Item 1. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Dispute with Silicon Motion
As previously disclosed, on July 26, 2023, MaxLinear terminated the Merger Agreement on multiple grounds. On August 16, 2023, Silicon Motion delivered to MaxLinear a notice, which Silicon Motion publicly disclosed, that it was purporting to terminate the Merger Agreement and that Silicon Motion would be commencing an arbitration before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre to seek damages from MaxLinear arising from MaxLinear’s alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement. Silicon Motion’s position is that MaxLinear’s Willful and Material Breaches (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement) of the Merger Agreement prevented the Merger from being completed by August 7, 2023, and that MaxLinear is consequently liable for substantial monetary damages in excess of the termination fee as provided in the Merger Agreement.
On October 5, 2023, Silicon Motion filed a Notice of Arbitration with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre alleging that MaxLinear breached the Merger Agreement. Silicon Motion seeks payment of the termination fee, additional damages, fees, and costs. The arbitration will be confidential.
MaxLinear believes that it properly terminated the Merger Agreement. MaxLinear remains confident in its decision and will vigorously defend its right to terminate the Silicon Motion transaction without penalty.
Class Action Complaint
On August 31, 2023, a Silicon Motion stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned Water Island Event-Driven Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc. , No. 23-cv-01607 (S.D. Cal.), against MaxLinear and certain of its current officers. The complaint includes two claims: (1) an alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 20, 2023, the Court appointed the lead plaintiffs, who filed the Consolidated Complaint on February 15, 2024. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts that MaxLinear had a duty to disclose, concerning the Company’s ability and intention to timely close the merger with Silicon Motion, including that: (i) MaxLinear had allegedly decided it would not consummate the merger because the economic circumstances surrounding the merger had materially changed, including a material downturn in the semiconductor industry and rising interest rates; (ii) MaxLinear had allegedly determined to unilaterally terminate the merger in the event the merger was approved by Chinese antitrust regulators; (iii) MaxLinear had allegedly intended to argue that certain conditions in Article 6 of the Merger Agreement had not been satisfied as required by May 5, 2023 as a basis to terminate the merger; and (iv) as a result, MaxLinear had allegedly materially misrepresented the viability of the merger, the purported benefits of the merger, and the likelihood that the merger would be consummated. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs and expenses and such other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. MaxLinear will vigorously defend its position. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on March 29, 2024. Plaintiffs’ response is due on May 13, 2024.
Comcast Litigation
On December 1, 2023, MaxLinear filed claims against Comcast Management, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (together, “Comcast”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. MaxLinear alleges that in 2020, MaxLinear shared its proprietary design and know-how for a full-duplex, or FDX, amplifier with Comcast in the hope of securing future business with Comcast. MaxLinear shared its design and know-how on several occasions, all pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement between MaxLinear and Comcast, with the expectation that Comcast would keep the information confidential. MaxLinear alleges that Comcast needed this technology in order to effectively compete with fiber-optic internet providers. Instead of engaging MaxLinear to develop the FDX amplifier, Comcast allegedly shared MaxLinear’s proprietary designs with MaxLinear’s direct competitor. Comcast allegedly then worked with MaxLinear’s competitor to develop the FDX-amplifier technology. MaxLinear brought claims for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of the parties’ non-disclosure agreement, and it sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and attorney fees as well as an injunction against Comcast’s use or disclosure of MaxLinear’s trade secrets.
52
Table of Co ntents
On March 19, 2024, Comcast amended its claims for declaratory judgments, indemnification, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and on April 3, 2024, MaxLinear moved to dismiss all claims against it. MaxLinear intends to amend and refile its trade-secret and related claims.
Dish Litigation
On February 10, 2023, Entropic Communications, LLC (“Entropic”) filed claims for patent infringement against Dish Network Corporation, Dish Network LLC, Dish Network Service, LLC, and Dish Network California Service Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. At that time, MaxLinear was not a party to the action. On September 21, 2023, Dish Network California Service Corporation (“Dish California”) filed four counterclaims against MaxLinear. The four claims are declaratory judgment, breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy.
On January 31, 2024, the Dish defendants, together with DISH Technologies L.L.C. (collectively, “Dish”), filed eight counterclaims (amended counterclaims for Dish California) against MaxLinear. The eight counterclaims are (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud and negligent misrepresentation, (3) fraud arising from a civil conspiracy, (4) quasi-contract for restitution/unjust enrichment, (5) combination in restraint of trade, (6) violation of the Cartwright Act (by Dish California only), (7) patent misuse, and (8) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Dish’s eight counterclaims revolve around a core allegation that MaxLinear is a member of the Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) and that MaxLinear violated its obligation under MoCA’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy (“IPR Policy”) by acting with Entropic to rid the asserted patents of the RAND encumbrances. Dish seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and costs.
Cox Litigations
On February 10, 2023, Entropic sued Cox Communications, Inc., CoxCom, LLC, and Cox Communications California, LLC (together, “Cox”) in two separate actions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 6, 2023, Cox filed counterclaims against MaxLinear in each of the two actions.
In the first action, Cox alleges that when MaxLinear assigned certain patents to Entropic, MaxLinear violated its obligations under MoCA’s IPR Policy by assigning these patents and by allegedly failing to ensure that Cox would be offered a FRAND license for these patents. Cox amended its counterclaims on January 9, 2024 and is asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment against MaxLinear. Cox seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.
In the second action, in response to Entropic suing Cox for patent infringement, Cox filed counterclaims against MaxLinear. Cox alleges that MaxLinear granted CableLabs a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to all patents essential for compliance with DOCSIS specifications. It further alleges that MaxLinear breached this agreement when MaxLinear assigned certain patents to Entropic. Cox amended its counterclaims on January 9, 2024 and is asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Cox seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.
The Company records a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of March 31, 2024, no material loss contingencies have been accrued for litigation and other legal claims in our consolidated financial statements, since our management currently does not believe that the ultimate outcome of any of the matters described above is probable. An unfavorable outcome of these matters may be reasonably possible in excess of recorded amounts; however, a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of such loss cannot be made at this time.
Other Matters
From time to time, we are subject to threats of litigation or actual litigation in the ordinary course of business as described above, some of which may be material. Results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and claims can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.
53
Table of Co ntents
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.