CONTINGENCIES | 5 CONTINGENCIES From time to time, we receive claims from third parties asserting that our technologies, or those of our licensees, infringe on the other parties’ IP rights. Management believes that these claims are without merit. Additionally, periodically, we are involved in routine legal matters and contractual disputes incidental to our normal operations. In management’s opinion, unless we disclosed otherwise, the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. In the normal course of business, we provide indemnification of varying scope to customers, most commonly to licensees in connection with licensing arrangements that include our IP, although these provisions can cover additional matters. Historically, costs related to these guarantees have not been significant, and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these guarantees on our future results of operations. LGE Korean Withholding Tax Matter On October 16, 2017, we received a letter from LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE”) requesting that we reimburse LGE with respect to withholding tax imposed on LGE by the Korean tax authorities following an investigation where the tax authority determined that LGE failed to withhold on LGE’s royalty payments to Immersion Software Ireland, a subsidiary of the Company, from 2012 to 2014 . Pursuant to an agreement reached with LGE, on April 8, 2020, we provided a provisional deposit to LGE in the amount of KRW 5,916,845,454 (approximately $ 5.0 million) representing the amount of such withholding tax that was imposed on LGE, which provisional deposit would be returned to us to the extent we ultimately prevail in the appeal in the Korean courts. In the second quarter of 2020 , we recorded this deposit in Long-term deposits on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets . In the fourth quarter of 2021 , we recorded an impairment charge of $0.8 On November 3, 2017, on behalf of LGE, we filed an appeal with the Korea Tax Tribunal regarding their findings with respect to the withholding taxes related to the 2012 2014 2019 2022 On April 25, 2023, we received notice from LGE requesting us to reimburse LGE with respect to withholding tax imposed on LGE by the Korean tax authorities following a recent tax audit of LGE for the years 2018 2022 3,024,877,044 2.3 2023 Long-term deposits Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets On June 29, 2023, on behalf of LGE, we filed an appeal with the Korea Tax Tribunal regarding their findings with respect to the withholding taxes related to the 2018 2022 On August 7, 2023, the Korean tax authority submitted its answer against the tax appeal. On September 8, 2023, on behalf of LGE, the Company submitted its rebuttal brief in response thereto. On September 25, 2023, Korean tax authority submitted an additional response brief, and on November 23, 2023, the Korea Tax Tribunal rendered a decision against LGE, dismissing the claims of the Company on the grounds that its claims are without merit. In response thereto, on behalf of LGE, we filed an appeal with the Korea Administrative Court on December 29, 2023. The next hearing has not yet been set . March 31, 2024 0.3 2018 2022 Long-term deposit 2023 Based on th e developments in these cases, we regularly reassess the likelihood that we will prevail in the claims from the Korean tax authorities with respect to the LGE case. To the extent that we determine that it is more likely than not that we will prevail against the claims from the Korean tax authorities, then no additional tax expense is provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income . In the event that we determine that it is more likely than not that we will not prevail against the claims from the Korean tax authorities, or a portion thereof, then we would estimate the anticipated additional tax expense associated with that outcome and record it as additional income tax expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income in the period of the new determination. If the additional income tax expense was related to the periods assessed by Korean tax authorities and for which we recorded a Long-term deposits on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets , then the additional income tax expense would be recorded as an impairment to the Long-term deposits . If the additional income tax expense was not related to the periods assessed by Korean tax authorities and for which we recorded in Long-term deposits on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets , then the additional income tax expense would be accrued as an Other current liabilities . In the event that we do not ultimately prevail in our appeal in the Korean courts with respect to this case, the applicable deposits included in Long-term deposits Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income Immersion Corporation vs. Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a Facebook, Inc. (“Meta”) On May 26, 2022, we filed a complaint against Meta in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that Meta’s augmented and virtual reality (“AR/VR”) systems, including the Meta Quest 2 six The complaint against Meta asserts infringement of the following patents: • U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 • U.S. Patent No. 8,896,524 • U.S. Patent No. 9,727,217 • U.S. Patent No. 10,248,298 • U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222 • U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 Meta responded to the Company’s complaint on August 1, 2022. On September 12, 2022, Meta filed a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the Northern District of California or, in the alternative, to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. The Court denied Meta’s motion on May 30, 2023, and held the claim construction hearing on the same day. The Court adopted certain claim constructions during the hearing, and issued a formal claim construction order consistent with those constructions on July 7, 2023. On August 2, 2023, Meta filed a mandamus petition asking the Federal Circuit to reverse the district court’s order on Meta’s transfer motion. Fact discovery closed on October 6, 2023. The Federal Circuit denied Meta’s mandamus petition on October 30, 2023. On November 10, 2023, we filed a separate action in the Western District of Texas against Meta directed to its newly launched Quest 3 product, asserting the following patents: • U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806: “System and method for providing complex haptic stimulation during input of control gestures, and relating to control of virtual equipment” • U.S. Patent No. 9,727,217: “Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content” • U.S. Patent No. 10,248,298: “Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content” • U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222: “System with wearable device and haptic output device” • U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143: “Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content” In addition, Meta filed inter partes reviews On January 16, 2024, Immersion and Meta jointly moved to stay all deadlines in district court because they had arrived at a settlement in principle. On January 17, 2024, the Court stayed all deadlines. Under the Court’s order, the parties were to either move to dismiss the proceedings if they finalized the settlement agreement, or alternatively they were to provide the Court with a status update, by January 31, 2024. On February 9, 2024, we entered into a Patent License and Settlement Agreement (the “License and Settlement Agreement”) with Meta On February 16, 2024, the parties dismissed the district court actions and requested permission from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss the IPRs. The Patent Trial and Appear Board dismissed the IPRs on February 27, 2024. which is attached to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as Exhibit 10.1 and is incorporated herein by reference. Immersion Corporation vs. Xiaomi Group On or about March 3, 2023, we initiated patent infringement lawsuits against several companies of the Xiaomi-Group (the “Xiaomi-Group”) Tribunal judiciaire de Paris The complaints allege that the Xiaomi-Group’s devices, including the Xiaomi 12 The complaints against the Xiaomi-Group assert infringement of the following patents: • EP 2 463 752 1 Haptisches Feedback-System mit gespeicherten Effekten • EP 2 463 752 1 Système de rendu haptique avec stockage d’effets • IN 304 396 Haptic Feedback System With Stored Effects” On June 19, 2023, Xiaomi filed an initial response to the Company’s lawsuit in India. On July 7, 2023, the Indian litigation was listed before the Learned Joint Registrar, Mr. Siddharth Mathur. The application seeking interim injunction was set to be heard on March 21, 2024, but has been reset by the Court to be heard on July 22, 2024. On March 21, 2024, Xiaomi indicated that it would bring a counter claim to invalidate the Indian patent. On July 11, 2023, in the German proceeding Xiaomi filed its nullity action in the German Federal Patent Court, which was served on Immersion on July 27, 2023. Immersion replied on October 27, 2023, and received Xiaomi’s response on February 2, 2024, with a decision expected sometime before August of 2024, and a hearing has been set for November 13, 2024. In the German infringement proceeding, Xiaomi’s statement of defense was due on October 25, 2023. Immersion’s reply was due on February 26, 2024. Xiaomi’s rejoinder is scheduled for July 25, 2024. The oral hearing is scheduled for August 29, 2024. The next case management hearing in the French proceeding is scheduled for June 6, 2024. Immersion Corporation vs. Valve Corporation ( “Valve ”) On May 15, 2023, we filed a complaint against Valve in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges that Valve’s AR/VR systems, including the Valve Index, and handheld Steam Deck, infringe seven The complaint against Valve asserts infringement of the following patents: • 7,336,260 • 8,749,507 • 9,430,042 • 9,116,546 • 10,627,907 • 10,665,067 • 11,175,738 Valve responded to the complaint on July 24, 2023 with a motion to dismiss. Valve re-noted its motion, which changed Immersion’s response deadline from August 14, 2023 to August 21, 2023. Immersion timely filed its response, and Valve filed its reply on August 25, 2023. The Court heard arguments on Valve’s motion on February 8, 2024. The Court entered a case schedule on November 21, 2023. The case schedule did Valve filed inter partes reviews (“IPRs”), IPR2024-00477 and IPR2024-00478 on January 19, 2024. These are directed to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,336,260 and 9,430,042 respectively. The Company’s response is due April 26, 2024, and April 29, 2024, respectively. Valve filed IPR2024-00508 on January 30, 2024, which is directed to U.S. Patent No. 9,116,546. The Company’s response is due May 9, 2024. Valve filed IPR2024-00556 and IPR2024-00557 on February 7, 2024. These are directed to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,749,507 and 10,665,067, respectively. The Company’s responses are due on May 15, 2024. Valve filed IPR2024-00582 on February 16, 2024, which is directed to U.S. Patent No. 11,175,738. The Company’s response is due June 27, 2024. Valve filed IPR2024-00714 on March 22, 2024, which is directed to U.S. Patent No. 10,627,907. The PTAB has not yet set a response due date. The parties submitted their joint claim construction statement and respective positions on March 29, 2024. On March 14, 2024, Valve filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB’s decisions on the IPRs. Immersion opposed the motion on March 25, 2024, and Valve filed its reply brief on March 29, 2024. The Court granted Valve’s motion to stay on April 4, 2024. In connection with that order, the Court struck Valve’s motion to dismiss with leave to refile at a later date. |