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. POWER INTEGRATIONS INC (833640) 10-Q published on Apr 25, 2019 at 5:19 pm
Reporting Period: Mar 30, 2019
In February 2016, the FASB amended the existing accounting standards for leases, ASU 2016-02, Leases. The amendments require lessees to recognize, on the balance sheet, assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by leases. The accounting by lessors will remain largely unchanged from that applied under previous U.S. GAAP. The Company is required to adopt the amendments in the first quarter of fiscal 2019, with early adoption permitted.
The Company adopted the new standards in the first quarter of 2019, effective January 1, 2019, using the optional transition method, under which the new standards were applied prospectively rather than restating the prior periods presented. The Company elected the practical expedients under the transition guidance, which includes the use of hindsight in determining the lease term and the practical expedient package to not reassess whether any expired or existing contracts are or contain leases, to not reassess the classification of any expired or existing leases, and to not reassess initial direct costs for any existing leases. In addition, the Company elected the practical expedient to recognize lease and non-lease components as a single lease component. The Company has elected not to record on the balance sheet leases with an initial term of twelve months or less. Upon adoption, the Company recognized both right-of-use assets and corresponding lease liabilities of approximately$7.3 million and $7.2 million, respectively, on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The difference between the right-of-use assets and lease liabilities was due to prepaid rent. There was no impact on the condensed consolidated statement of income or the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows.
As of December 31, 2018, the Company had approximately $51.2 million remaining under its stock-repurchase program. In the three months ended March 31, 2019, the Company repurchased approximately 121,000 shares of its common stock for approximately $7.3 million. As of March 31, 2019, the Company had approximately $43.9 million remaining under its current repurchase program, which has no expiration date. Authorization of future repurchase programs is at the discretion of the board of directors and will depend on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, business conditions and other factors.
The Company’s leases consist of operating leases for administrative office spaces, research-and-development facilities, design centers and sales offices in various countries around the world. The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception. Some lease agreements contain lease and non-lease components, which are accounted for as a single lease component. Total lease expense was $0.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2019, while short-term and variable lease expenses were not material.
Initial lease terms are determined at commencement and may include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain the Company will exercise the option. Remaining lease terms range from one to nine years, some of which include options to extend for up to six years, and some of which include options to terminate within one year. Leases with an initial term of twelve months or less are not recorded on the balance sheet. As the Company’s leases do not provide an implicit rate, the present value of future lease payments is determined using the Company’s incremental borrowing rate based on information available at commencement date.
On June 28, 2004, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against System General Corporation (SG), a Taiwanese company, and its U.S. subsidiary. The Company’s complaint alleged that certain integrated circuits produced by SG infringed and continue to infringe certain of its patents. On June 10, 2005, in response to the initiation of an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation on the patents asserted in the District Court lawsuit, the District Court stayed all proceedings. Subsequent to the completion of the ITC proceedings, the District Court temporarily lifted the stay and scheduled a case management conference. On December 6, 2006, SG filed a notice of appeal of the ITC decision. In response, and by agreement of the parties, the District Court vacated the scheduled case management conference and renewed the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC determination. On November 19, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s findings in all respects, and SG did not file a petition for review. The parties subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the District Court case without prejudice. On November 4, 2009, the Company re-filed its complaint for patent infringement against SG and its parent corporations, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, to address their continued infringement of patents at issue in the original suit that recently emerged from SG requested reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Company seeks, among other things, an order enjoining SG and Fairchild from infringing the Company’s patents and an award of damages resulting from the alleged infringement. Fairchild has denied infringement and asked for a declaration from the Court that it does not infringe any Power Integrations patent, that the patents are invalid, and that one of the two of the Company’s patents now at issue in the case is unenforceable. On May 5, 2010, SG and Fairchild filed an amended answer including counterclaims accusing the Company of infringing two patents, and later Fairchild withdrew its claim for infringement of one of the patents it originally asserted against the Company but added another patent to the case over the Company’s objections. Both parties filed summary judgment motions and challenges to each other’s experts’ testimony, and the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to one of Fairchild’s two patents. Following a trial on the remaining claims in February 2014, the jury returned a verdict in the Company’s favor, affirming the validity of the asserted claims of the Company’s patents-in-suit, finding that SG and Fairchild infringed the Company’s asserted patents and induced infringement by others, and awarding $105.0 million in damages. The Jury also rejected Fairchild’s remaining counterclaims for infringement against the Company. Fairchild challenged these rulings in post-trial motions, but the judge confirmed the jury’s determinations on infringement and damages, although the Court declined to find Fairchild’s infringement willful. Fairchild also pressed its unenforceability claim with respect to one of the two patents it was found to infringe in post-trial briefing, but the Court rejected Fairchild’s unenforceability claim. Fairchild also requested reconsideration of the damages determinations, and the Court granted a new trial with respect to damages but none of the other issues addressed in the previous trial, with the retrial scheduled for December 2015. Thereafter, the parties completed pretrial proceedings challenging each other’s experts, and the Court granted portions of each party’s motions limiting the scope of expert testimony for purposes of the damages retrial, but neither party was successful in their efforts to prevent the other side’s experts from testifying at trial. Following a retrial on the issue of damages in December 2015, the jury returned a verdict in the Company’s favor, finding that the Company’s patented technology created the basis for customer demand for the infringing Fairchild products and awarding $139.8 million in damages. Although the jury awarded damages, at this stage of the proceedings the Company cannot state the amount, if any, it might ultimately recover from Fairchild, and no benefits have been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a result of the damages verdict. Fairchild filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict, but the Court rejected Fairchild’s motions challenging the damages verdict in August 2016. The Company also filed motions requesting enhanced damages and attorney fees and reinstatement of the willfulness finding against Fairchild in view of an intervening change of law; on January 13, 2017, the District Court reinstated the finding that Fairchild’s infringement was willful but declined to enhance damages or award fees. In January 2017, Fairchild filed a further challenge to the verdict, but the Court rejected Fairchild’s motion and entered a final judgment of $146.5 million after factoring in pre-judgment interest. Fairchild’s appeal on the merits challenged the infringement findings and damages award. In July 2018, on appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings that Fairchild infringed both of the Company’s asserted patents but vacated the damages award and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Company filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling, but the Supreme Court denied further reviews. On remand, the Company intends to pursue its claim for damages, although the patent claims at issue in litigation currently stand rejected in IPR proceedings, subject to appeal as discussed below.