… And Emulex Revenues Will Decrease by 5%

Emulex Corporation reported the continued implementation of design changes for products impacted by the issuance of an injunction for two patents by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit filed against Emulex by Broadcom Corporation, based on U.S. revenues for sales of impacted products that were about five percent of Emulex’s net revenues for its second quarter of fiscal 2012.

The injunction included a ‘sunset period’ of 18 months for Emulex to continue selling impacted products in the US without design changes. Based on the jury assessment of royalties, and the terms of the injunction, Emulex estimates a charge of approximately $600,000 in liability for damages to Broadcom to its third quarter fiscal 2012 GAAP results. This amount is in addition to the $387,922 in liability previously reported by Emulex for that patent during the first quarter of 2012.

For its second fiscal quarter which ended on January 1, 2012, Emulex reported net revenues of $128.7 million, 76 percent (or $97.8 million) of which came from outside the US based on billed-to location. For the second fiscal quarter of fiscal 2012, the net revenues in the US for products impacted by issuance of the injunction were approximately $7 million. The design changes primarily focus on serializer/deserializer (SerDes) modules, which Emulex does not design but obtains from several suppliers, and which are included in impacted Emulex products. The impacted Emulex products include BE2, BE3, XE201, SOC 320, SOC 422 and SOC 442 ASICs, and products containing those ASICs.

"Emulex is dedicated to protecting the interest of its customers," said Jim McCluney, the CEO of Emulex. "We have been working with our suppliers to implement design changes to the SerDes modules included in the impacted products."

Broadcom had earlier asserted 12 different US patents against Emulex. Emulex presented a vigorous defense prior to the trial, and only 6 patents remained by the time of trial. After three weeks of trial, the court determined that one of the patents (7,058,150) had been infringed by Emulex, and the jury rendered an advisory verdict to the Court that it is not invalid, and awarded $387,922 in damages with respect to that patent. Subsequently, the judge determined that a second patent (7,471,691) had been infringed by Emulex. With respect to the remaining four patents, the jury found one not infringed and could not reach a unanimous verdict on the other three. Emulex intends to continue to vigorously defend its products, including a potential appeal.