Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Oct. 01, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

NOTE R– COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases—The Company is a party to leases arising in the normal course of business that expire on or before 2019. Total obligations under these leases are approximately $5.5 million for 2011.

Purchase Commitments—The Company enters into purchase commitments for products and services in the ordinary course of business. These purchases generally cover production requirements for 60 to 90 days. As of October 1, 2011, the Company does not have any long-term commitments for purchases.

Patent Matters — On July 11, 2008, Metris USA, Inc. and its affiliates, Metris N.V., Metris IPR N.V. and 3-D Scanners Ltd., filed a complaint against the Company for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Massachusetts Court") concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,611,617 and 7,313,264 (hereinafter, the "patents-in-suit"). Following an acquisition by Nikon Corporation in late 2009, Metris USA, Inc. subsequently changed its name to Nikon Metrology, Inc., Metris N.V. changed its name to Nikon Metrology NV, and Metris IPR N.V. was dissolved and merged into Nikon Metrology NV. We refer to each of Nikon Metrology, Inc., Nikon Metrology NV, and 3-D Scanners Ltd. as "Plaintiffs" or "Nikon".

The Company responded to the complaint with counterclaims alleging that the patents-in-suit, which are generally directed to laser scanning devices, are invalid, non-infringed, and unenforceable due to fraud during prosecution of the patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On August 31, 2009, the Massachusetts Court granted the Company's motion to add counterclaims and defenses for violation of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws based on the alleged knowing assertion of invalid and fraudulent patents. The Company also filed an amended counterclaim to add the Plaintiff's parent company, Nikon Corporation, as a counterclaim defendant.

On January 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during patent prosecution. Evidentiary hearings on the issue of inequitable conduct commenced on July 19, 2010, and concluded on October 22, 2010. Post-trial briefing concluded on December 10, 2010. On July 14, 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of both patents-in-suit. In addition, during the first quarter of 2010, Nikon served a supplemental interrogatory answer revising its alleged date of conception of the patents-in-suit to an earlier date. The Company filed a motion to strike the supplemental interrogatory answer. On August 31, 2010, Nikon filed a motion for summary judgment against the Company's counterclaims for antitrust violations and unfair trade practices. The Company filed its opposition on October 12, 2010.

A mediation hearing held on February 18, 2011 to settle the matter was unsuccessful. On February 22, 2011, the Court denied Nikon's motion for summary judgment on the Company's counterclaims for antitrust violations and unfair trade practices without prejudice. On February 24, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement without prejudice. On May 4, 2011, the Massachusetts Court found that, with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,611,617, Nikon's patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

On May 26, 2011, the Company renewed its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On June 28, 2011, the Court heard oral arguments on the Company's motion, as well as on Nikon's renewed motion for summary judgment on the Company's counterclaims for anti-trust violations and unfair trade practices. The Court also heard oral arguments regarding an intervening change in the law of inequitable conduct and whether it changes the Court's May 4, 2011 finding that Nikon's U.S. Patent No. 6,611,617 is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

On September 19, 2011, as a result of these changes in the law of inequitable conduct, the Massachusetts Court vacated its May 4, 2011 decision that U.S. Patent No. 6,611,617 is unenforceable. However, in the same order, the Massachusetts Court ruled that the Company did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,611,617. The Court also granted Nikon's motion for summary judgment on the Company's counterclaims for anti-trust violations and unfair trade practices. The Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,313,264.

The Company does not anticipate this lawsuit will have a material impact on the Company; however, the outcome is difficult to predict, and an adverse determination could have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

Other than the litigation mentioned above, the Company is not involved in any other legal proceedings other than routine litigation arising in the normal course of business, none of which the Company believes will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.