Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is from time to time involved in litigation, certain other claims and arbitration matters arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company accrues for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of the probability of a loss and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. These accruals are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the effects of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and technical experts and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility (within the meaning of ASC 450) that losses could exceed amounts already accrued, if any, and the additional loss or range of loss is able to be estimated, management discloses the additional loss or range of loss.

In some instances, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any potential loss or range of loss. The nature and progression of litigation can make it difficult to predict the impact a particular lawsuit will have on the Company. There are many reasons that the Company cannot make these assessments, including, among others, one or more of the following: the early stages of a proceeding; damages sought that are unspecified, unsupportable, unexplained or uncertain; discovery not having been started or incomplete; the complexity of the facts that are in dispute; the difficulty of assessing novel claims; the parties not having engaged in any meaningful settlement discussions; the possibility that other parties may share in any ultimate liability; and/or the often slow pace of litigation.

On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Avago Technologies Limited, Avago Technologies U.S., and Avago Technologies Wireless IP (collectively, “Avago”). The Company's complaint seeks a declaration that four of the Avago patents are invalid and that none of TriQuint products infringe upon them. The Company's complaint also alleges that three Avago products infringe upon certain of TriQuint's U.S. patents.

Avago filed an answer and counterclaims on September 17, 2009 denying the patent infringement allegations made by the Company in its complaint, and asserting that the Company's products infringed upon ten of Avago's U.S. patents. Avago's counterclaim asserts that the Company's alleged infringement is willful and seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages and injunctive relief. On October 16, 2009, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims denying Avago's patent infringement allegations and alleges that Avago engaged in anti competitive conduct in violation of U.S. antitrust laws through its acquisition of the bulk acoustic wave BAW business of Infineon Technologies, Inc. (“Infineon”) and a series of acquisitions of BAW-related patents from Infineon and other companies, and through other anticompetitive conduct in the market. On March 5, 2010, Avago filed an amended answer and counterclaims asserting violation of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act and, per the court's order, the Company simultaneously filed an amended complaint, answer and counter-claim. Avago's trade secret allegations relate to Infineon information included in Avago's acquisition of Infineon's BAW division and TriQuint's employment of two former Infineon employees. On April 5, 2010, the Company filed an answer to Avago's amended answer and counterclaims, in which the Company denied Avago's allegations regarding violation of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act. Following further motion practice, on August 4, 2010 the Company filed its First Amended complaint and on August 26, 2010, Avago filed its answer and counterclaims expanding its patent and trade secret claims to include copyright infringement. On September 16, 2010, TriQuint submitted its answer, in which the Company denied Avago's allegations. On December 14, 2010, the Court held a claim construction hearing and on January 12, 2011, the Court issued its claim construction ruling. Fact and expert discovery have closed and summary judgment motions by both parties have been filed. Oral argument on summary judgment motions occurred in January of 2012 and a trial date is set for the third quarter of 2012. At this time, the Company does not believe it is possible to estimate the outcome of the litigation or reasonably estimate a possible range of outcomes given the status of the proceeding, the complexities of the facts in dispute and the multiple claims involved. Accordingly, no accrual has been made and in addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any potential loss or range of loss.

On February 28, 2007, a purported derivative action (case no. C-07-0299) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, allegedly on behalf of TriQuint, against certain of TriQuint's officers and directors. The case was settled on September 28, 2009 and the Company paid the plaintiffs $2,950. The settlement was expensed during 2009.

Lease Commitments

The Company leases certain equipment, office and manufacturing space under operating leases. Lease terms range from approximately 1 to 10 years, expiring at various dates through 2020 with options to renew at varying terms. Commitments for minimum lease payments under non-cancelable leases as of December 31, 2011 were as follows:



2012	$	3,426
2013	2,746
2014	1,998
2015	1,647
2016	1,532
Thereafter	4,995
	$	16,344

Rent expense under cancelable and non-cancelable operating leases for 2011, 2010 and 2009 was as follows:



	Year ended December 31,
	2011		2010		2009
Building rent expense	$	3,556	$	3,102	$	3,056