Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

v2.4.0.6
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

NOTE 11: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On June 28, 2012, Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Quantum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that certain of its automated tape libraries fall within the scope of patents 6,328,766 and 6,353,581. Overland is seeking injunctive relief, as well as the recovery of unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages for willful infringement. We do not believe we infringe the Overland patents and we will defend ourselves vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time.

On August 28, 2012, we filed a lawsuit against Overland in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, for patent infringements of our patents 6,542,787; 6,498,771; 5,925,119 and 5,491,812 by the products in Overland’s NEO tape library and SnapServer product lines. We are seeking injunctive relief and the recovery of monetary damages.

On September 12, 2011, Compression Technology Solutions LLC (“CTS”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a group of companies, consisting of Quantum, CA., Inc., EMC Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, International Business Machines Corp., NetApp, Inc. and Quest Software, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that certain unspecified products of the defendants, characterized as “deduplication software systems,” and, in the case of Quantum, including Quantum’s “DXi Series Deduplication software,” fall within the scope of patent 5,414,650. CTS is seeking injunctive relief, as well as the recovery of monetary damages, including treble damages for willful infringement. We do not believe we infringe the CTS patent; we believe that the CTS patent is invalid, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously. In April 2012, our motion to transfer venue was granted and the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time.