Commitments And Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 30, 2013

Commitments And Contingencies

NOTE Q – 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 $6.2 million for 2013.

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 March 30, 2013, 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 July 14, 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of both patents-in-suit. On August 31, 2010, Nikon filed a motion for summary judgment against the Company’s counterclaims for antitrust violations and unfair trade practices.

On September 19, 2011, 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 was to reduce or eliminate the Company’s exposure with respect to claims associated with U.S. Patent No. 6,611,617, while the patent dispute with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,313,264 continued.

On August 10, 2012, following a two-week jury trial on the remaining claims related to U.S. Patent No. 7,313,264, the jury determined the asserted patent claims were invalid, and on August 13, 2012, the Massachusetts Court entered judgment for the Company. The Massachusetts Court sustained this verdict on January 23, 2013, denying all post-trial motions except the Company’s motion for attorneys’ fees. On February 21, 2013, the Court stayed the Company’s motion for attorneys’ fees pending resolution of any appeals to the U.S. Federal Circuit.

On March 20, 2013, the Massachusetts Court entered Final Judgment in the Company’s favor, awarding the Company its costs. On April 10, 2013, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Federal Circuit with respect to the Massachusetts Court’s failure to address the inequitable conduct by the inventor and related patent misuse and anti-trust issues. The Company believes it is entitled to relief for all of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the litigation, although the amount and eventual recovery are uncertain at this time.

Other than the litigation mentioned above, the Company is not involved in any 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.