What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2025-04-23 compared with 2024-10-23 · 38 added, 28 removed, 72 unchanged (48% of the section changed)

22 unchanged sentences

The case was dismissed without prejudice.

On September 18, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").

On September 18, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, or the Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint includes the same two claims as alleged in the Consolidated Complaint and makes similar factual allegations against the MaxLinear defendants, but adds Silicon Motion and certain of its officers as additional defendants.

The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs and expenses and such other relief that the court deems appropriate.

On November 25, 2024, the MaxLinear defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Briefing on the motion is complete and MaxLinear is awaiting a decision by the court.

MaxLinear intends to continue to vigorously defend its position.

On June 13, 2024, HBK Master Fund L.P.

and HBK Merger Strategies Master Fund L.P., stockholders of Silicon Motion, filed an additional complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned HBK Master Fund L.P.

and HBK Merger Strategies Master Fund L.P., stockholders of Silicon Motion, or collectively, the HBK Plaintiffs, filed an additional complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned HBK Master Fund L.P.

MaxLinear, Inc., No.

3 unchanged sentences

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs and expenses, punitive damages, and such other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate.

On July 12, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which is pending.

On January 2, 2025, the court granted the defendants a motion to dismiss holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue MaxLinear and its officers.

The case was dismissed without prejudice.

On January 17, 2025, the HBK Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, including the same two claims as alleged previously with similar factual allegations.

The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs and expenses, punitive damages, and such other relief that the court deems appropriate.

On February 18, 2025, the MaxLinear defendants filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint.

Briefing on the motion is complete and MaxLinear is awaiting a decision by the court.

MaxLinear intends to continue to vigorously defend its position.

Table o f Contents

MaxLinear Stockholder Litigation

On February 12, 2025, the plaintiff, Joshua M.

Steffens, brought a shareholder derivative action on behalf of MaxLinear in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, against current and former members of MaxLinear's Board of Directors and certain of its executive officers.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and violation of federal securities laws.

This is a follow-on derivative lawsuit alleging that the defendants concealed their intention to terminate the merger with Silicon Motion, leading to the filing of the Silicon Motion stockholder lawsuits referenced above, thereby causing harm to MaxLinear.

The complaint seeks money damages, directing the individual defendants to account for all damages caused by them and all profits, special benefits and unjust enrichment they have obtained as a result of their unlawful conduct, including all salaries, bonuses, fees, stock award, options and common stock sale proceeds, and imposing a constructive trust thereon, punitive damages, costs and expenses, and such other relief that the court deems appropriate.

This matter is stayed pending resolution of the Silicon Motion stockholder lawsuits referenced above.

Comcast Litigation

16 unchanged sentences

On January 31, 2024, the Dish defendants, together with DISH Technologies L.L.C., or 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.

The eight counterclaims were (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.

Code § 17200 et seq.

1 unchanged sentence

Dish seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and costs.

On February 21, 2024, MaxLinear moved to dismiss the Dish defendants’ counterclaim.

On April 22, 2024, a Special Master issued a report and recommendation, or the R&R, which recommended granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the following counterclaims:

(1) quasi-contract for restitution/unjust enrichment, (2) combination in restraint of trade, (3) violation of the Cartwright Act, (4) patent misuse, and (5) violation of Cal.

Code § 17200.

MaxLinear submitted objections to the R&R as to the remaining claims that were not dismissed.

Dish submitted objections to the R&R’s recommended dismissal of the quasi-contract for restitution/unjust enrichment counterclaim.

The court has not yet issued any ruling regarding the R&R or MaxLinear’s pending motion to dismiss.

On July 30, 2024, this case was stayed until September 17, 2024.

There was a motion to stay this case pending resolution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”).

MaxLinear intends to continue to vigorously defend its position.

On February 14, 2025, the court dismissed with prejudice six of the eight counterclaims against MaxLinear, as follows:

(1) fraud arising from a civil conspiracy, (2) quasi-contract for restitution/unjust enrichment, (3) combination in restraint of

Table o f Contents

trade, (4) violation of the Cartwright Act (by Dish California only), (5) patent misuse, and (6) violation of Cal.

Code § 17200 et seq.

MaxLinear intends to continue to vigorously defend its position against Dish's remaining two counterclaims.

Cox Litigations

2 unchanged sentences

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 amended its counterclaims on January 9, 2024 and asserted 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.

MaxLinear moved to dismiss Cox’s amended counterclaims on February 6, 2024.

On April 22, 2024, a Special Master issued the R&R, which recommended granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the unjust enrichment counterclaim but denying the motion as to the breach of contract and declaratory judgment counterclaims.

MaxLinear submitted objections to the R&R’s denial-in-part.

Cox submitted objections to the R&R as to the unjust enrichment counterclaim and as to certain findings related to the breach of contract counterclaim.

The court has not yet issued any ruling regarding the R&R or MaxLinear’s pending motion to dismiss.

On February 14, 2025, the court dismissed with prejudice the unjust enrichment counterclaim against MaxLinear.

In the second action, in response to Entropic suing Cox for patent infringement, Cox filed counterclaims against MaxLinear.

1 unchanged sentence

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 amended its counterclaims on January 9, 2024 and asserted 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.

MaxLinear moved to dismiss Cox’s amended counterclaims on February 6, 2024.

On April 22, 2024, a Special Master issued the R&R, which recommended dismissing all Cox counterclaims with prejudice.

Cox submitted objections to the R&R as to the unjust enrichment counterclaim.

The court has not yet issued any ruling regarding the R&R or MaxLinear’s pending motion to dismiss.

On July 30, 2024, these cases were stayed until September 17, 2024.

There was a motion to stay pending resolution of IPR.

MaxLinear intends to continue to vigorously defend its position.

On February 14, 2025, the court dismissed with prejudice all the counterclaims against MaxLinear in this matter.

MaxLinear intends to continue to vigorously defend its position against Cox’s remaining two counterclaims.

DIRECTV Litigation

On November 7, 2023, Entropic filed an amended complaint against DIRECTV, LLC, AT&T, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., and AT&T Communications, LLC, in the Central District of California, for infringement of twelve patents.

DIRECTV, LLC, or DIRECTV, filed its answer to the amended complaint on March 28, 2025.

DIRECTV’s answer asserted five counterclaims against MaxLinear.

The counterclaims against MaxLinear include two separate breach of contract claims, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment that MaxLinear’s transfer of patents to Entropic was void.

MaxLinear intends to vigorously defend its position against these counterclaims.

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 September 30, 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.

As of March 31, 2025, 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;

4 unchanged sentences

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.

Table o f Contents

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings