1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

         Inphi Corporation (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, was incorporated in November 2000. The Company is a fabless provider of high-speed analog and mixed signal semiconductor solutions for the communications, data center and computing markets. The Company’s semiconductor solutions are designed to address bandwidth bottlenecks in networks, maximize throughput and minimize latency in computing environments and enable the rollout of next generation communications, data center and computing infrastructures. In addition, the semiconductor solutions provide a vital high-speed interface between analog signals and digital information in high-performance systems such as telecommunications transport systems, enterprise networking equipment, data center and enterprise servers, storage platforms, test and measurement equipment and military systems.

On October 3, 2014, the Company completed the acquisition of Cortina Systems, Inc. including its high-speed interconnect and optical transport product lines (“Cortina”) for approximately $52,509 in cash and approximately 5.3 million shares of the Company’s common stock in accordance with the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 30, 2014 as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 25, 2014. The revenue and expenses of Cortina are included in the consolidated statement of income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015.

The interim unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”), for interim financial information and with the instructions to Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Form 10-Q and Article 10 of SEC Regulation S-X. They do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. Therefore, these financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2014, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 10, 2015.

          The interim condensed consolidated financial statements included herein are unaudited; however, they contain all normal recurring accruals and adjustments that, in the opinion of management, are necessary to state fairly the Company’s consolidated financial position at September 30, 2015, and its consolidated results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 and cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014. The results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for future quarters or the full year.

2. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance applying to inventory measured using any other method other than last-in, last-out method. Under this guidance inventory is measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value. The net realizable value is the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal, and transportation. The guidance is applied prospectively and is effective for the Company beginning January 1, 2017. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In November 2014, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that provides guidance on whether and at what threshold an acquired business or not-for-profit organization can apply pushdown accounting. This guidance provides an option to apply pushdown accounting in the separate financial statements of an acquired entity upon the occurrence of an event in which an acquirer obtains control of the acquired entity. The guidance became effective on November 18, 2014. After the effective date, an acquired entity can make an election to apply the guidance to future change-in-control events or to its most recent change-in-control event. However, if the financial statements for the period in which the most recent change-in-control event occurred already have been issued or made available to be issued, the application of this guidance would be a change in accounting principle. The adoption of this guidance did not impact the consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued guidance on “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” The new revenue recognition guidance provides a five-step analysis of transactions to determine when and how revenue is recognized. The guidance requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. The new guidance was initially effective for the Company on January 1, 2017. The new guidance permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. The Company is evaluating the effect that the new revenue recognition guidance will have on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. The Company has not yet selected a transition method nor determined the effect of the standard on the ongoing financial reporting. In July 2015, the FASB voted to defer the effective date of the new revenue recognition standard by one year. The guidance may be adopted as early as January 1, 2017, the effective date of the original guidance.

3. Investments

The following table summarizes the investments by investment category:

As of September 30, 2015, the Company had 13 investments that were in an unrealized loss position. The gross unrealized losses on these investments at September 30, 2015 of $27 were determined to be temporary in nature. The Company reviews the investments to identify and evaluate investments that have an indication of possible other-than-temporary impairment. Factors considered in determining whether a loss is other-than-temporary include the length of time and extent to which fair value has been less than the cost basis, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee, and the intent and ability to hold the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value.

The realized gain related to the Company’s available-for-sale investment which was reclassified from other comprehensive income was included in other income in the condensed consolidated statements of income.

The contractual maturities of available-for-sale securities at September 30, 2015 are presented in the following table:

4. Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

Finished goods held by distributors were $2,397 and $2,798 as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.

5. Property and Equipment, net

Property and equipment consist of the following:

Depreciation and amortization expense of property and equipment for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 was $3,956 and $10,505, respectively. Depreciation and amortization expense of property and equipment for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 was $2,962 and $7,891, respectively.

As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, computer software costs included in property and equipment were $5,803 and $4,582, respectively. Amortization expense of capitalized computer software costs was $264 and $746 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively. Amortization expense of capitalized computer software costs was $149 and $385 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively.

Property and equipment not paid as of September 30, 2015 and 2014 were $610 and $6,149, respectively.

6. Identifiable Intangible Assets

The following table presents details of identifiable intangible assets:

The following table presents amortization of intangible assets for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015:

Inphi Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)

In the nine months ended September 30, 2015, the Company abandoned the project related to in-process research and development and recorded an impairment charge of $1,750 included in the research and development expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of income.

Based on the amount of intangible assets subject to amortization at September 30, 2015, the expected amortization expense for each of the next five fiscal years and thereafter is as follows:

The weighted-average amortization periods remaining by intangible asset category are as follows (in years):

7. Product Warranty Obligation

As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company’s product warranty liability was $110. There was no movement in product warranty liability during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014.

On November 3, 2014, the Company received a claim notification from an insurance company asserting a claim of approximately $4,000 for field installation repair and replacement costs incurred by a customer in 2011. The Company believes that it had fulfilled its contractual obligation to provide warranty repair and replacement, but has referred the matter to its insurance carrier at the request of the insurance company. As of September 30, 2015, the Company believes that the liability under this claim is not probable. Nevertheless, resolutions of third-party claims are inherently uncertain and as such, an unfavorable outcome could ultimately impact the Company’s business, cash flow and results of operations.

8. Other long-term liabilities

Other long-term liabilities consist of the following:

9. Income Taxes

The Company normally determines its interim provision using an estimated single annual effective tax rate for all tax jurisdictions. ASC 740 provides that when an entity operates in a jurisdiction that has generated ordinary losses on a year-to-date basis or on the basis of the results anticipated for the full fiscal year and no benefit can be recognized on those losses, a separate effective tax rate should be computed and applied to ordinary income (or loss) in that jurisdiction. The Company incurred pretax loss during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 from the Singapore operation and will not recognize tax benefit of the losses due to full valuation allowance established against deferred tax assets. Thus, a separate effective tax rate was applied to the Singapore jurisdiction to compute the Company’s interim tax expense.

Inphi Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)

The Company recorded an income tax provision of $976 and $3,350 in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively. The effective tax rate for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 was (775%) and (45%), respectively. The difference between the effective tax rates and the 34% federal statutory rate resulted primarily due to the change in valuation allowance, foreign income taxes provided at lower rates, geographic mix in operating results, unrecognized tax benefits, stock-based compensation adjustments and recognition of state research and development credits.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the discrete method was used to calculate the Company’s interim tax expense for the U.S. operations. The Company has determined that a calculation of an annual effective tax rate would not represent a reliable estimate due to the sensitivity of the annual effective tax rate estimate to even minimal changes to forecasted earnings of the U.S. operations for the year. Under the discrete method, the Company determines its tax expense based upon actual results as if the interim period were an annual period. The Company recorded an income tax provision of $5,083 and $1,449 in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively. The effective tax rate for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 was (287%) and (38%), respectively. The difference between the effective tax rates and the 34% federal statutory rate resulted primarily due to the change in valuation allowance, foreign income taxes provided at lower rates, geographic mix in operating results, unrecognized tax benefits, stock-based compensation adjustments, transaction cost adjustment and recognition of state research and development credits.

 During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, the gross amount of the Company’s unrecognized tax benefits increased by approximately $773 and $2,373, respectively, as a result of tax positions taken during the current year. Substantially all of the unrecognized tax benefits as of September 30, 2015, if recognized, would affect the Company’s effective tax rate. The Company believes that in the next twelve months, it is reasonably possible that that the gross unrecognized tax benefit may decrease by approximately $1,750 due to resolution of the state audit.

The Company does not provide for U.S. income taxes on undistributed earnings of its controlled foreign corporations that are intended to be invested indefinitely outside the United States.

10. Earnings Per Share

The following shows the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:

The following securities were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share as inclusion would have been anti-dilutive:

11. Stock–Based Compensation

In June 2010, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) approved the Company’s 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2010 Plan”), which became effective in November 2010. The 2010 Plan provides for the grants of restricted stock, stock appreciation rights and stock unit awards to employees, non-employee directors, advisors and consultants. The Compensation Committee administers the 2010 Plan, including the determination of the recipient of an award, the number of shares subject to each award, whether an option is to be classified as an incentive stock option or nonstatutory option, and the terms and conditions of each award, including the exercise and purchase prices and the vesting or duration of the award. Options granted under the 2010 Plan are exercisable only upon vesting. At September 30, 2015, 2,150,511 shares of common stock have been reserved for future grants under the 2010 Plan.

Stock Option Awards 

The Company did not grant any stock options during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014.

The following table summarizes information regarding options outstanding:

The intrinsic value of options outstanding, exercisable and vested and expected to vest is calculated based on the difference between the exercise price and the fair value of the Company’s common stock as of the respective balance sheet dates.

The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 was $8,471 and $6,512, respectively. The intrinsic value of exercised options is calculated based on the difference between the exercise price and the fair value of the Company’s common stock as of the exercise date. Cash received from the exercise of stock options was $4,780 and $2,961, respectively, for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014.

Restricted Stock Units and Awards

The Company granted restricted stock units (“RSUs”) to members of the Board and employees. Most of the Company’s outstanding RSUs vest over four years with vesting contingent upon continuous service. The Company estimates the fair value of RSUs using the market price of the common stock on the date of the grant. The fair value of these awards is amortized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period.

Inphi Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)

The following table summarizes information regarding outstanding restricted stock units:

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

In December 2011, the Company adopted the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”). Participants purchase the Company's stock using payroll deductions, which may not exceed 15% of their total cash compensation. Pursuant to the terms of the ESPP, the "look-back" period for the stock purchase price is six months. Offering and purchase periods will begin on February 10 and August 10 of each year. Participants will be granted the right to purchase common stock at a price per share that is 85% of the lesser of the fair market value of the Company's common shares at the beginning or the end of each six-month period.

The ESPP imposes certain limitations upon an employee’s right to acquire common stock, including the following: (i) no employee shall be granted a right to participate if such employee immediately after the election to purchase common stock, would own stock possessing 5% or more of the total combined voting power or value of all classes of stock of the Company, and (ii) no employee may be granted rights to purchase more than $25 fair value of common stock for each calendar year. The maximum aggregate number of shares of common stock available for purchase under the ESPP is 1,750,000 shares. The total common stock issued under the ESPP during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 was 326,764 and 264,886, respectively.

The fair value of the ESPP is estimated at the start of offering period using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

Stock-Based Compensation Expense

Stock-based compensation expense is included in the Company’s results of operations as follows:

Inphi Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)

Total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested stock options, restricted stock units and awards at September 30, 2015, prior to the consideration of expected forfeitures, is approximately $59,526 and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.61 years.

12. Fair Value Measurements

The guidance on fair value measurements requires fair value measurements to be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:

Level 1: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities;

Level 2: Quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs which are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability, or

Level 3: Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (i.e., supported by little or no market activity).

The Company measures its investments in marketable securities at fair value using the market approach, which uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities. The Company has cash equivalents which consist of money market funds valued using the amortized cost method, in accordance with Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act, which approximates fair value.

The Company determines the amount of transfers between Levels 1 and 2 or transfers into or out of Level 3 by using the end-of-period fair value. The Company had no transfers among the fair value hierarchy during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015.

The following table presents information about assets required to be carried at fair value on a recurring basis:

13. Segment and Geographic Information

The Company operates in one reportable segment. The Company’s Chief Executive Officer, who is considered to be the chief operating decision maker, manages the Company’s operations as a whole and reviews consolidated financial information for purposes of evaluating financial performance and allocating resources. Revenue by region is classified based on the locations to which the product is transported, which may differ from the customer’s principal offices.

The following table sets forth the Company’s revenue by geographic region:

As of September 30, 2015, $3,529 of long-lived tangible assets are located outside the United States, of which $2,056 are located in Taiwan. As of December 31, 2014, $6,153 of long-lived tangible assets are located outside the United States, of which $3,463 are located in Taiwan.

14. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases its facility under noncancelable lease agreements expiring in various years through 2020. The Company also licenses certain software used in its research and development activities under a term license subscription and maintenance arrangement.

As of September 30, 2015, future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases having initial terms in excess of one year are as follows:

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, lease operating expense was $2,900 and $8,917, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, lease operating expense was $1,916 and $5,115, respectively.

Noncancelable Purchase Obligations

 The Company depends upon third party subcontractors to manufacture its wafers. These subcontractor relationships typically allow for the cancellation of outstanding purchase orders, but require payment of all expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. As of September 30, 2015, the total value of open purchase orders for wafers was approximately $5,233.

Inphi Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)

Legal Proceedings

Netlist, Inc. v. Inphi Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6900 (C.D. Cal.)

On September 22, 2009, Netlist filed suit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Court, asserting that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537. Netlist filed an amended complaint on December 22, 2009, further asserting that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912 and 7,636,274, collectively with U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537, the patents-in-suit, and seeking both unspecified monetary damages to be determined and an injunction to prevent further infringement. These infringement claims allege that the Company’s iMB™ and certain other memory module components infringe the patents-in-suit. The Company answered the amended complaint on February 11, 2010 and asserted that the Company does not infringe the patents-in-suit and that the patents-in-suit are invalid. In 2010, Company filed inter partes requests for reexamination with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid.

On August 27, 2010, the USPTO ordered the request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 and found a substantial new question of patentability based upon each of the different issues that the Company raised as the reexamination requestor. On September 27, 2011, the Patent Office issued a First Office Action based on the Netlist '274 Patent Reexamination Request and rejected 91 of its 97 claims. On October 27, 2011, Netlist responded to the USPTO determination by amending some but not all of the claims, adding new claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims in view of the cited references. The Company provided rebuttable comments to the USPTO on November 28, 2011. On March 12, 2012, the Examiner issued an Action Closing Prosecution, indicating that the claims pending contain allowable subject matter, and Netlist did not respond to the Action Closing Prosecution in the time provided by the USPTO. On June 22, 2012, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice, and on July 23, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal. The Company filed the Appeal Brief on September 24, 2012 and Netlist filed its Responsive Brief on October 24, 2012. The parties received an Examiner’s Answer dated April 16, 2013 from the USPTO that maintained the rejections set forth on the Right of Appeal Notice dated June 22, 2012. The Company filed a Rebuttal Brief on May 16, 2013 and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 7, 2013. The appeal hearing took place on November 20, 2013. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its decision on January 16, 2014, finding the Examiner erred in declining to adopt 8 of the 9 different rejections that had been proposed by us. The Company requested a rehearing of the decision not to adopt the remaining one rejection that had been proposed by the Company and was not adopted by the PTAB on February 18, 2014. In papers dated March 18, 2014, Netlist provided rebuttal comments to the request for rehearing and also requested re-opening of prosecution with respect to the claims that the PTAB had rejected, and in that request to re-open prosecution amended the independent claims that stood rejected. The Company filed comments with respect to these proposed amended claims on April 17, 2014, which were refiled in a slightly different form on September 5, 2014. On June 26, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision on the request for rehearing, which included a rejection of further claims pursuant to the Company’s request and on July 28, 2014, Netlist provided a response to the USPTO cancelling those claims that had been rejected in the decision on the request for rehearing. On September 26, 2014, the PTAB remanded the proceedings back to the Examiner, with instructions to consider part, but not all, of the Company’s comments that had been previously filed on September 5, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Company filed a Petition to the Director of the USPTO seeking reconsideration of the PTAB remand of September 26, 2014, and requesting that all of the comments that the Company previously filed on September 5, 2014 should have been entered for consideration by the Examiner. The USPTO denied this Petition with remand instructions to the Examiner to consider part, but not all, of the Company’s comments that had been previously filed on September 5, 2014. While the reexamination still awaits the Examiner’s action after the remand, on March 13, 2015 the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking relief from the Federal Circuit Court to vacate the Board’s order and to instruct the Director to enter in full the Company’s comments that had been previously filed on September 5, 2014, which was opposed by Netlist. On June 15, 2015, the Examiner, in view of the September 26, 2014 remand instructions, and based only on a portion of the Company’s comments dated September 5, 2014, rejected all of the amended claims. On June 30, 2015 the Federal Circuit Court granted the Writ of Mandamus, and instructed the Director to enter in full the Company’s comments that had been previously filed on September 5, 2014. Accordingly, on July 8, 2015, the PTAB vacated the Examiner's determination of June 15, 2015 that the amended claims were invalid and, on July 14, 2015, instructed the Examiner to consider in full the comments previously filed of September 5, 2014. An action from the Examiner dated September 11, 2015 rejected all the claims asserted as invalid by the Company in its comments dated September 5, 2014. Netlist filed a response dated October 14, 2015 opposing the rejections set forth by the Examiner in the September 11, 2015 action. The Company has until November 13, 2015 to respond to the Netlist response, which is expected as the next substantive step of the proceeding, as prosecution otherwise remains closed. The proceeding is expected to continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures. The Company may consider filing an appeal to any determination made by the USPTO with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Inphi Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)

On September 8, 2010, the USPTO ordered the request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 and found a substantial new question of patentability based upon different issues that the Company raised as the reexamination requestor. The USPTO accompanied this Reexamination Order of U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 with its own evaluation of the validity of this patent, and rejected some but not all of claims. In a response dated October 8, 2010, Netlist responded to the USPTO determination by amending some but not all of the claims, adding new claims and making arguments as to why the claims were not invalid in view of the cited references. The Company provided rebuttable comments to the USPTO on November 8, 2010 along with a Petition requesting an increase in the number of allowed pages of the rebuttable comments. On January 20, 2011, the USPTO granted the Petition in part. The Company then filed updated rebuttal comments on January 27, 2011 in compliance with the granted Petition. The USPTO has considered these updated rebuttal comments, and in a communication dated June 15, 2011, continued to reject all the previously rejected claims. The USPTO also rejected all the claims newly added in the October 8, 2010 Netlist response. In a further communication dated June 21, 2011, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution indicating that it would confirm the patentability of four claims and reject all the other pending claims. On August 22, 2011, Netlist responded to the Action Closing Prosecution by further amending some claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims in view of the cited references. The Company submitted rebuttal comments on September 21, 2011. In a further communication dated February 7, 2012, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice, which also indicated that the previous amendments to claim made by Netlist would be entered, and that the current pending claims, as amended, were patentable. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal at the USPTO on March 8, 2012, within the time period provided for filing the Notice of Appeal and Netlist did not file Notice of Cross-Appeal. The Company filed its Appeal Brief on May 8, 2012, and Netlist filed its Responsive Brief on July 2, 2012. The parties received an Examiner’s Answer dated April 16, 2013 from the USPTO that maintained the rejections set forth on the Right of Appeal Notice dated February 7, 2012. The Company filed a Rebuttal Brief on May 16, 2013 and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 7, 2013. The appeal hearing took place in front of the PTAB on November 20, 2013. The PTAB issued its decision on January 16, 2014, affirming the Examiner’s decision as to all of the challenged claims. On February 18, 2014, the Company made a request for rehearing of the decision, and in papers dated March 18, 2014, Netlist provided rebuttal comments to the request for rehearing. On August 13, 2014, the PTAB denied our request for rehearing, and on October 15, 2014, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An Appeal Brief was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 3, 2015, which has been opposed by Netlist. The parties attended an oral hearing at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 9, 2015 and argued their respective positions. An Order from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is expected as the next substantive step of the proceeding, as prosecution otherwise remains closed. The proceeding is expected to continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures.

On September 8, 2010, the USPTO ordered the request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 and found a substantial new question of patentability based upon different issues that the Company raised as the reexamination requestor. The USPTO accompanied this Reexamination Order of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 with its own evaluation of the validity of this patent, and initially determined that all of the claims were patentable based upon the Company’s request for Inter Partes Reexamination. Netlist did not comment upon this Reexamination Order. The USPTO on February 28, 2011 also merged the Proceedings of our Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912, bearing Control No. 90/001,339 with Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding 95/000,578 filed October 20, 2010 on behalf of SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. and Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding 95/000,579 filed October 21, 2010 on behalf of Google, Inc. In each of these other Reexamination Proceedings, the USPTO had indicated that there existed a substantial new question of patentability with respect to certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912, but had not accompanied the Reexamination Orders related thereto with its own evaluation of the validity of this patent, indicating that such evaluation would be forthcoming at a later time. This further evaluation was received in an Office Action dated April 4, 2011, in which the Examiner rejected a substantial majority of the claims based upon a number of different rejections, including certain of the rejections originally proposed by the Company in its Request for Reexamination. This Office Action also indicated that one claim was deemed to be patentable over the prior art of record in the merged Reexamination Proceedings. After seeking and obtaining an extension of time to respond to the Office Action dated April 4, 2011, Netlist served its response on July 5, 2011, which added new claims and made arguments as to why the originally filed claims were not invalid in view of the cited references. Each of the merged Reexamination Requestors, including the Company, submitted rebuttal comments by August 29, 2011. The USPTO considered this Netlist response and each of the rebuttal comments, and in an Office Action dated October 14, 2011, continued to reject most, but not all of the previously rejected claims, as well as rejected claims that had been added by Netlist in its July 5, 2011 response. After seeking and obtaining an extension of time to respond to the Office Action dated October 14, 2011, Netlist served its response on January 13, 2012, which response made amendments based upon subject matter that had been indicated as allowable in the Office Action dated October 14, 2011, added other new claims and made arguments as to why all of these claims should be allowed. The three different merged Reexamination Requestors, including the Company, timely submitted rebuttal comments on or about February 13, 2012. The USPTO issued a Non-final Office Action on November 13, 2012, rejecting some claims and indicating that others contained allowable subject matter. On January 14, 2013, Netlist filed a Response to the Non-final Office Action which presented further claim amendments and evidence supporting its positions regarding patentability. Rebuttal comments from the Company and the other Requestors were filed on February 13, 2013. On March 21, 2014, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution in which the USPTO indicated that certain of the pending claims were allowable and other of the pending claims were rejected, and on June 18, 2014 issued a Right of Notice of Appeal. By July 18, 2014, the Company as well as other Requesters each filed Notices of Appeal, and Netlist filed a Cross Appeal on July 30, 2014. By September 30, 2014, each of the Requestors as well as Netlist had filed their respective Appeal Briefs, and by October 30, 2014 each of the Requestors as well as Netlist had filed their respective Responses to the previously filed Appeal Briefs. Rebuttal Briefs by Requesters and Netlist were filed on or before February 18, 2015, and certain of the Requesters and Netlist filed requests for Oral Hearing at the USPTO by March 17, 2015. On May 27, 2015 the Examiner indicated that all Rebuttal Briefs had been considered, and forwarded the reexamination proceedings to the PTAB for consideration of the appeal. An oral hearing on the Appeal and Cross-Appeal is set for November 24, 2015, and will be the next substantive step of the proceeding, as currently prosecution otherwise will remain closed. The merged proceeding is expected to continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures.

Inphi Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)

The reexamination proceedings could result in a determination that the patents-in-suit, in whole or in part, are valid or invalid, as well as modifications of the scope of the patents-in-suit.

Based on these papers the Court in January 2014 ordered a continued stay of the proceedings, took the litigation off the active court calendar, and requested that the parties file a joint status report on May 1, 2014 and every 120 days thereafter advising the Court as to status of the reexamination proceedings at which times, the Court could decide to maintain or lift the stay.

While the Company intends to defend the foregoing lawsuit vigorously, litigation, whether or not determined in the Company’s favor or settled, could be costly and time-consuming and could divert management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect the Company’s business.

Based on the nature of the litigation, the Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of this lawsuit and therefore, cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. However, because of the nature and inherent uncertainties of litigation, should the outcome of these actions be unfavorable, the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

In March 2015, the Company settled a patent dispute involving Cortina and Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (Vitesse). The patent dispute involved a certain patent family owned by Vitesse associated with error correction. The Company paid Vitesse $750 to resolve the dispute. Based on the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 30, 2014, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 25, 2014, the Company was indemnified for this settlement arising from this claim, up to an amount of $750.

Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, investors, directors, officers, employees and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company’s breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third-parties. These indemnifications may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. The Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnifications. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014.