal consideration as well as various other breaches of duty. The Gusinsky, Travis and Mendoza complaints asserted claims under Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Gusinsky, Mendoza and Travis complaint alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by GigPeak contained material omissions and misstatements, and sought to enjoin and/or rescind the Offer as well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Carbajal complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 7, 2016. Each of the remaining complaints was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs on or around April 7, 2017, and the actions were closed by the Court on or around May 15, 2017 after Plaintiffs’ fees were agreed to by the parties.

In January 2012, Maxim I Properties, a general partnership that had purchased a certain parcel of real property (the Property) in 2003, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California naming approximately 30 defendants, including the Company ("Defendants"), alleging various environmental violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), and other common law claims (the Complaint). The Complaint alleged that Defendants including the Company “…generated, transported, and/or arranged for the transport and/or disposal of hazardous waste to the Property.” On August 15, 2012, Maxim I Properties voluntarily dismissed its Complaint without prejudice. However, another defendant, Moyer Products, Inc., counter-claimed against the plaintiff, Maxim, and cross-claimed against the remaining co-Defendants, including the Company. Thus, the Company remains a cross-defendant in this action.

In a related, but independent action, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the Company in September 2012 that the Company, and more than 50 other entities, were being named as respondents to DTSC's Enforcement Order, as “a generator of hazardous waste.” In April 2013, the Company, along with the other “respondent” parties, entered into a Corrective Action Consent Agreement (CACA) with the DTSC, agreeing to conduct the Property investigation and corrective action selection. The CACA supersedes the DTSC's Enforcement Order. The District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the Maxim/Moyer litigation pending the Property investigation under the CACA and DTSC's corrective action selection.

Property investigation activity took place between April 2013 and June 2015. On June 23, 2015, the DTSC deemed the Property investigation complete. The DTSC continues to evaluate corrective action alternatives. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the Complaint and evaluate settlement options with Moyer upon notification from DTSC of its corrective action selection. No specific corrective action has been selected yet, and thus no specific monetary demands have been made.

The Company may also be a party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business from time to time. With regard to the matters listed above, along with various other legal proceedings and claims and future matters that may arise, potential liability and probable losses or ranges of possible losses due to an unfavorable litigation outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Generally, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in any particular lawsuit or claim. Pending lawsuits, claims as well as potential future litigation, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.