Contingencies |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 25, 2021 | |
| Loss Contingency [Abstract] | |
| Contingencies | Contingencies Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits (Wessels, Hamilton and Ha)
On March 20, 2014, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Wessels v. Read, et al., Case No. 1:14 cv-262486 (Wessels) was filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its directors and officers in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the Company and certain individual directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual directors and officers regarding its 32 nm technology and “Llano” product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for the Company’s common stock during the period. On April 27, 2015, a similar purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Christopher Hamilton and David Hamilton v. Barnes, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01890 (Hamilton) was filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On September 29, 2015, a similar purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Jake Ha v Caldwell, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04485 (Ha) was filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit also seeks a court order voiding the stockholder vote on the Company’s 2015 proxy. The case was transferred to the judge handling the Hamilton Lawsuit and is now Case No. 4:15-cv-04485.
The Wessels, Hamilton and Ha shareholder derivative lawsuits were stayed pending resolution of a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the Hatamian Lawsuit). The Hatamian Lawsuit asserted claims against the Company and certain of its officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and SEC Rule 10b-5 concerning certain statements regarding its 32 nm technology and “Llano” products. On October 9, 2017, the parties signed a definitive settlement agreement resolving the Hatamian Lawsuit and submitted it to the Court for approval. Under the terms of this agreement, the settlement was funded entirely by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers and the defendants continued to deny any liability or wrongdoing. On March 2, 2018, the court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment in the Hatamian Lawsuit.
On July 23, 2018, the Santa Clara Superior Court sustained the Company’s demurrer in the Wessels case, dismissing all claims in that matter with prejudice. The California Court of Appeal affirmed this decision on August 27, 2020 and issued its remittitur on September 9, 2020, which foreclosed further appeals in the state court litigation. On October 4, 2018, the district court issued an order dismissing the Hamilton and Ha amended complaints and both plaintiffs appealed. On March 16, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Ha complaint and the time to seek further appeals has since expired. On the same day, the Ninth Circuit also reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal of the Hamilton complaint for further consideration of defendants’ motion to dismiss. Following supplemental briefing, the district court entered an order on April 5, 2021 dismissing with prejudice all claims in the Hamilton action as precluded by the decision in the Wessels case.
Quarterhill 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 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 issued final written decisions in inter partes reviews 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 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 underway.
Monterey Research Litigation
On 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). Monterey Research seeks unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, costs, and injunctive relief against the Company. On January 22, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss part of Monterey Research’s complaint. On February 5, 2020, Monterey Research filed an amended complaint. On February 19, 2020, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss part of Monterey Research’s complaint. On October 13, 2020, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company’s renewed motion to dismiss. On October 27, 2020, the Company filed its answer to Monterey’s complaint and also filed counterclaims based on Monterey’s breach of the parties’ pre-suit non-disclosure agreement. On December 1, 2020, Monterey filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims. On January 5, 2021, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay the litigation pending inter partes review of the patents-in-suit by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. In November and December 2021 and January 2022, the USPTO issued five final written decisions in the inter partes reviews cancelling all challenged claims of five patents in suit.
On August 12, 2021, Monterey filed two patent infringement complaints in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case. No. 6:21-cv-00839 and Case. No. 6:21-cv-00840). In the first complaint, Monterey alleges that the Company infringes two patents (8,694,776 and 9,767,303) related to memory controllers, three patents (8,572,297, 7,609,799, and 7,899,145) related to circuit designs, and one patent (6,979,640) related to semiconductor processing. In the second complaint, Monterey alleges that the Company infringes one patent (6,680,516) related to semiconductor processing. In both complaints, Monterey Research seeks unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, costs, and injunctive relief against the Company. On October 22, 2021, Monterey Research filed an amended complaint in Case. No. 6:21-cv-00840 withdrawing its infringement claims for the ’776 and ’303 patents, and asserting an additional infringement claim for a patent related to circuit design (8,103,497).On November 15, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 8, 2021, Monterey filed its response. On December 20, 2021, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case to Austin division.
City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System Litigation
On September 29, 2020, the City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System, an AMD shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the “Complaint”) against AMD and the members of its Board of Directors (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. Caldwell, et al., No. 5:20-cv-6794 (N.D. Cal.). The Complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and were unjustly enriched by misrepresenting the Company’s commitment to diversity, particularly with respect to the composition of the membership of AMD’s Board of Directors and senior leadership team. On December 18, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on March 12, 2021, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On July 1, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On August 2, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the court approved the joint stipulation on August 3, 2021.
Xilinx Acquisition Litigation
On October 26, 2020, the Company, its wholly-owned subsidiary, Thrones Merger Sub, Inc., and Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) entered a definitive agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) in which the Company will acquire Xilinx by merging Thrones Merger Sub, Inc. with and into Xilinx, with Xilinx continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Proposed Transaction”). See Note 13 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. On December 3, 2020, the Company and Xilinx filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (together with the joint proxy statement and prospectus contained therein, the “Registration Statement”) describing the Proposed Transaction and other related matters. On December 11, 2020, a Xilinx shareholder filed a putative class action in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, regarding the Proposed Transaction. Nunez v. Xilinx, Case No. 656971/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (“Nunez”). The lawsuit alleges that the Board of Directors of Xilinx breached their fiduciary duties to Xilinx shareholders in connection with the Proposed Transaction by allegedly failing to obtain fair, adequate and maximum consideration for Xilinx shareholders in connection with the Proposed Transaction and by not disclosing certain material information about the Proposed Transaction in the Registration Statement. The lawsuit asserts a single claim against the Company, alleging that it aided and abetted the Xilinx directors’ breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin or rescind any transaction with Xilinx as well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
On December 15, 2020, a Xilinx shareholder filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding the Proposed Transaction. Shumacher v. Xilinx, Case No. 1:20-cv-10595 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Shumacher”). The lawsuit alleges that Xilinx and its Board of Directors disseminated a false and misleading Registration Statement that omitted material information regarding the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The lawsuit also asserts a single claim against the Company, alleging that it acted as a controlling person of Xilinx within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of its supervisory control over the composition of the Registration Statement. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin or rescind any transaction with Xilinx as well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
On December 23, 2020, a shareholder of the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York regarding the Proposed Transaction. Vazirani v. Advanced Micro Devices, Case No. 1:20-cv-10894 (S.D.N.Y) (“Vazirani”). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and its Board of Directors disseminated a false and misleading Registration Statement that omitted material information regarding the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin or rescind any transaction with Xilinx as well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
On March 22, 2021, the Nunez complaint was voluntarily dismissed, and on March 25, 2021, the Vazirani complaint was voluntarily dismissed. The Shumacher complaint was voluntarily dismissed on April 9, 2021.
Future Link Systems Litigation
On December 21, 2020, Future Link Systems, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Future Link Systems alleges that the Company infringes three U.S. patents: 7,983,888 (related to simulated PCI express circuitry); 6,363,466 (related to out of order data transactions); and 6,622,108 (related to interconnect testing). Future Link Systems seeks unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, costs, and injunctive relief against the Company. On March 22, 2021, the Company filed its answer to Future Link Systems’ complaint and also filed counterclaims based on Future Link Systems’ breach of the parties’ pre-suit non-disclosure agreement. On April 12, 2021, Future Link Systems filed its answer to the Company’s counterclaims. On June 3, 2021, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case to Austin, Texas. On October 14, 2021, the Court issued an order construing certain terms in the asserted patents. On November 22, 2021, the case was reassigned to the Austin division. On January 5, 2022, the Company filed a motion to strike Future Link System’s infringement contentions, and Future Link Systems filed a response on January 19, 2022. On January 14, 2022, the USPTO instituted an IPR trial for one of the three patents in suit.
On December 21, 2021, Future Link Systems LLC filed a lawsuit alleging infringement of two patents related to power management. The Company was served with the complaint on December 28, 2021. On December 28, 2021, Future Link Systems LLC filed a complaint at the United States International Trade Commission alleging infringement of the same two power management patents. Several of the Company’s customers were also named as respondents. On January 26, 2022, the USITC announced that it would institute the investigation.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability of the above listed legal proceedings, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Environmental Matters
The Company is named as a responsible party on Superfund clean-up orders for three sites in Sunnyvale, California that are on the National Priorities List. Since 1981, the Company has discovered hazardous material releases to the groundwater from former underground tanks and proceeded to investigate and conduct remediation at these three sites. The chemicals released into the groundwater were commonly used in the semiconductor industry in the United States in the wafer fabrication process prior to 1979.
In 1991, the Company received Final Site Clean-up Requirements Orders from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board relating to the three sites. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with other responsible parties on two of the orders. During the term of such agreements, other parties have agreed to assume most of the foreseeable costs as well as the primary role in conducting remediation activities under the orders. The Company remains responsible for additional costs beyond the scope of the agreements as well as all remaining costs in the event that the other parties do not fulfill their obligations under the settlement agreements.
To address anticipated future remediation costs under the orders, the Company has computed and recorded an estimated environmental liability of approximately $3.8 million and has not recorded any potential insurance recoveries in determining the estimated costs of the cleanup. The progress of future remediation efforts cannot be predicted with certainty and these costs may change. The Company believes that any amount in addition to what has already been accrued would not be material.
Other Legal Matters The Company is a defendant or plaintiff in various actions that arose in the normal course of business. With respect to these matters, based on the management’s current knowledge, the Company believes that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
|