Litigation Settlements and Contigencies

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Litigation Settlements and Contingencies [Abstract]

Litigation Settlements and Contingencies

Note 18. Litigation Settlements and Contingencies

Patent Litigation

On December 28, 2007, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by 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 pertained to eleven different patents and PACT sought injunctive relief, damages including enhanced damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. Nine of the eleven patents were dismissed from the case prior to trial. Trial commenced in the matter on May 14, 2012 and on May 18, 2012 the jury concluded its deliberations. The jury found two patents held by PACT were valid and were willfully infringed by the Company. The jury awarded PACT the sum of $15.4 million as damages and royalties on past Xilinx sales. The presiding judge will decide the component for willful infringement at a future date which has not yet been determined, and such enhanced damages, including the willfulness component, could be as much as treble the $15.4 million jury verdict. Subsequent to the trial, plaintiff notified the Company that in addition to enhanced damages, it intends to seek attorneys’ fees, an ongoing royalty for future sales of infringing products, prejudgment interest, and certain other relief. The Company intends to appeal the verdict and is evaluating its other options, including motions for judgment as a matter of law.

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 pertained to a single patent and Intellitech sought declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. 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 pertained to seven patents and a single trademark and the Company sought declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The parties reached a confidential agreement to settle both actions and the lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice on October 18, 2011. The amount of the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

On February 14, 2011, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement and invalidity against Intellectual Ventures Management LLC and related entities (Intellectual Ventures) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 30, 2011, the Company amended its complaint in this case to eliminate certain defendants and patents from the action (Xilinx, Inc. v Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case No CV11-0671). The lawsuit pertains to five 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 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. Intellectual Ventures seeks unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees and the proceedings are in their early stages. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss in this matter at this time.

On October 17, 2011, Xilinx filed a complaint for patent non-infringement and invalidity and violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Intellectual Ventures and related entities as well as additional defendants (Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC. Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC, Detelle Relay KG, LLC, Roldan Block NY LLC, Latrosse Technologies LLC, TR Technologies Foundation LLC, Taichi Holdings, LLC, Noregin Assets N.V., LLC and Intellectual Venture Funding LLC Case No CV-04407). By order dated January 25, 2012, the Court granted with leave to amend defendants’ motion to dismiss Xilinx’s claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Company has amended its complaint to remove the claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The remainder of the lawsuit pertains to seven patents and seeks judgments of non-infringement by Xilinx and judgments that he patents are invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.

On or about September 2, 2011, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by HSM/TPL against the Company and seventeen other defendants in the U.S. District of Delaware (HSM Portfolio LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Fujitsu Limited, et al., Case No. CV11-770). The lawsuit pertains to four patents, two of which Xilinx was alleged to infringe. HSM/TPL sought unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. The parties reached a confidential agreement to settle the action and all claims against Xilinx were dismissed with prejudice on December 30, 2011. The amount of the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

On or about September 15, 2011, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by SFS against the Company and eight other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Smart Foundry Solutions, LLC v. Analog Devices, et al., Case No. CV-01396). The lawsuit pertained to a single patent and SFS sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. On February 13, 2012, SFS voluntarily dismissed its complaint against the Company, without prejudice.

On March 23, 2012, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by APT against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 2;12-CV-158). The lawsuit pertains to three patents and APT seeks royalties, injunctive relief and unspecified damages and the proceedings are in their early stages. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss in this matter 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.

From time to time, the Company is involved in various disputes and litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These include disputes and lawsuits related to intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, contract law, tax, regulatory, distribution arrangements, employee relations and other matters. Periodically, the Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and a range of possible losses can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. Legal proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. Because of such uncertainties, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, the company continues to reassess the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise estimates.