XML 32 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.10.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
6 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Leases
Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of June 29, 2018 are as follows (in thousands):
Years ending December 31,
 
2018 (remaining six months)
$
6,505

2019
11,420

2020
8,379

2021
2,907

2022
2,431

Thereafter
10,758

Total
$
42,400


Warranties
The Company accrues for estimated warranty costs at the time of product shipment. Management periodically reviews the estimated fair value of its warranty liability and records adjustments based on the terms of warranties provided to customers, historical and anticipated warranty claims experience, and estimates of the timing and cost of warranty claims. Activity for the Company’s warranty accrual, which is included in “Accrued and other current liabilities”, is summarized below (in thousands):
 
Three months ended
Six months ended
 
June 29,
2018
 
June 30,
2017
June 29,
2018
 
June 30,
2017
Balance at beginning of period
$
4,522

 
$
4,585

$
4,381

 
$
4,862

   Accrual for current period warranties
1,714

 
1,277

3,450

 
2,495

   Warranty costs incurred
(1,589
)
 
(1,720
)
(3,184
)
 
(3,215
)
Balance at end of period
$
4,647

 
$
4,142

$
4,647

 
$
4,142


Purchase Obligations
The Company relies on a limited number of contract manufacturers and suppliers to provide manufacturing services for a substantial majority of its products. Obligations to purchase inventory and other commitments are generally expected to be fulfilled within one year. The Company had approximately $38.7 million of non-cancelable commitments to purchase inventories and other commitments as of June 29, 2018.
Standby Letters of Credit and Guarantees
As of June 29, 2018, the Company has outstanding bank guarantees and standby letters of credit in aggregate of $3.1 million, consisting primarily of $1.3 million for a building lease for the TVN French Subsidiary and $0.8 million related to contract manufacturing, with the remainder mainly related to performance bonds issued to customers.
During 2017, one of the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a $2.0 million credit facility with a foreign bank for the purpose of issuing performance guarantees. The credit facility is secured by a $2.2 million guarantee issued by the Company. There were no amounts outstanding under this credit facility as of June 29, 2018.

Indemnification

Harmonic is obligated to indemnify its officers and the members of its Board of Directors (the “Board”) pursuant to its bylaws and contractual indemnity agreements. Harmonic also indemnifies some of its suppliers and most of its customers for specified intellectual property matters pursuant to certain contractual arrangements, subject to certain limitations. The scope of these indemnities varies, but, in some instances, includes indemnification for damages and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees). There have been no amounts accrued in respect of these indemnification provisions through June 29, 2018.

Legal proceedings
In October 2011, Avid Technology, Inc. (“Avid”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that our MediaGrid product infringes two patents held by Avid. A jury trial on this complaint commenced on January 23, 2014 and, on February 4, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of us, rejecting Avid’s infringement allegations in their entirety. In January 2015, Avid filed an appeal with respect to the jury’s verdict with the Federal Circuit. In January 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the verdict of noninfringement and remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial on infringement.  

In June 2012, Avid served a subsequent complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that our Spectrum product infringes one patent held by Avid. The complaint sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In September 2013, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) authorized an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1-16 of the patent asserted in this second complaint. In July 2014, the PTAB issued a decision finding claims 1-10 invalid and claims 11-16 not invalid. We filed an appeal with respect to the PTAB’s decision on claims 11-16 in September 2014, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in April 2016.  

In July 2017, the court issued a scheduling order consolidating both cases and setting the trial date for November 6, 2017. 

On October 19, 2017, the parties agreed to settle the consolidated cases by entering into a settlement and patent portfolio cross-license agreement, and the cases were dismissed with prejudice. In connection with the agreement, the Company recorded a $6.0 million litigation settlement expense in “Selling, general and administrative expenses” in the Company’s 2017 Consolidated Statement of Operations. Of the associated $6.0 million liability, $2.5 million was paid in October 2017 and the remaining $1.5 million and $2.0 million will be paid in the second quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of 2020, respectively. 

From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits as well as subject to various legal proceedings, claims, threats of litigation, and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third-party patents and other intellectual property rights, commercial, employment, and other matters. The Company assesses potential liabilities in connection with each lawsuit and threatened lawsuits and accrues an estimated loss for these loss contingencies if both of the following conditions are met: information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While certain matters to which the Company is a party specify the damages claimed, such claims may not represent reasonably probable losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated.