20. Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Matters

Operating Lease Commitments

Certain facilities are leased under various operating leases expiring at various dates through the year 2013. Certain of these leases contain renewal options. Rental expense was approximately $12.5 million for fiscal 2013, $11.1 million for fiscal 2012, $12.5 million for fiscal 2011.

The table below summarizes the Company’s future minimum lease payments under operating leases as of the end of fiscal 2013.

Purchase Commitments

The Company has $106.1 million of purchase commitments with certain suppliers, primarily for inventory and some nonproduction items as of December 29, 2013, which is due through 2016.

Product Warranties

The Company generally offers a one-year limited warranty for all its products. The Company accrues for warranty expense based on historical data and for specific known warranty and indemnification issues if a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Changes in the Company’s liability for product warranty during the years ended December 29, 2013, December 30, 2012 and December 25, 2011 are as follows:

In addition to product warranties, the Company, from time to time in its normal course of business, indemnifies other parties with whom it enters into contractual relationships, including customers, directors, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. The Company agrees to hold the other party harmless against specified losses, such as those arising from a breach of representations or covenants, third-party infringement claims or other claims made against certain parties. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of liability under these indemnification obligations due to the limited history of indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances that are likely to be involved in each particular claim and indemnification provision.

Guarantees

      During the normal course of business, the Company makes certain indemnities and commitments under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include indemnities to the Company’s customers related to allegations the Company’s products infringe third party patents or other intellectual property; indemnities to the Company’s customers in connection with the delivery, design, manufacture and sale of its products; indemnities to the Company’s directors and officers in connection with legal proceedings; indemnities to various lessors in connection with facility leases for certain claims arising from such facility or lease; and indemnities to other parties to certain acquisition agreements. The duration of these indemnities and commitments varies, and in certain cases, is indefinite. The Company believes that substantially all of its indemnities and commitments provide for limitations on the maximum potential future payments it is obligated to make. However, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum amount of liability related to its indemnities and commitments because such liabilities are contingent upon the occurrence of events which are not reasonably determinable. Management believes that any liability for these indemnities and commitments would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Income Taxes

          The Company is subject to audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and various other tax authorities. The Company has reserved for potential adjustments to the provision for income taxes that may result from examinations by, or any negotiated agreements with, these tax authorities, and the Company believes that the final outcome of these examinations or agreements will not have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations. If events occur which indicate payment of these amounts is unnecessary, the reversal of the liabilities would result in the recognition of tax benefits in the period the Company determines the liabilities are no longer necessary. If the estimates of the federal, state, and foreign income tax liabilities are less than the ultimate assessment, a further charge to expense would result.

Legal Matters

Outstanding legal matters as of December 29, 2013 were as follows:

       In the Matter of Certain flash memory chips and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-893, filed on August 1, 2013 and instituted on September 9, 2013.

On August 1, 2013, Spansion LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, filed a complaint pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”), to request that the ITC institute an investigation relating to the unlawful importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of certain Macronix flash memory chips (“Macronix Chips”) that infringe the Company’s valid patents, and/or are made, produced or processed under, or by means of, a process covered by the claims of the Company’s patents, and products containing the Macronix Chips.

On September 9, 2013, the Commission instituted its investigation. Other than the Company, the principal parties, or respondents in the investigation are Macronix International Co, Ltd., of Hsin-chu, Taiwan; Macronix America, Inc., of Milpitas, CA; Macronix Asia Limited of Kanagawa Pref., Japan; Macronix (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., of Sa Tin, N.T., Hong Kong; Acer Inc. of New Taipei City, Taiwan; Acer America Corporation of San Jose, CA; ASUSTek Computer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Asus Computer International of Fremont, CA; Belkin International, Inc., of Playa Vista, CA; D-Link Corporation of Taipei City, Taiwan; D-Link System, Inc., of Fountain Valley, CA; Netgear Inc., San Jose, CA; Nintendo Co., Ltd., of Kyoto, Japan; and Nintendo of America, Inc., of Redmond, WA.

Through this investigation, the Company seeks a general exclusion order to exclude from importation all infringing Macronix Chips and downstream products containing such chips. In the event that the ITC is unwilling to issue a general exclusion order, the Company seeks that a limited exclusion order be entered against each named Respondent and its subsidiaries and affiliates in order to remedy the Respondents’ violation of Section 337 and to prevent such future violations by Respondents. The Company has also asked the ITC to issue a cease and desist order to ensure compliance with the requested exclusion orders.

Spansion LLC v. Macronix International Co., Ltd. et. al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

On August 1, 2013, Spansion LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose Division), case no. 3:13-cv-03566-JST, against Macronix International Co., Ltd., Macronix America, Inc., Acer Inc., Acer America Corporation, ASUSTek Computer Inc., Asus Computer International (America), Belkin International, Inc., D-Link Systems, Inc., NETGEAR Inc., Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America, Inc. for patent infringement. Spansion has asked for monetary damages as well as permanent injunctive relief to prevent further infringing activity.

On August 29, 2013, the Company amended its original complaint to delete certain defendants, resulting in the eleven party defendants identified above (“Defendants”), and to make certain additional allegations.

On October 8, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659, each of the Defendants asserted its statutory right to a mandatory stay of all proceedings in the Northern District of California action until the determination of the ITC becomes final (see In the Matter of Certain flash memory chips and Products Containing the Same,, Investigation No. 337-TA-893, U.S. International Trade Commission, above). Because the requested stay is mandated by statute, the Company did not oppose the motion and the requested stay was granted.

Macronix International Co., LTD. v. Spansion Inc. et. al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia.

On October 2, 2013, Macronix International Co., Ltd. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, case no. 3:13-cv-679-REP, against Spansion Inc. and Spansion LLC for patent infringement. The Company has filed an answer to the complaint as well as motions to dismiss and to transfer jurisdiction. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

On February 20, 2014, the court held the initial case management conference for this matter and set trial for January 20, 2015. The court has not yet ruled on Spansion's pending motions to transfer or dismiss. For that reason, the trial date is subject to change.

In the Matter of Certain flash memory chips and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-909 filed on December 27, 2013. 

On December 27, 2013, Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc., filed a complaint pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”), to request that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) institute an investigation relating to the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of certain non-volatile memory products Spansion flash memory chips (“Spansion Chips”) and products containing the Spansion Chips. A revised complaint was filed on December 31, 2013, and a letter supplementing the revised complaint was filed on January 14, 2014. The revised complaint alleges that the Spansion Chips infringe the claims of certain patents owned by Macronix (“Macronix Patents”), and/or are made, produced or processed under, or by means of, a process covered by the claims of the Macronix Patents.

On January 29, 2014, the Commission instituted its investigation. The ITC has not yet instituted its investigation. Other than the Company, the principal parties, or respondents in the investigation are Beats Electronics LLC of Santa Monica, CA, Delphi Automotive PLC of Kent, United Kingdom, Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC of Troy, Michigan, Harman International Industries, Inc. of Stamford, CT, Harman Becker Automotive Systems, Inc. of Farmington Hills, MI, Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH of Karlsbad, Germany, Ruckus Wireless, Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA and Tellabs, Inc. of Naperville, IL.

Through this investigation, Macronix seeks a general exclusion order to exclude from importation all infringing Spansion Chips and downstream products containing such chips. In the event that the ITC is unwilling to issue a general exclusion order, Macronix seeks that a limited exclusion order be entered against each named Respondent and its subsidiaries and affiliates in order to remedy the Respondents’ violation of Section 337 and to prevent such future violations by Respondents. Macronix has also asked the ITC to issue a cease and desist order to ensure compliance with the requested exclusion orders.

Others

Besides the above, the Company is a defendant or plaintiff in various legal actions that arose in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the aggregate liability, if any, with respect to these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, result of operations or cash flows.