TQNT » Topics » Item 1. Legal Proceedings

This excerpt taken from the TQNT 10-Q filed Nov 9, 2006.

Item 1.    Legal Proceedings

 

On January 18, 2006, the Company received notice that a suit had been filed against it by StratEdge Corporation (“StratEdge”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. StratEdge filed an amended complaint on June 30, 2006. In the amended complaint StratEdge alleges that the Company makes, manufactures, markets, promotes, advertises, offers for sale, and/or sells power amplifiers in packages that infringe one or more claims of StratEdge patent numbers 5,753,972, 6,172,412, 6,271,579, 5,736,783, and 5,692,298 (“the Asserted Patents”). The Company filed an answer to the original complaint on February 7, 2006, and an answer to the amended complaint on July 17, 2006, denying the plaintiff’s allegations. The plaintiff seeks, among other items, an injunction against further infringement, full compensation for all damages attributable to the infringement in an amount according to proof at trial but not less than a reasonable royalty, delivery to StratEdge for destruction of all products that are found to infringe the Asserted Patents, and reasonable attorney’s fees. StratEdge also alleges willful infringement of the Asserted Patents and a declaration that the case is exceptional. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. The Court has scheduled a Markman hearing for March 26, 2007.

 

In addition, from time to time we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business. Although occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

 

This excerpt taken from the TQNT 10-Q filed Aug 8, 2006.

Item 1.    Legal Proceedings

 

On February 13, 2006, we received notice that a complaint had been filed alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA statutes, filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida against TriQuint, its wholly owned subsidiary Sawtek, Inc., The Sawtek, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership and 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) and The Sawtek, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership and 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The plaintiff, a participant in the Sawtek retirement plan and former employee of Sawtek, contended that we failed to act in his best interest in exercising the appropriate and requisite skill, care, prudence and diligence in administering the Plan and the distribution of Plan benefits to the plaintiff. The complainant sought full restitution and damages, plus interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and other equitable and remedial relief. However, on April 11, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss and on May 24, 2006, the court dismissed the case without prejudice.

 

On January 18, 2006, we received notice that a suit had been filed against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. We purchase semiconductor die packages from third parties. The plaintiff, Stratedge Corporation, alleges that such packages infringe the plaintiff’s patent, and thus alleges that we infringed their patent by manufacturing, marketing and selling power amplifiers in such packages. Stratedge Corporation filed an amended complaint on June 30, 2006. We filed an answer to the original complaint on February 7, 2006, and an answer to the amended complaint on July 17, 2006, denying the plaintiff’s allegations. The plaintiff seeks, among other items, injunctions against further infringement, full compensation for all damages attributable to the infringement in an amount according to proof at trial but not less than a reasonable royalty, the destruction of all products that are found to infringe the patent, and reasonable attorney’s fees. We deny any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

 

In addition, from time to time we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business. Although occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

 

This excerpt taken from the TQNT 10-Q filed May 10, 2006.

Item 1.    Legal Proceedings

On February 13, 2006, we received notice that a complaint had been filed alleging to a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA statutes, filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida against TriQuint, our wholly-owned subsidiary Sawtek, Inc., The Sawtek, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership and 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) and The Sawtek, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership and 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The plaintiff, a participant in the Sawtek retirement plan and former employee of Sawtek, contends that we failed to act in his best interest in exercising the appropriate and requisite skill, care, prudence and diligence in administering the Plan and the distribution of Plan benefits to the plaintiff. On April 11, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has not yet responded to the Company’s motion to dismiss. The complaint filed seeks full restitution and damages, plus interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and other equitable and remedial relief. We deny any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action.

On January 18, 2006, we received notice that a suit had been filed against the Company for patent infringement in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. We purchase packages from third parties. The plaintiff, Stratedge Corporation, alleges that such packages infringe the plaintiff’s patent, and thus alleges that we infringed their patent by manufacturing, marketing and selling power amplifiers in such packages. We filed an answer on February 7, 2006 denying the plaintiff’s allegations. The plaintiff seeks, among other items, injunctions against further infringement, full compensation for all damages attributable to the infringement in an amount according to proof at trial but not less than a reasonable royalty, the destruction of all products that are found to infringe the patent, and reasonable attorney’s fees. We deny any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action.

In addition, from time to time we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business. Although occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

This excerpt taken from the TQNT 10-Q filed Nov 8, 2005.

Item 1.    Legal Proceedings

 

In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Sawtek, Inc. (“Sawtek”), our wholly owned subsidiary since July 2001. The lawsuits also named as defendants former officers of Sawtek and our Company. The cases were consolidated into one action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on July 21, 2003. The amended class action complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Sawtek’s stock between January 2000 and May 24, 2001, and alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or omissions to inflate Sawtek’s stock price and conceal the downward trend in revenues disclosed in Sawtek’s May 23, 2001 press release. On October 6, 2005, the Middle District of Florida dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

 

On March 16, 2005, Preferred Real Estate Investments, Inc. (“PREI”) filed a complaint against the our subsidiary, TriQuint Optoelectronics, Inc., in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania (the “court”) alleging specific performance and general damages relating to negotiations for the sale of our facility in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania (the “facility”). On June 30, 2005 we settled the dispute with PREI and received a notice from the court of praecipe to settle, discontinue and end the claim against our subsidiary. As part of the settlement, we paid PREI $0.2 million for damages of which Hamilton TEK Partners, LP (“Hamilton”), the purchaser of the facility, agreed to compensate us for $0.1 million. In the third quarter of 2005, we completed the sale of the facility to Hamilton and received the $0.1 million compensation.

 

In addition, from time to time we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business. Although occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

 

This excerpt taken from the TQNT 10-Q filed Aug 8, 2005.
Item 1.   Legal Proceedings

In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Sawtek, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary since July 2001. The lawsuits also named as defendants current and former officers of Sawtek and our company. The cases were consolidated into one action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on July 21, 2003. The amended class action complaint is purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Sawtek’s stock between January 2000 and May 24, 2001, and alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or omissions to inflate Sawtek’s stock price and conceal the downward trend in revenues disclosed in Sawtek’s May 23, 2001 press release. The complaint does not specify the amount of monetary damages sought. Sawtek and the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 3, 2003, and briefing on the motion was completed on November 19, 2003. The court heard oral argument on November 21, 2003, and issued an order partially denying the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2003. Specifically, the court found that the complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations, but reserved ruling on the other aspects of the motion to dismiss. Because the statute of limitations issue is a novel question of law, the court stayed the proceedings in this case to allow the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants duly filed for interlocutory appeal on January 22, 2004. Because the Court of Appeals has been considering the identical issue in another matter, the appeal process has been stayed, pending the Court of Appeals’ decision in the other matter. On June 1, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit issued a memorandum decision in the unrelated case that raised the similar statute of limitations issue. The Court of Appeals held that factual issues were raised, which precluded resolution of the statute of limitations issues at this time. The Court of Appeals remanded that case to the lower court for the purpose of making factual findings. The Sawtek appeal process with respect to the statute of limitations remains stayed pending remand of this unrelated case. On June 3, 2005, the defendants requested the United States District Court to lift its stay of the proceedings in the Sawtek case, and to proceed to rule on the remaining issues raised in the motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court has allowed the parties to file supplemental briefing on or before August 19, 2005, and scheduled a hearing for August 25, 2005 to hear re-argument on the balance of the motion to dismiss the complaint. We continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted against Sawtek, and deny the allegations contained in the complaint.

On March 16, 2005, Preferred Real Estate Investments, Inc. (“PREI”) filed a complaint against the our subsidiary, TriQuint Optoelectronics, Inc., in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania (the “court”) alleging specific performance and general damages relating to negotiations for the sale of our facility in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania (the “facility”). On June 30, 2005 we settled the dispute with PREI and received a notice from the court of praecipe to settle, discontinue and end the claim against our subsidiary. As part of the settlement, we paid PREI $250 for damages of which Hamilton TEK Partners, LP (“Hamilton”), the purchaser of the facility, agreed to compensate us for $125. In the third quarter of 2005, we completed the sale of the facility to Hamilton and received the $125 compensation.

In addition, from time to time we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business. Although occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

This excerpt taken from the TQNT 10-Q filed May 11, 2005.
Legal Proceedings

In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Sawtek, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary since July 2001. The lawsuits also named as defendants current and former officers of Sawtek and our company. The cases were consolidated into one action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on July 21, 2003. The amended class action complaint is purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Sawtek’s stock between January 2000 and May 24, 2001, and alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or omissions to inflate Sawtek’s stock price and conceal the downward trend in revenues disclosed in Sawtek’s May 23, 2001 press release. The complaint does not specify the amount of monetary damages sought. Sawtek and the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 3, 2003, and briefing on the motion was completed on November 19, 2003. The court heard oral argument on November 21, 2003, and issued an order partially denying the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2003. Specifically, the court found that the complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations, but reserved ruling on the other aspects of the motion to dismiss. Because the statute of limitations issue is a novel question of law, the court stayed the proceedings in this case to allow the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants duly filed for interlocutory appeal on January 22, 2004. Because the Court of Appeals is considering the identical issue in another matter, the appeal process has been stayed, pending the Court of Appeals’ decision in the other matter. We deny the allegations contained in the complaint and intend to continue our vigorous defense against these claims.

On March 16, 2005, Preferred Real Estate Investments, Inc. ("PREI") filed a complaint against the Company’s subsidiary, TriQuint Optoelectronics, Inc., in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania (the “court”) alleging specific performance and general damages relating to negotiations for the sale of the Company’s facility in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania to Anthem Partners, LLC. In addition, on March 24, 2005, PREI filed a lis pendens against the facility. On May 9, 2005, the court granted the Company’s motion and struck the lis pendens. Furthermore, on April 4, 2005 the Company filed an answer to PREI’s complaint, and on April 25, 2005 PREI filed a response to the Company’s answer. On May 5, 2005, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment against PREI regarding the complaint, and the motion for summary judgment is still pending. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

In addition, from time to time we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business. Although occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Legal Proceedings

In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Sawtek, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary since July 2001. The lawsuits also named as defendants current and former officers of Sawtek and our company. The cases were consolidated into one action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on July 21, 2003. The amended class action complaint is purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Sawtek’s stock between January 2000 and May 24, 2001, and alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or omissions to inflate Sawtek’s stock price and conceal the downward trend in revenues disclosed in Sawtek’s May 23, 2001 press release. The complaint does not specify the amount of monetary damages sought. Sawtek and the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 3, 2003, and briefing on the motion was completed on November 19, 2003. The court heard oral argument on November 21, 2003, and issued an order partially denying the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2003. Specifically, the court found that the complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations, but reserved ruling on the other aspects of the motion to dismiss. Because the statute of limitations issue is a novel question of law, the court stayed the proceedings in this case to allow the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants duly filed for interlocutory appeal on January 22, 2004. Because the Court of Appeals is considering the identical issue in another matter, the appeal process has been stayed, pending the Court of Appeals’ decision in the other matter. We deny the allegations contained in the complaint and intend to continue our vigorous defense against these claims.

On February 16, 2005, we received notice that a summons of civil action was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania by Preferred Real Estate Investments, Inc. against our subsidiary, TriQuint Optoelectronics, Inc. relating to negotiations for the sale of our facility in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. We deny any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this action.

In addition, from time to time we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business. Although occasional adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki