Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

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 infringed 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 asserted that the Company's alleged infringement was willful and sought 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 alleged 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 related 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 closed and summary judgment and several ancillary motions were decided by order dated February 24, 2012 (the "Summary Judgment Order"). The Summary Judgment Order denied Avago's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety and granted TriQuint's motion in part by dismissing four of Avago's patent claims, the copyright, tort and unfair competition claims and certain of Avago's trade secret claims. The Court denied Avago's motion for spoliation sanctions without prejudice. The remaining case, including TriQuint's patent and antitrust claims against Avago and Avago's remaining patent and trade secret claims against TriQuint was scheduled to proceed to trial. On May 15th, 2012, TriQuint and Avago entered into a confidential agreement to end all outstanding legal disputes related to the pending litigation between the Company and Avago. Pursuant to the confidential agreement, the Company and Avago entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.

Lease Commitments

The Company leases certain equipment, office and manufacturing space under operating leases. Lease terms range from approximately one to ten 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, 2012 were as follows:



2013	$	3,240
2014	2,250
2015	1,729
2016	1,532
2017	1,064
Thereafter	3,931
	$	13,746

Rent expense under cancelable and non-cancelable operating leases for 2012, 2011 and 2010 was as follows:



	Year ended December 31,
	2012		2011		2010
Building rent expense	$	4,088	$	3,556	$	3,102