Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents.
Leases. The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease, or contains a lease, at the inception of the arrangement. When the Company determines the arrangement is a lease, or contains a lease, at lease inception, it then determines whether the lease is an operating lease or a finance lease at the commencement date. Operating and finance leases result in the Company recording a right-of-use (ROU) asset and lease liability on its balance sheet. ROU assets represent the Company's right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent its obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Operating and finance lease ROU assets and liabilities are recognized at the lease commencement date based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. In determining the present value of lease payments, the Company uses the implicit interest rate if readily determinable. When the implicit rate is not readily determinable, the Company uses its incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at the lease commencement date in determining the present value of lease payments. The operating lease ROU asset is recognized net of any lease payments made and any lease incentives. Specific lease terms may include options to extend or terminate the lease when the Company believes it is reasonably certain that it will exercise that option. Lease expense for lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. As allowed by the guidance, the Company has elected not to recognize ROU assets and lease liabilities that arise from short-term (12 months or less) leases for any class of underlying asset. Operating leases are included in operating lease ROU assets, other current liabilities, and long-term operating lease liabilities in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet. The Company's finance leases are immaterial.

Net revenue for the three months ended March 30, 2019 was $1.27 billion, a 23% decrease compared to the prior year period. The decrease was primarily due to a 26% decrease in Computing and Graphics net revenue and a 17% decrease in Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom net revenue. The decrease in the Computing and Graphics segment net revenue was primarily due to lower sales of our Radeon™ channel products caused primarily by the decline in blockchain-related demand, partially offset by higher demand for our Ryzen™ processors and datacenter GPUs. The decrease in the Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment net revenue was primarily due to lower semi-custom revenue, partially offset by higher EPYC™ server products revenue. Our operating income for the three months ended March 30, 2019 was $38 million compared to an operating income of $120 million for the prior year period. Our net income for the three months ended March 30, 2019 was $16 million compared to a net income of $81 million for the prior year period.

MediaTek Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd, and Shenzhen Ningjing Technology Co., Ltd., 2019 Yue 03 Min Chu No. 725 (Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, China). On March 18, 2019, AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. was provided with a complaint by the Shenzhen Court. MediaTek alleges that defendants infringe patent 201110060964.1, titled “Integrated Circuit Chip.” On April 2, 2019, we submitted a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction, and separately initiated invalidity proceedings in the Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).  The Court has set an initial hearing for June 20, 2019.  
MediaTek Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Ningjing Technology Co., Ltd., 2019 Yue 03 Min Chu No. 726 (Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, China). On March 18, 2019, AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. was provided with a complaint by the Shenzhen Court. MediaTek alleges that defendants infringe patent 200920178360.5, titled “Integrated Inductor Structure.” On April 2, 2019, we submitted a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction, and separately initiated invalidity proceedings in the CNIPA.  The Court has set an initial hearing for June 20, 2019.

MediaTek Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Advanced Micro Devices (China) Co., Ltd., AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Shundian Chain Co., Ltd., Nanshan Wanxiang Tiandi Branch Store, 2019 Yue 03 Min Chu No. 727 (Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, China). On March 18, 2019, AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. was provided with a complaint by the Shenzhen Court. MediaTek alleges that defendants infringe patent 200910000212.9, titled “Integrated Circuit Chip and Seal Ring Structure of the Same.” On April 2, 2019, we submitted a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction, and separately initiated invalidity proceedings in the CNIPA.  The Court has set an initial hearing for June 21, 2019.

MediaTek, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Advanced Micro Devices (China) Co., Ltd.,AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Shundian Chain Co., Ltd., Nanshan Wanxiang Tiandi Branch Store, 2019 Yue 03 Min Chu No. 728 (Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, China). On March 18, 2019, AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. was provided with a complaint by the Shenzhen Court. MediaTek alleges that defendants infringe patent 200910000930.6, titled “Seal Ring Structure for Integrated Circuit.” On April 2, 2019, we submitted a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction, and separately initiated invalidity proceedings in the CNIPA.  The Court has set an initial hearing for June 21, 2019.