ble losses for the claim if a reasonable estimate can be made, unless the amount of such reasonably possible losses is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Unless otherwise stated below, for each of the matters described below, the Company has either recorded an accrual for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable or has determined that, while a loss is reasonably possible (including potential losses in excess of the amounts accrued by the Company), a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss or range of possible losses with respect to the claim or in excess of amounts already accrued by the Company cannot be made. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management's estimates. Date, and "the Company" refers to Western Digital Corporation and all of its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis including HGST. plaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On October 10, 2008, Convolve amended its com- plaint to allege infringement of only the `473 patent. The `473 patent allegedly relates to interface technology to select between certain modes of a disk drive's operations relating to speed and noise. A trial in the matter began on July 18, 2011 and concluded on July 26, 2011 with a verdict against WD and HGST in an amount that is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. WD and HGST have filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and will evaluate their options for appeal after the court rules on the post-trial motions. infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,922 and 5,835,314. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The asserted patents allegedly relate to tunneling magneto resistive technology. In January 2010, MagSil amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the `922 patent. As disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on August 13, 2010, MagSil and WD settled the matter for an amount that was not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. With respect to the claim pending against HGST, in February 2011, HGST obtained a ruling invalidating the patent on summary judgment. MagSil appealed the decision, and in August 2012, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision granting HGST summary judgment. HGST intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. 5,478,650. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, fees and costs. The asserted patents allegedly relate to nanophase diamond films. On October 11, 2011, plaintiffs and WD filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines applicable to claims involving WD, indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in princi- ple that would resolve the case for an immaterial amount that was accrued by the Company in the first quarter of fiscal 2012. The court approved the motion on October 13, 2011. Plaintiffs and WD entered into a formal written settle- ment agreement on November 18, 2011, and the court granted an order dismissing the case as to WD with prejudice on December 7, 2011. With respect to the claim pending against HGST, mediation in the matter was held on March 20, 2012, and the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for an immaterial amount that was accrued by the Company in the third quarter of fiscal 2012. Plaintiffs and HGST entered into a formal settlement agreement on May 9, 2012, and the court granted an order dismissing the case against HGST with prejudice on May 30, 2012. |