SEC Filings

CRAY INC filed this Form 10-Q on 10/30/2018
Entire Document

patents owned by Raytheon. Two of the originally asserted patents relate to computer hardware alleged to be encompassed by Cray’s current and past products (the “Hardware Patents”), and the two remaining asserted patents relate to features alleged to be performed by certain third-party software that Cray optionally includes as part of its product offerings (the “Software Patents”).  A second suit was brought by Raytheon on April 22, 2016 in the Eastern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-423) asserting infringement of five patents owned by Raytheon. In this second suit, all five asserted patents relate to features alleged to be performed by certain third-party software that Cray optionally includes as part of its product offerings. On September 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Cray’s petition for writ of mandamus and overturned the trial court’s determination that venue in the first action was proper in the Eastern District of Texas, and accordingly on April 5, 2018, the trial court ordered that the first action should be transferred to the Western District of Wisconsin as had been requested by Cray, which was effective on April 30, 2018 (Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00318-wmc). After transfer, Raytheon indicated its desire to withdraw its claims for infringement of the Hardware Patents. Accordingly, the Wisconsin court, upon joint motion of the parties, has dismissed with prejudice the counts related to the Hardware Patents, and Raytheon has served on the Company and filed with the court covenants not to sue for infringement of the Hardware Patents. The Wisconsin court has also scheduled summary judgment proceedings on the remaining two counts, relating to the Software Patents, and trial has been set for June 3, 2019. The Texas court, upon joint motion of the parties, has also transferred the second action to the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-03388-RS). Per joint motion of the parties, the California court has stayed the second action pending resolution of the first action. The Company is vigorously defending these actions. The probable outcome of either litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. Based on its review of the matters to date, the Company believes that it has valid defenses and claims in each of the two lawsuits.  As a result, the Company considers the likelihood of a material loss related to these matters to be remote.
Note 12— Share-Based Compensation
The Company accounts for its share-based compensation based on an estimate of fair value of the grant on the date of grant.
In determining the fair value of stock options, the Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The following key weighted average assumptions were employed in the calculation for the three month period ended September 30, 2018 and the nine month periods ended September 30, 2018 and September 30, 2017. There were no option grants during the three month period ended September 30, 2017:
Three Months Ended
September 30,
Nine Months Ended
September 30,
Risk-free interest rate
Expected dividend yield
Expected life
4.0 years
4.0 years
4.0 years
Weighted average Black-Scholes value of options granted
The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. The Company does not anticipate declaring dividends in the foreseeable future. Volatility is based on historical data. The expected life of an option is based on the assumption that options will be exercised, on average, about two years after vesting occurs. The Company recognizes compensation expense for only the portion of options that are expected to vest. Therefore, management applies an estimated forfeiture rate that is derived from historical employee termination data and adjusted for expected future employee turnover rates. The estimated forfeiture rate applied to the Company’s stock option grants during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017 was 8.0%. If the actual number of forfeitures differs from those estimated by management, additional adjustments to compensation expense may be required in future periods. The Company’s stock price volatility, option lives and expected forfeiture rates involve management’s best estimates at the time of such determination, which impact the fair value of the option calculated under the Black-Scholes methodology and, ultimately, the expense that will be recognized over the vesting period or requisite service period of the option. The Company typically issues stock options with a four year vesting period (the requisite service period) and amortizes the fair value of stock options (stock compensation cost) ratably over the requisite service period.