Litigation Settlement, Amount Awarded to Other Party

[Table of Contents](#i02bedaa3ef9a402693e3fc0f0d740b61_7)ContingenciesFrom time to time, we are involved in litigation that we believe is of the type common to companies engaged in our lines of business, including commercial disputes, employment issues, tax disputes and disputes involving claims by third parties that our activities infringe their patent, copyright, trademark or other IP rights, as well as regulatory investigations or inquiries. Legal proceedings and regulatory investigations or inquiries are often complex, may require the expenditure of significant funds and other resources, and the outcome of such proceedings is inherently uncertain, with material adverse outcomes possible. IP property claims generally involve the demand by a third-party that we cease the manufacture, use or sale of the allegedly infringing products, processes or technologies and/or pay substantial damages or royalties for past, present and future use of the allegedly infringing IP. Claims that our products or processes infringe or misappropriate any third-party IP rights (including claims arising through our contractual indemnification of our customers) often involve highly complex, technical issues, the outcome of which is inherently uncertain. Moreover, from time to time, we pursue litigation to assert our IP rights. Regardless of the merit or resolution of any such litigation, complex IP litigation is generally costly and diverts the efforts and attention of our management and technical personnel.Lawsuits Relating to California Institute of TechnologyCalifornia Institute of Technology (“Caltech“) filed a complaint against Broadcom and Apple Inc. on May 26, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “U.S. Central District Court”), and an amended complaint adding Cypress Semiconductor Corporation as a defendant on August 15, 2016. The amended complaint alleged that chips that support certain error correction codes as specified in IEEE Standards 802.11n and 802.11ac willfully infringed four patents related to error correction coding: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833 (“’833 patent”). Prior to trial, Caltech dismissed its claims against Cypress and withdrew its infringement allegations as to ‘833 patent. The complaint sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The trial was held in January 2020, and on January 29, 2020, the jury issued its verdict finding infringement and awarding Caltech past damages of $270.2 million from Broadcom and $837.8 million from Apple, for which Apple is seeking indemnification from Broadcom. On August 3, 2020, the U.S. Central District Court issued its judgment, awarding Caltech past damages in the amounts awarded by the jury, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest. Additionally, the U.S. Central District Court awarded Caltech an unspecified amount of ongoing royalties to be determined after the anticipated appeals process is resolved. Neither the jury nor the U.S. Central District Court found willful infringement, which if it had, could have resulted in enhanced damages up to three times the amount awarded. Broadcom and Apple appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit Court”) and oral arguments were heard on September 1, 2021. The Federal Circuit Court issued its decision on February 4, 2022. While the Federal Circuit Court affirmed infringement of two patents, both of which expired in August 2020, it did not address all issues and ordered a new trial on damages and on the infringement of the 7,916,781 patent, which also expired in August 2020. The Federal Circuit Court denied the petition for rehearing filed by Broadcom and Apple, and remanded the case to the U.S. Central District Court.We believe that the evidence and the law do not support the U.S. Central District Court’s findings of infringement. We cannot reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome as the Federal Circuit Court vacated the above damages, and a number of factors (including a retrial at the lower court and further appeals) could significantly change the assessment of damages. As a result, we have not recorded a reserve with respect to this litigation, in accordance with the applicable accounting standards.Other MattersIn addition to the matters discussed above, we are currently engaged in a number of legal actions in the ordinary course of our business.Contingency AssessmentWe do not believe, based on currently available facts and circumstances, that the final outcome of any pending legal proceedings or ongoing regulatory investigations, taken individually or as a whole, will have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements. However, lawsuits may involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and other resources to defend. The results of litigation or regulatory investigations are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible. From time to time, we may enter into confidential discussions regarding the potential settlement of such lawsuits. Any settlement of pending litigation could require us to incur substantial costs and other ongoing expenses, such as future royalty payments in the case of an IP dispute.During the periods presented, no material amounts have been accrued or disclosed in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to loss contingencies associated with any other legal proceedings or regulatory investigations, as potential losses for such matters are not considered probable and ranges of losses are not reasonably estimable. These matters are subject to many uncertainties and the ultimate outcomes are not predictable. There can be no assurances that the actual amounts required to satisfy any liabilities arising from the matters described above will not have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements.22
