Litigation Settlements and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Apr. 02, 2011

Litigation Settlements and Contingencies [Abstract]

Litigation Settlements and Contingencies

Note 18. Litigation Settlements and Contingencies

Internal Revenue Service

The IRS audited and issued proposed adjustments to the Company’s tax returns for fiscal 1996 through 2001. The Company filed petitions with the Tax Court in response to assertions by the IRS relating to fiscal 1996 through 2000. All issues have been settled with the IRS as described below.

On August 30, 2005, the Tax Court issued its opinion concerning whether the value of stock options must be included in the cost sharing agreement with Xilinx Ireland. The Tax Court agreed with the Company that no amount for stock options was to be included in the cost sharing agreement, and entered its decision on May 31, 2006. On August 25, 2006, the IRS appealed the decision to the Appeals Court. On May 27, 2009, the Company received a 2-1 adverse judicial ruling from the Appeals Court reversing the Tax Court decision; this adverse ruling was later withdrawn on January 13, 2010 after oral arguments. On March 22, 2010, the Appeals Court affirmed the August 30, 2005 Tax Court decision in Xilinx’s favor. On June 21, 2010, the time for the IRS to appeal the March 22, 2010 decision to the United States Supreme Court lapsed. As a result, all issues concerning this matter are closed.

In a separate matter, on December 8, 2008, the IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency reflecting proposed audit adjustments for fiscal 2005. The Company began negotiations with the IRS Appeals Division in the third quarter of fiscal 2010, and settled the remaining proposed adjustment in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010 with no net change in tax liability. On September 20, 2010, pursuant to stipulations filed by the Company and the IRS, the Tax Court entered its final order closing all remaining fiscal 2005 issues. The Company received a small refund and, accordingly, all matters with the IRS relating to fiscal 2005 are resolved.

Patent Litigation

On December 28, 2007, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by PACT XPP Technologies, AG (PACT) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (PACT XPP Technologies, AG. v. Xilinx, Inc. and Avnet, Inc. Case No. 2:07-CV-563). The lawsuit pertains to eleven different patents and PACT seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. Neither the likelihood, nor the amount of any potential exposure to the Company is estimable at this time.

On July 30, 2010, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Intellitech against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Intellitech Corporation v. Altera Corporation, Xilinx, Inc. and Lattice Semiconductor Corporation Case No. 1:10-CV-00645-UNA). The lawsuit pertains to a single patent and Intellitech seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. Neither the likelihood, nor the amount of any potential exposure to the Company is estimable at this time. On February 15, 2011, the Company filed a lawsuit against Intellitech in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellitech Corporation, Case No. CV11-0699). The lawsuit pertains to seven patents and a single trademark and the Company seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

On December 6, 2010, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Bala Delay Line, Inc. (Bala Delay) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division (Bala Delay Line, Inc V. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 5:10-CV-211) (Bala Delay I), and on January 31, 2011, Bala Delay filed another patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division (Bala Delay Line, Inc v. Xilinx, Inc. and Bonser-Philhower Sales, Inc., Case No. 4:11-CV-46) (Balay Delay II). Both lawsuits pertained to the same single patent and in each case Bala Delay sought declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. The Company has successfully resolved both lawsuits. Bala Delay I was dismissed by the Court without prejudice on March 7, 2011 and Bala Delay II was dismissed by the Court without prejudice on March 18, 2011. In both cases, Bala Delay stipulated that it has no present intent to initiate litigation against any Xilinx product based on the patent, and subsequent litigation would be brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. No settlement was reached and no payment was made by the Company to Bala Delay in connection with either dismissal.

On February 14, 2011, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Intellectual Ventures Management LLC and related entities (Intellectual Ventures) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Investment Fund I LP, Invention Investment Fund II LLC, Intellectual Ventures LLC, Intellectual Ventures Management LLC, Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case No. CV11-0671). The lawsuit pertains to sixteen patents and seeks judgments of non-infringement by Xilinx and judgments that the patents are invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.

On February 15, 2011, Intellectual Ventures added the Company as a defendant in its complaint for patent infringement previously filed against Altera, Microsemi and Lattice Semiconductor Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Altera Corporation, Microsemi Corporation, Lattice Semiconductor Corporation and Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 10-CV-1065). The lawsuit pertains to five patents, four of which Xilinx is alleged to be infringing, and Intellectual Ventures seeks unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. Neither the likelihood, nor the amount of any potential exposure to the Company is estimable at this time.

Other Matters

Except as stated above, there are no pending legal proceedings of a material nature to which the Company is a party or of which any of its property is the subject.