13.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases – The Company leases buildings and equipment under operating leases through 2019. The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments required under non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms in excess of one year, in effect at December 31, 2011:


Years ending December 31,	Amount
2012	$	6,254
2013		3,857
2014		2,626
2015		1,673
2016		1,552
Thereafter		2,345

Total future minimum lease payments	$	18,307

Rent expense for 2011, 2010 and 2009 was approximately $5,176, $4,044 and $4,680, respectively.

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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts Court also heard oral arguments regarding an intervening change in the law of inequitable conduct and whether it changes the Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts Court also granted Nikon's motion for summary judgment on the Company's counterclaims for anti-trust violations and unfair trade practices. The Massachusetts Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,313,264. The effect of the ruling is to reduce or eliminate the Company's exposure with respect to claims associated with US. Patent No. 6,611,617, while the patent dispute with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,313,264 remains ongoing. The Company believes it does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,313,264 and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, and the Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against these claims.

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.