Unrecorded Unconditional Purchase Obligation, to be Paid, after Year Five

[Table of Contents](#i43c0112b46aa4245817525f4da15c00d_7)NOTE 13 – Commitments and ContingenciesCommitments The Company’s purchase commitments primarily include the Company’s obligations to purchase wafers and substrates from third parties and future payments related to certain software and technology licenses and IP licenses. Purchase commitments include obligations made under noncancellable purchase orders and contractual obligations requiring minimum purchases or for which cancellation would lead to significant penalties. Total future unconditional purchase commitments as of March 26, 2022 were as follows:

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Fiscal Year | (In millions) |
| Remainder of 2022 | $ | 6,463  |  |
| 2023 | 1,868  |  |
| 2024 | 762  |  |
| 2025 | 332  |  |
| 2026 | 179  |  |
| 2027 and thereafter | 383  |  |
| Total unconditional purchase commitments | $ | 9,987  |  |

Included above are $479 million of purchase commitments related to the acquisition of Xilinx.ContingenciesQuarterhill Inc. Litigation On July 2, 2018, three entities named Aquila Innovations, Inc. (Aquila), Collabo Innovations, Inc. (Collabo), and Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (Polaris), filed separate patent infringement complaints against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Aquila alleges that the Company infringes two patents (6,239,614 and 6,895,519) relating to power management; Collabo alleges that the Company infringes one patent (7,930,575) related to power management; and Polaris alleges that the Company infringes two patents (6,728,144 and 8,117,526) relating to control or use of dynamic random-access memory, or DRAM. Each of the three complaints seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, fees, expenses, and costs against the Company; Aquila and Collabo also seek enhanced damages. Aquila, Collabo, and Polaris each appear to be related to a patent assertion entity named Quarterhill Inc. (formerly WiLAN Inc.). On May 14, 2020, at the request of Polaris, the Court dismissed all claims related to one of the two patents in suite in the Polaris case. On June 10, 2020, the Court granted AMD’s motions to stay the Polaris and Aquila cases pending the completion of inter partes review (IPR) of each of the patents-in-suit in those cases by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On February 22, 2021, February 26, 2021, and March 10, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued final written decisions in IPR invalidating all asserted claims of the remaining Polaris and Aquila patents. On May 10, 2021, Aquila filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the IPR decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,895,519. On April 12, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision. On April 30, 2021, Polaris filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the IPR decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,117,526. On May 14, 2021, AMD filed a notice of cross-appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the IPR decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,117,526. Appellate briefing is completed.On February 8, 2022, Polaris filed a lawsuit against Xilinx, Inc. alleging infringement of four patents related to memory chips and memory interfaces. On February 22, 2022, the Company was served with the complaint. On April 14, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.Monterey Research LitigationOn November 15, 2019, Monterey Research, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case. No. 1:19-cv-02149). Monterey Research alleges that the Company infringes six U.S. patents: 6,534,805 (related to SRAM cell design); 6,629,226 (related to read interface protocols); 6,651,134 (related to memory devices); 6,765,407 (related to programmable digital circuits); 6,961,807 (related to integrated circuits and associated memory systems); and 8,373,455 (related to output buffer circuits). On May 2, 2022, the case was dismissed with prejudice as a result of the parties’ settlement.23
