Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 19: 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 Harmonic’s Media Grid product infringes two patents held by Avid. In June 2012, Avid served a subsequent complaint alleging that Harmonic’s Spectrum product infringes one patent held by Avid. The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages. On November 14, 2012, FastVDO served a lawsuit on Harmonic, alleging infringement of a patent allegedly essential to the H.264 standard and that Harmonic encoders, transcoders, software and servers that use H.264 infringe their patent. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the above matters. In April 2010, Arris Corporation filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Atlanta, alleging that the Company’s Streamliner 3000 product infringes four patents held by Arris. The complaint sought injunctive relief and damages. In connection with this matter, the Company recorded a $1.3 million liability in the fourth quarter of 2010, based on a tentative agreement of Arris and Harmonic with respect to the settlement of the action. In April 2011, this matter was settled on essentially the same terms as the tentative agreement and the action was dismissed. In March 2010, Interkey ELC Ltd, or Interkey, filed a lawsuit in Israel, alleging breach of contract against Harmonic and Scopus Video Networks Ltd. (now Harmonic Video Networks Ltd. or “HVN”), which was acquired by Harmonic in March 2009. The plaintiffs were seeking damages in the amount of 6,300,000 ILS (approximately $1.7 million). On June 26, 2012, the action was dismissed by the Israeli Central District Court. An unfavorable outcome on the matters referenced above or any other litigation matter could require that Harmonic pay substantial damages, or, in connection with any intellectual property infringement claims, could require that the Company pay ongoing royalty payments or could prevent the Company from selling certain of its products. As a result, a settlement of, or an unfavorable outcome on, any of the matters referenced above or other litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on Harmonic’s business, operating results, financial position and cash flows. Harmonic’s industry is characterized by the existence of a large number of patents and frequent claims and related litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. From time to time, third parties have asserted, and may in the future assert, exclusive patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights against Harmonic or its customers. Such assertions arise in the normal course of the Company’s operations. The resolution of any such assertions and claims cannot be predicted with certainty.

NOTE 19: 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 Harmonic’s Media Grid product infringes two patents held by Avid. In June 2012, Avid served a subsequent complaint alleging that Harmonic’s Spectrum product infringes one patent held by Avid. The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages.

On November 14, 2012, FastVDO served a lawsuit on Harmonic, alleging infringement of a patent allegedly essential to the H.264 standard and that Harmonic encoders, transcoders, software and servers that use H.264 infringe their patent.

At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the above matters.

In April 2010, Arris Corporation filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Atlanta, alleging that the Company’s Streamliner 3000 product infringes four patents held by Arris. The complaint sought injunctive relief and damages. In connection with this matter, the Company recorded a $1.3 million liability in the fourth quarter of 2010, based on a tentative agreement of Arris and Harmonic with respect to the settlement of the action. In April 2011, this matter was settled on essentially the same terms as the tentative agreement and the action was dismissed.

In March 2010, Interkey ELC Ltd, or Interkey, filed a lawsuit in Israel, alleging breach of contract against Harmonic and Scopus Video Networks Ltd. (now Harmonic Video Networks Ltd. or “HVN”), which was acquired by Harmonic in March 2009. The plaintiffs were seeking damages in the amount of 6,300,000 ILS (approximately $1.7 million). On June 26, 2012, the action was dismissed by the Israeli Central District Court.

An unfavorable outcome on the matters referenced above or any other litigation matter could require that Harmonic pay substantial damages, or, in connection with any intellectual property infringement claims, could require that the Company pay ongoing royalty payments or could prevent the Company from selling certain of its products. As a result, a settlement of, or an unfavorable outcome on, any of the matters referenced above or other litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on Harmonic’s business, operating results, financial position and cash flows.

Harmonic’s industry is characterized by the existence of a large number of patents and frequent claims and related litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. From time to time, third parties have asserted, and may in the future assert, exclusive patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights against Harmonic or its customers. Such assertions arise in the normal course of the Company’s operations. The resolution of any such assertions and claims cannot be predicted with certainty.