COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2022
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 19 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Omega patent claim In December 2013, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against us 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. 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 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. The reversal was recorded as a reduction of general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement of comprehensive 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 we 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 our 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 May 6, 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “U.S. Court of Appeals”) heard oral arguments on our and Omega’s appeals. On September 14, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its decision and affirmed the judgment of infringement with respect to the ’278 patent; however the U.S. Court of Appeal upheld our appeal on damages, vacated the damages award of the Trial Court and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for a new trial on damages only. The case is currently back with the Trial Court. On January 17, 2022, Omega filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery For Limited Purpose and to Permit a Supplement to the Damages Expert Report and we filed a response opposing Omega’s motion on February 9, 2022. A Pretrial Conference was held January 19, 2022. The Trial Court granted Omega’s motion on March 16, 2022 to reopen discovery for certain purposes and permitted the parties to supplement damages expert reports. A date for the third trial has not yet been set. A mediation was held on April 12, 2022 to work towards a settlement. No settlement was reached during the mediation. In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability of $3.0 million as a litigation reserve related to this matter based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the court in a new trial may award Omega damages and pre-judgment interest in excess of the amounts we have accrued. Additionally, it is possible that the case may be settled and that the amount required to be paid by us in such settlement may be different from the litigation reserve we have recorded. Philips patent 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. All three cases pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware are stayed until a final determination in the ITC. On April 1, 2022, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) at the ITC issued a Final Initial Determination on the question of violation of section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). The administrative law judge determined that a violation of section 337 has not occurred with respect to any of the asserted patents. On April 13, 2022, Philips filed a Petition for Commission Review of the ALJ’s Initial Determination, and Respondents responded to Philips’ Petition on April 21, 2022. The target date for issuance of a Final Decision is August 1, 2022. We believe that we have strong non-infringement and invalidity defenses should the Delaware district court cases proceed. Also, we believe we have strong indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceedings paid by those suppliers, who are co-defendants in these proceedings. Currently, it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of all proceedings, and no specific amount of damages has been identified. 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. 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, 2022

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 19 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

Omega patent claim

In December 2013, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against us 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. 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 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. The reversal was recorded as a reduction of general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement of comprehensive 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 we 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 our 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 May 6, 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “U.S. Court of Appeals”) heard oral arguments on our and Omega’s appeals. On September 14, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its decision and affirmed the judgment of infringement with respect to the ’278 patent; however the U.S. Court of Appeal upheld our appeal on damages, vacated the damages award of the Trial Court and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for a new trial on damages only.

The case is currently back with the Trial Court. On January 17, 2022, Omega filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery For Limited Purpose and to Permit a Supplement to the Damages Expert Report and we filed a response opposing Omega’s motion on February 9, 2022. A Pretrial Conference was held January 19, 2022. The Trial Court granted Omega’s motion on March 16, 2022 to reopen discovery for certain purposes and permitted the parties to supplement damages expert reports. A date for the third trial has not yet been set.

A mediation was held on April 12, 2022 to work towards a settlement. No settlement was reached during the mediation. In connection with this claim, we have accrued our best estimate of the probable liability of $3.0 million as a litigation reserve related to this matter based on reasonable royalty rates for similar technologies. It is reasonably possible that the court in a new trial may award Omega damages and pre-judgment interest in excess of the amounts we have accrued. Additionally, it is possible that the case may be settled and that the amount required to be paid by us in such settlement may be different from the litigation reserve we have recorded.

Philips patent 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. All three cases pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware are stayed until a final determination in the ITC. On April 1, 2022, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) at the ITC issued a Final Initial Determination on the question of violation of section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). The administrative law judge determined that a violation of section 337 has not occurred with respect to any of the asserted patents. On April 13, 2022, Philips filed a Petition for Commission Review of the ALJ’s Initial Determination, and Respondents responded to Philips’ Petition on April 21, 2022. The target date for issuance of a Final Decision is August 1, 2022.

We believe that we have strong non-infringement and invalidity defenses should the Delaware district court cases proceed. Also, we believe we have strong indemnification claims against our communication module suppliers, and are entitled to have our defense costs and any losses resulting from these proceedings paid by those suppliers, who are co-defendants in these proceedings. Currently, it is not feasible to predict with certainty the outcome of all proceedings, and no specific amount of damages has been identified. 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.

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.