COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 20 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Omega patent infringement claim In December 2013, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against the Company by Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”), a non-practicing entity. Omega alleged that certain of our vehicle tracking products infringed on four patents owned by Omega, (1) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,346,876 (the “’876 patent”), 6,756,885 (the “’885 patent”), 7,671,727 (the “’727” patent), and 8,032,278 (the “’278 patent”). On February 24, 2016, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida awarded Omega damages of $2.975 million, for which we recorded a reserve of $2.9 million in the fiscal 2016 fourth quarter. Following trial, Omega brought a motion seeking an injunction and requesting the court to exercise its discretion to treble damages and assess attorneys’ fees. On April 5, 2017, the court denied the request for an injunction, but granted the request for treble damages in the aggregate amount of $8.9 million. On April 24, 2017 the court awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest in the aggregate amount of $1.2 million, and directed the payment of royalties by CalAmp to Omega for any infringing sales after February 24, 2016 at a royalty rate to be determined. On May 22, 2017, we filed motions with the court seeking judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The court denied our motions on November 14, 2017. We then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). The appeal was fully briefed, and the court heard oral argument on January 9, 2019. On April 8, 2019, the Federal Circuit vacated the compensatory and enhanced damages and attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court to Omega. The Federal Circuit also set aside the jury’s verdict that our alleged infringement was willful, and remanded the case for a new trial. As a result, substantially all of the previously reserved legal provisions of $19.1 million as of November 30, 2018 was reversed as of our fiscal year-end. The reversal was recorded as a reduction of general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement of comprehensive income (loss) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019. The new trial began on September 23, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“Trial Court”), and on September 30, 2019, the jury determined that the Company infringed two of the four patents; however, the jury found that there was no willful infringement. On the first patent (the ’727 patent), the jury found only one unit infringed, and assessed $1.00 in damages. On the second patent (the ’278 patent), the jury found direct infringement and awarded damages at a rate of $5.00 per unit, for total damages of approximately $4.6 million. On November 26, 2019 the Trial Court entered judgment, awarding Omega damages of $4.6 million, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $0.8 million through September 30, 2019. We filed motions with the Trial Court seeking judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) in our favor and, alternatively, a new trial. On March 20, 2020, the Trial Court denied our motion for JMOL, a new trial, and remittitur of damages. Also, on March 20, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion for a new trial on willfulness. On April 1, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion to enhance the royalty rate beyond the jury’s award of $5.00 per unit and motion to conduct post-trial discovery on CalAmp’s other OBD-II compliant LMUs. Also on April 1, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion to conduct post-trial discovery on CalAmp’s other OBD-II compliant LMUs. On April 3, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s final motion regarding infringement of the VPODs. On April 30, 2020, we filed a notice of appeal at the Federal Circuit. Also on April 30, 2020, Omega filed notices of cross-appeal at the Federal Circuit. On March 22, 2021, the Federal Circuit scheduled argument to be heard by videoconference on Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. EDT, with the date subject to change. In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability of $2.2 million as a litigation reserve related to this matter based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the prior judgment awarding Omega damages of as much as $4.6 million, together with $0.8 million of pre-judgment interest, could be upheld, which would result in losses of up to $3.2 million in excess of amounts we have accrued related to this matter . We also initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking to invalidate a number of Omega’s patents involved in the litigation. Those proceedings currently remain pending. We continue to believe that our products do not infringe on any of Omega’s patents. While it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of this litigation, we believe that its ultimate resolution would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Philips patent infringement claim On December 17, 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) filed four separate legal actions against us, and several other companies, accusing the companies of infringing Philips’s 3G and 4G wireless standard-essential patents: (1) first, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (“Quectel”), CalAmp, Xirgo Technologies, LLC (“Xirgo”), and Laird Connectivity, Inc. (“Laird”), Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,271 (“the ’271 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,199,711 (“the ’711 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,554,943 (“the ’943 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935 (“the ’935 patent”) (all four patents collectively, the “Patents”); (2) second, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications Plc, (collectively, “Telit”), and CalAmp, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units and certain modules therein infringe certain claims of the Patents; (3) third, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC (F/K/A Gemalto IoT LLC “Gemalto”) F/K/A Cinterion Wireless Modules NAFTA LLC (“Cinterion”)), Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH (F/K/A Gemalto M2M GmbH), Thales USA, Inc., Thales S.A., (collectively, “Thales”), CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of the Patents, and (4) fourth, before The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), Philips v. Quectel, CalAmp, Xirgo, Laird, Thales, Gemalto, Cinterion, and Telit, Philips alleges violations of section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act based upon our importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) and LTE (Long Term Evolution) cellular communication modules and products containing the same by reason of our location monitoring units that allegedly infringe on certain claims of the Patents, and seeks (a) an investigation and a hearing under the Tariff Act for unlawful importation of allegedly infringing product, (b) an exclusion order excluding entry into the U.S. of all allegedly infringing communication modules, and (c) a permanent cease and desist order barring the importation, marketing, advertising, and sale of allegedly infringing products in the U.S. All four proceedings are currently pending. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions, and are investigating and/or asserting defenses and positions, including non-infringement, invalidity, and the “public interest factors” that must be considered by the ITC before issuing any exclusion order. If Phillips successfully proves infringement of the Patents, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages and could be precluded from importing into the U.S. certain products containing the allegedly infringing modules. However, we believe that we have strong defense and indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceeding paid by those suppliers, who are co-defendants in these proceedings. While it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of these four legal proceedings, and no specific amount of damages has been identified, we believe that a loss is reasonably possible but not reasonably estimable. Additionally, we believe the ultimate resolution of the proceedings, including indemnification and defense by our module suppliers, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. EVE battery claim On October 27, 2014, LoJack and LoJack Equipment Ireland DAC (“LJEI”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of LoJack, commenced arbitration proceedings against EVE Energy Co., Ltd. (“EVE”) by filing a notice of arbitration with a tribunal (the “Tribunal”) before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (the “HKIAC”). LoJack and LJEI alleged that EVE breached representations and warranties made in supply agreements relating to the quality and performance of battery packs supplied by EVE. On June 2, 2017, we were notified that the Tribunal rendered a decision and awarded damages to us (the “Damage Award”) for EVE’s breach of contract. On June 9, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with EVE and its controlling shareholder EVE Holdings Limited to resolve the Damage Award by having EVE Holdings Limited, the parent company of EVE, make payments to us in the aggregate amount of $46.6 million, which amount is net of attorneys’ fees and insurance subrogation payment (the “Settlement”). As of February 28, 2019, we had received the entire Settlement, of which $18.3 million was received in fiscal 2019 and $28.3 million was received in fiscal 2018. The Settlement amounts were reported and disclosed as other non-operating income in our consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the fiscal years ended February 28, 2019. Tracker South Africa claim On December 9, 2016, Tracker Connect (Pty) LTD (“Tracker”), an international licensee of LoJack located in South Africa, commenced arbitration proceedings against LoJack Ireland by filing a notice of arbitration with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. The filing alleged breaches of the license agreement as well as misrepresentations and violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A. Tracker was seeking various relief, including monetary damages and recovery of attorneys’ fees. On March 3, 2017, LoJack Ireland filed its response to Tracker’s notice, denying their allegations and filing counterclaims against Tracker for material breaches of the parties’ license agreement and bad faith conduct. The arbitral tribunal was selected and the arbitration was conducted in March 2018 with closing arguments heard on June 25, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued its confidential final ruling by awarding $6.2 million to Tracker, which was paid on December 18, 2018. In connection with this legal matter, we accrued a contingent liability of $4.0 million and therefore the net effect of the final award was recorded in General & Administrative expenses in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019. In addition to the foregoing matters, from time to time as a normal consequence of doing business, various claims and litigation may be asserted or commenced against us. In particular, we may receive claims concerning contract performance or claims that our products or services infringe the intellectual property of third parties which are in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of any such claims or litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe that the outcome of such matters existing at the present time will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Feb. 28, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 20 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

Omega patent infringement claim

In December 2013, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against the Company by Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”), a non-practicing entity. Omega alleged that certain of our vehicle tracking products infringed on four patents owned by Omega, (1) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,346,876 (the “’876 patent”), 6,756,885 (the “’885 patent”), 7,671,727 (the “’727” patent), and 8,032,278 (the “’278 patent”). On February 24, 2016, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida awarded Omega damages of $2.975 million, for which we recorded a reserve of $2.9 million in the fiscal 2016 fourth quarter. Following trial, Omega brought a motion seeking an injunction and requesting the court to exercise its discretion to treble damages and assess attorneys’ fees. On April 5, 2017, the court denied the request for an injunction, but granted the request for treble damages in the aggregate amount of $8.9 million. On April 24, 2017 the court awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest in the aggregate amount of $1.2 million, and directed the payment of royalties by CalAmp to Omega for any infringing sales after February 24, 2016 at a royalty rate to be determined. On May 22, 2017, we filed motions with the court seeking judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The court denied our motions on November 14, 2017. We then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). The appeal was fully briefed, and the court heard oral argument on January 9, 2019. On April 8, 2019, the Federal Circuit vacated the compensatory and enhanced damages and attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court to Omega. The Federal Circuit also set aside the jury’s verdict that our alleged infringement was willful, and remanded the case for a new trial. As a result, substantially all of the previously reserved legal provisions of $19.1 million as of November 30, 2018 was reversed as of our fiscal year-end. The reversal was recorded as a reduction of general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement of comprehensive income (loss) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019.

The new trial began on September 23, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“Trial Court”), and on September 30, 2019, the jury determined that the Company infringed two of the four patents; however, the jury found that there was no willful infringement. On the first patent (the ’727 patent), the jury found only one unit infringed, and assessed $1.00 in damages. On the second patent (the ’278 patent), the jury found direct infringement and awarded damages at a rate of $5.00 per unit, for total damages of approximately $4.6 million. On November 26, 2019 the Trial Court entered judgment, awarding Omega damages of $4.6 million, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $0.8 million through September 30, 2019. We filed motions with the Trial Court seeking judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) in our favor and, alternatively, a new trial. On March 20, 2020, the Trial Court denied

our motion for JMOL, a new trial, and remittitur of damages. Also, on March 20, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion for a new trial on willfulness. On April 1, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion to enhance the royalty rate beyond the jury’s award of $5.00 per unit and motion to conduct post-trial discovery on CalAmp’s other OBD-II compliant LMUs. Also on April 1, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s motion to conduct post-trial discovery on CalAmp’s other OBD-II compliant LMUs. On April 3, 2020, the Trial Court denied Omega’s final motion regarding infringement of the VPODs. On April 30, 2020, we filed a notice of appeal at the Federal Circuit. Also on April 30, 2020, Omega filed notices of cross-appeal at the Federal Circuit. On March 22, 2021, the Federal Circuit scheduled argument to be heard by videoconference on Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. EDT, with the date subject to change.

In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability of $2.2 million as a litigation reserve related to this matter based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the prior judgment awarding Omega damages of as much as $4.6 million, together with $0.8 million of pre-judgment interest, could be upheld, which would result in losses of up to $3.2 million in excess of amounts we have accrued related to this matter .

We also initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking to invalidate a number of Omega’s patents involved in the litigation. Those proceedings currently remain pending. We continue to believe that our products do not infringe on any of Omega’s patents. While it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of this litigation, we believe that its ultimate resolution would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Philips patent infringement claim

On December 17, 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) filed four separate legal actions against us, and several other companies, accusing the companies of infringing Philips’s 3G and 4G wireless standard-essential patents: (1) first, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (“Quectel”), CalAmp, Xirgo Technologies, LLC (“Xirgo”), and Laird Connectivity, Inc. (“Laird”), Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,271 (“the ’271 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,199,711 (“the ’711 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,554,943 (“the ’943 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935 (“the ’935 patent”) (all four patents collectively, the “Patents”); (2) second, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications Plc, (collectively, “Telit”), and CalAmp, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units and certain modules therein infringe certain claims of the Patents; (3) third, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Philips v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC (F/K/A Gemalto IoT LLC “Gemalto”) F/K/A Cinterion Wireless Modules NAFTA LLC (“Cinterion”)), Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH (F/K/A Gemalto M2M GmbH), Thales USA, Inc., Thales S.A., (collectively, “Thales”), CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird, Philips alleges that our location monitoring units infringe certain claims of the Patents, and (4) fourth, before The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), Philips v. Quectel, CalAmp, Xirgo, Laird, Thales, Gemalto, Cinterion, and Telit, Philips alleges violations of section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act based upon our importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) and LTE (Long Term Evolution) cellular communication modules and products containing the same by reason of our location monitoring units that allegedly infringe on certain claims of the Patents, and seeks (a) an investigation and a hearing under the Tariff Act for unlawful importation of allegedly infringing product, (b) an exclusion order excluding entry into the U.S. of all allegedly infringing communication modules, and (c) a permanent cease and desist order barring the importation, marketing, advertising, and sale of allegedly infringing products in the U.S.

All four proceedings are currently pending. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions, and are investigating and/or asserting defenses and positions, including non-infringement, invalidity, and the “public interest factors” that must be considered by the ITC before issuing any exclusion order. If Phillips successfully proves infringement of the Patents, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages and could be precluded from importing into the U.S. certain products containing the allegedly infringing modules. However, we believe that we have strong defense and indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceeding paid by those suppliers, who are co-defendants in these proceedings. While it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of these four legal proceedings, and

no specific amount of damages has been identified, we believe that a loss is reasonably possible but not reasonably estimable. Additionally, we believe the ultimate resolution of the proceedings, including indemnification and defense by our module suppliers, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

EVE battery claim

On October 27, 2014, LoJack and LoJack Equipment Ireland DAC (“LJEI”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of LoJack, commenced arbitration proceedings against EVE Energy Co., Ltd. (“EVE”) by filing a notice of arbitration with a tribunal (the “Tribunal”) before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (the “HKIAC”). LoJack and LJEI alleged that EVE breached representations and warranties made in supply agreements relating to the quality and performance of battery packs supplied by EVE. On June 2, 2017, we were notified that the Tribunal rendered a decision and awarded damages to us (the “Damage Award”) for EVE’s breach of contract. On June 9, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with EVE and its controlling shareholder EVE Holdings Limited to resolve the Damage Award by having EVE Holdings Limited, the parent company of EVE, make payments to us in the aggregate amount of $46.6 million, which amount is net of attorneys’ fees and insurance subrogation payment (the “Settlement”). As of February 28, 2019, we had received the entire Settlement, of which $18.3 million was received in fiscal 2019 and $28.3 million was received in fiscal 2018. The Settlement amounts were reported and disclosed as other non-operating income in our consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the fiscal years ended February 28, 2019.

Tracker South Africa claim

On December 9, 2016, Tracker Connect (Pty) LTD (“Tracker”), an international licensee of LoJack located in South Africa, commenced arbitration proceedings against LoJack Ireland by filing a notice of arbitration with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. The filing alleged breaches of the license agreement as well as misrepresentations and violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A. Tracker was seeking various relief, including monetary damages and recovery of attorneys’ fees. On March 3, 2017, LoJack Ireland filed its response to Tracker’s notice, denying their allegations and filing counterclaims against Tracker for material breaches of the parties’ license agreement and bad faith conduct. The arbitral tribunal was selected and the arbitration was conducted in March 2018 with closing arguments heard on June 25, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued its confidential final ruling by awarding $6.2 million to Tracker, which was paid on December 18, 2018. In connection with this legal matter, we accrued a contingent liability of $4.0 million and therefore the net effect of the final award was recorded in General & Administrative expenses in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019.

In addition to the foregoing matters, from time to time as a normal consequence of doing business, various claims and litigation may be asserted or commenced against us. In particular, we may receive claims concerning contract performance or claims that our products or services infringe the intellectual property of third parties which are in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of any such claims or litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe that the outcome of such matters existing at the present time will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.