##### Table of Contents





UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549





FORM 10-Q





(Mark One)

|x | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010

OR



| ̈ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission File Number: 000-50460





TESSERA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)







|                                                               |  |                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Delaware                                                       |  | 16-1620029                          
|(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) |  | (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|                                                               | 
|3025 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California                     |  | 95134                               
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                       |  | (Zip Code)                          

(408)
321-6000

(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
days.    Yes  x    No   ̈

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File
required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter time period that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files).    Yes   ̈    No   ̈

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting
company. See definition of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer   x    Accelerated
filer   ̈    Non-accelerated filer   ̈    Smaller reporting
company   ̈

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as
defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes  ̈ No x

As of April 28, 2010, 50,210,053 shares of the registrants common stock were outstanding.











---

##### Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

FORM 10-Q  QUARTERLY REPORT

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS



|              |  |                                                                                                        |  |     
|------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----
|              |  |                                                                                                        |  | Page
|              |  | PART I                                                                                                 |  |     
|Item 1.       |  | Financial Statements (unaudited)                                                                       |  | 3   
|              |  | Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets  March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009                           |  | 3   
|              |  | Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations  Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 |  | 4   
|              |  | Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows  Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 |  | 5   
|              |  | Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements                                                   |  | 6   
|Item 2.       |  | Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations                  |  | 30  
|Item 3.       |  | Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk                                             |  | 41  
|Item 4.       |  | Controls and Procedures                                                                                |  | 41  
|              |  |                                                                                                       
|              |  | PART II                                                                                                |  |     
|Item 1.       |  | Legal Proceedings                                                                                      |  | 41  
|Item 1A.      |  | Risk Factors                                                                                           |  | 50  
|Item 2.       |  | Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds                                            |  | 63  
|Item 3.       |  | Defaults Upon Senior Securities                                                                        |  | 63  
|Item 4.       |  | Other Information                                                                                      |  | 63  
|Item 5.       |  | Exhibits                                                                                               |  | 64  
|              | 
|Signatures    |  | 65                                                                                                    
|              | 
|Exhibit Index |  | 66                                                                                                    



2



---

##### Table of Contents

PART IFINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements (unaudited)

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except for par value)

(unaudited)



|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------- | ------- | - | ------------ | - | ------- | -
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  | March 31, |         |   | December 31, |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  | 2010      |         |   | 2009         |  
|ASSETS                                                                                                                                                           |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Current assets:                                                                                                                                                  |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Cash and cash equivalents                                                                                                                                        |  | $         | 106,115 |   |              | $ | 107,873 |  
|Short-term investments                                                                                                                                           |  |           | 311,267 |   |              |   | 280,085 |  
|Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $43 and $43, respectively                                                                         |  |           | 6,754   |   |              |   | 10,237  |  
|Inventories                                                                                                                                                      |  |           | 1,767   |   |              |   | 1,571   |  
|Short-term deferred tax assets                                                                                                                                   |  |           | 6,242   |   |              |   | 6,240   |  
|Other current assets                                                                                                                                             |  |           | 4,278   |   |              |   | 6,255   |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Total current assets                                                                                                                                             |  |           | 436,423 |   |              |   | 412,261 |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |          
|Property and equipment, net                                                                                                                                      |  |           | 43,270  |   |              |   | 42,483  |  
|Intangible assets, net                                                                                                                                           |  |           | 75,889  |   |              |   | 77,753  |  
|Goodwill                                                                                                                                                         |  |           | 45,150  |   |              |   | 45,150  |  
|Long-term deferred tax assets                                                                                                                                    |  |           | 19,299  |   |              |   | 19,299  |  
|Long-term investments                                                                                                                                            |  |           | 14,700  |   |              |   | 15,691  |  
|Other assets                                                                                                                                                     |  |           | 3,670   |   |              |   | 3,681   |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Total assets                                                                                                                                                     |  | $         | 638,401 |   |              | $ | 616,318 |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |          
|LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY                                                                                                                             |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Current liabilities:                                                                                                                                             |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Accounts payable                                                                                                                                                 |  | $         | 2,810   |   |              | $ | 2,354   |  
|Accrued legal fees                                                                                                                                               |  |           | 4,090   |   |              |   | 3,064   |  
|Accrued liabilities                                                                                                                                              |  |           | 16,667  |   |              |   | 21,633  |  
|Deferred revenue                                                                                                                                                 |  |           | 5,396   |   |              |   | 5,334   |  
|Income tax payable                                                                                                                                               |  |           | 6,470   |   |              |   | 317     |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Total current liabilities                                                                                                                                        |  |           | 35,433  |   |              |   | 32,702  |  
|Long-term deferred tax liabilities                                                                                                                               |  |           | 6,684   |   |              |   | 6,684   |  
|Other long-term liabilities                                                                                                                                      |  |           | 4,747   |   |              |   | 4,747   |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |          
|Commitments and contingencies (Note 10)                                                                                                                          |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Stockholders equity:                                                                                                                                            |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Preferred stock: $0.001 par value; 10,000 shares authorized and no shares issued and outstanding                                                                 |  |           |        |   |              |   |        |  
|Common stock: $0.001 par value; 150,000 shares authorized; 50,805 and 50,490 shares issued, respectively, and 50,160 and 49,845
shares outstanding, respectively |  |           | 51      |   |              |   | 50      |  
|Additional paid-in capital                                                                                                                                       |  |           | 411,536 |   |              |   | 402,330 |  
|Treasury stock at cost: 645 and 645 shares of common stock, respectively                                                                                         |  |           | (10,505 | ) |              |   | (10,505 | )
|Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)                                                                                                                    |  |           | 263     |   |              |   | (55     | )
|Retained earnings                                                                                                                                                |  |           | 190,192 |   |              |   | 180,365 |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Total stockholders equity                                                                                                                                       |  |           | 591,537 |   |              |   | 572,185 |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  
|Total liabilities and stockholders equity                                                                                                                       |  | $         | 638,401 |   |              | $ | 616,318 |  
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |           |         |   |              |   |         |  

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.



3



---

##### Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)



|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------ | ------ | ------------- | - | -------
|                                                                         |  | Three Months Ended
|                                                                         |  | March 31,2010      |        | March 31,2009
|Revenues:                                                                |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Royalty and license fees                                                 |  | $                  | 58,853 |               | $ | 111,857
|Product and service revenues                                             |  |                    | 5,409  |               |   | 2,719  
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Total revenues                                                           |  |                    | 64,262 |               |   | 114,576
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Operating expenses:                                                      |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Cost of revenues                                                         |  |                    | 5,193  |               |   | 4,098  
|Research, development and other related costs                            |  |                    | 15,813 |               |   | 16,630 
|Selling, general and administrative                                      |  |                    | 19,258 |               |   | 17,496 
|Litigation expense                                                       |  |                    | 6,597  |               |   | 8,625  
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Total operating expenses                                                 |  |                    | 46,861 |               |   | 46,849 
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Operating income                                                         |  |                    | 17,401 |               |   | 67,727 
|Other income and expense, net                                            |  |                    | 521    |               |   | 2,762  
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Income before taxes                                                      |  |                    | 17,922 |               |   | 70,489 
|Provision for income taxes                                               |  |                    | 8,095  |               |   | 31,020 
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Net income                                                               |  | $                  | 9,827  |               | $ | 39,469 
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Basic and diluted net income per share:                                  |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Net income per share-basic                                               |  | $                  | 0.20   |               | $ | 0.82   
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Net income per share-diluted                                             |  | $                  | 0.20   |               | $ | 0.82   
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Weighted average number of shares used in per share calculations-basic   |  |                    | 49,810 |               |   | 48,147 
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|                                                                         |  |                   
|Weighted average number of shares used in per share calculations-diluted |  |                    | 50,123 |               |   | 48,318 
|                                                                         |  |                    |        |               |   |        

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.



4



---

##### Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

(unaudited)



|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | -------- | - | ------------- | - | ------- | -
|                                                                                  |  | Three Months Ended |         
|                                                                                  |  | March 31,2010      |          |   | March 31,2009 |  
|Cash flows from operating activities:                                             |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|Net income                                                                        |  | $                  | 9,827    |   |               | $ | 39,469  |  
|Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|Depreciation and amortization of property and equipment                           |  |                    | 2,590    |   |               |   | 2,088   |  
|Amortization of intangible assets                                                 |  |                    | 3,471    |   |               |   | 2,897   |  
|Impairment on long-term investments and assets, net of gain                       |  |                    |         |   |               |   | 1,617   |  
|Loss (gain) on property and equipment                                             |  |                    | (5       | ) |               |   | 509     |  
|Stock-based compensation expense                                                  |  |                    | 6,866    |   |               |   | 6,316   |  
|Deferred income tax, net                                                          |  |                    |         |   |               |   | 357     |  
|Tax benefits from stock-based awards                                              |  |                    |         |   |               |   | 1,754   |  
|Excess tax benefit from stock-based awards                                        |  |                    | (279     | ) |               |   | (1,532  | )
|Changes in operating assets and liabilities, net of acquisitions:                 |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|Accounts receivable, net                                                          |  |                    | 3,483    |   |               |   | 3,910   |  
|Inventories                                                                       |  |                    | (196     | ) |               |   | 47      |  
|Other assets                                                                      |  |                    | 1,976    |   |               |   | 3,045   |  
|Accounts payable                                                                  |  |                    | 456      |   |               |   | (255    | )
|Accrued legal fees                                                                |  |                    | 1,026    |   |               |   | 1,417   |  
|Accrued liabilities                                                               |  |                    | (6,247   | ) |               |   | (4,367  | )
|Deferred revenue                                                                  |  |                    | 62       |   |               |   | 3,179   |  
|Income tax payable                                                                |  |                    | 6,151    |   |               |   | 25,313  |  
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|                                                                                  |  |                   
|Net cash provided by operating activities                                         |  |                    | 29,181   |   |               |   | 85,764  |  
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|                                                                                  |  |                   
|Cash flows from investing activities:                                             |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|Purchases of property and equipment                                               |  |                    | (2,144   | ) |               |   | (5,721  | )
|Proceeds from sale of property and equipment                                      |  |                    | 6        |   |               |   | 8       |  
|Purchases of short-term available-for-sale investments                            |  |                    | (155,305 | ) |               |   | (52,787 | )
|Proceeds from maturities and sales of short-term and long-term investments        |  |                    | 125,444  |   |               |   | 35,386  |  
|Purchases of intangible assets                                                    |  |                    | (1,560   | ) |               |   | (275    | )
|Change in minority equity investments                                             |  |                    |         |   |               |   | 912     |  
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|                                                                                  |  |                   
|Net cash used in investing activities                                             |  |                    | (33,559  | ) |               |   | (22,477 | )
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|                                                                                  |  |                   
|Cash flows from financing activities:                                             |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|Excess tax benefit from stock-based awards                                        |  |                    | 279      |   |               |   | 1,532   |  
|Proceeds from exercise of stock options                                           |  |                    | 343      |   |               |   | 1       |  
|Proceeds from employee stock purchase program                                     |  |                    | 1,998    |   |               |   | 1,051   |  
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|                                                                                  |  |                   
|Net cash provided by financing activities                                         |  |                    | 2,620    |   |               |   | 2,584   |  
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents                              |  |                    | (1,758   | ) |               |   | 65,871  |  
|Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period                                  |  |                    | 107,873  |   |               |   | 87,890  |  
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  
|                                                                                  |  |                   
|Cash and cash equivalents at end of period                                        |  | $                  | 106,115  |   |               | $ | 153,761 |  
|                                                                                  |  |                    |          |   |               |   |         |  

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.



5



---

##### Table of Contents

TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(unaudited)

NOTE 1
 THE COMPANY AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Tessera Technologies, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, herein referred to as
Tessera or the Company), is a technology innovator that invests in, licenses and delivers innovative miniaturization technologies for next-generation electronic devices. Tessera licenses its technologies worldwide, as well as
delivers products based on its technologies, which is done in part to promote the development of supply chain infrastructure. The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Tessera Technologies, Inc. and each of its wholly
owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany balances and transactions are eliminated in consolidation.

The accompanying interim
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009, and for the three months then ended, have been prepared by the Company in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) in the United States for interim financial information. The amounts as of December 31, 2009 have been derived from the Companys annual audited financial statements. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally
included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP have been condensed or omitted in accordance with such rules and regulations. In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements
reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary to state fairly the financial position of the Company and its results of operations and cash flows as of and for the periods presented. These financial statements should
be read in conjunction with the annual audited financial statements and notes thereto as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009, included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 25, 2010.

The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full
year ended December 31, 2010 or any future period and the Company makes no representations related thereto.

NOTE 2  SUMMARY OF
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

There have been no significant changes in the Companys significant accounting policies during the
three months ended March 31, 2010, as compared to the significant accounting policies described in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.

NOTE 3  RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

Adopted

In June 2009, the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued an amendment to the accounting and disclosure requirements for the consolidation of variable interest entities which changes how a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently
capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a reporting entity is required to consolidate another entity is based on, among other things, the other entitys purpose
and design and the reporting entitys ability to direct the activities of the other entity that most significantly impact the other entitys economic performance. This amendment will require a reporting entity to provide additional
disclosures about its involvement with variable interest entities and any significant changes in risk exposure due to that involvement. A reporting entity will be required to disclose how its involvement with a variable interest entity affects the
reporting entitys financial statements. This amendment will be effective at the start of a reporting entitys first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2009, or January 1, 2010, for a calendar year-end entity. In January
2010, the Company adopted this guidance, which did not have a significant impact on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On January 21, 2010, the FASB issued an update to the authoritative guidance for fair value measurements and disclosures. The update includes a
requirement that reporting entities provide information about movements of assets among Levels 1 and 2 of the three-tier fair value hierarchy established by existing authoritative guidance; adding separate disclosures about purchase, sales,
issuances, and settlements relative to Level 3 measurements; and clarifying, among other things, the existing fair value disclosures about the level of disaggregation. This update is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after
December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. Those disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. In January 2010, the Company adopted this guidance effective in the first quarter of 2010, which did not have a significant impact on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Issued

In September 2009, the FASB issued an update to the authoritative guidance for revenue recognition related to multiple-deliverable arrangements. This
update removes the objective-and-reliable-evidence-of-fair-value criterion from the separation criteria used to determine whether an arrangement involving multiple deliverables contains more than one unit of accounting, replaces references to
fair value with selling price to distinguish from the fair value measurements required under the authoritative guidance for fair value measurements and disclosures, provides a hierarchy that entities must use to estimate the
selling price, eliminates the use of the residual method for allocation, and expands the ongoing disclosure requirements. In addition, this update removes non-software components of tangible products and certain software components of tangible
products from the scope of existing software revenue guidance. This update is effective in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010 and can be applied prospectively or retrospectively. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is
currently evaluating the effect the adoption of this update will have, if any, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.



6



---

##### Table of Contents

In April 2010, the FASB issued an update to the authoritative guidance for revenue recognition related to
the milestone method. This update provides that an entity can make an accounting policy election to recognize a payment that is contingent upon the achievement of a substantive milestone in its entirety as revenue in the period in which the
milestone is achieved. The milestone method is not required and is not the only acceptable method of revenue recognition for milestone payments. This update is effective in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010 and can be applied
prospectively or retrospectively. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect the adoption of this update will have, if any, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 4  COMPOSITION OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL STATEMENT CAPTIONS

Inventories consisted of the following (in thousands):



|                |  |               |       |  |                  |   |       | 
|--------------- |  | ------------- | ----- |  | ---------------- | - | ----- | 
|                |  | March 31,2010 |       |  | December 31,2009 |  
|Raw materials   |  | $             | 473   |  |                  | $ | 513   | 
|Work in process |  |               | 920   |  |                  |   | 739   | 
|Finished goods  |  |               | 374   |  |                  |   | 319   | 
|                |  |               |       |  |                  |   |       | 
|                |  | $             | 1,767 |  |                  | $ | 1,571 | 
|                |  |               |       |  |                  |   |       | 

Property and equipment consisted of the following (in thousands):



|                                                |  |               |         |   |                  |   |         |  
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------- | ------- | - | ---------------- | - | ------- | -
|                                                |  | March 31,2010 |         |   | December 31,2009 |  
|Furniture and equipment                         |  | $             | 50,001  |   |                  | $ | 46,836  |  
|Land and buildings                              |  |               | 20,073  |   |                  |   | 19,886  |  
|Leasehold improvements                          |  |               | 3,979   |   |                  |   | 3,979   |  
|                                                |  |               |         |   |                  |   |         |  
|                                                |  |               | 74,053  |   |                  |   | 70,701  |  
|Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization |  |               | (30,783 | ) |                  |   | (28,218 | )
|                                                |  |               |         |   |                  |   |         |  
|                                                |  | $             | 43,270  |   |                  | $ | 42,483  |  
|                                                |  |               |         |   |                  |   |         |  

Accrued liabilities consisted of the following (in thousands):



|                                   |  |               |        |  |                  |   |        | 
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------- | ------ |  | ---------------- | - | ------ | 
|                                   |  | March 31,2010 |        |  | December 31,2009 |  
|Employee compensation and benefits |  | $             | 8,084  |  |                  | $ | 12,295 | 
|Other                              |  |               | 8,583  |  |                  |   | 9,338  | 
|                                   |  |               |        |  |                  |   |        | 
|                                   |  | $             | 16,667 |  |                  | $ | 21,633 | 
|                                   |  |               |        |  |                  |   |        | 

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) consisted of the following (in thousands):



|                                                                               |  |               |     |  |                  |   |     |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------- | --- |  | ---------------- | - | --- | -
|                                                                               |  | March 31,2010 |     |  | December 31,2009 |  
|Net unrealized gain (loss) on short-term and long-term investments, net of tax |  | $             | 263 |  |                  | $ | (55 | )
|                                                                               |  |               |     |  |                  |   |     |  
|Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)                                  |  | $             | 263 |  |                  | $ | (55 | )
|                                                                               |  |               |     |  |                  |   |     |  



7



---

##### Table of Contents

NOTE 5  GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS

Goodwill is recorded as the difference, if any, between the aggregate consideration paid for an acquisition and the fair value of the net tangible and
identified intangible assets acquired under a business combination. Also included in the balance for intangible assets are assets purchased through asset acquisitions. The amounts and useful lives assigned to intangible assets acquired, other than
goodwill, impact the amount and timing of future amortization. The value of the Companys identified intangible assets and goodwill could be impacted by future adverse changes such as a decline in future cash flows, slow adoption of the
products by the customers or significant decline in growth rates in the industry in which the reporting unit operates.

The carrying value for
goodwill at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 was $45.2 million, all of which was allocated to the Imaging and Optics segment. See Note 11Segment and Geographic Information for additional detail.

Identified intangible assets consisted of the following (in thousands):



|                           |  |                    |  |                         |         |                   |     |         |             |  |                         |        |  |     |         |  |   |         |   |  |   |       
|-------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ----------------------- | ------- | ----------------- | --- | ------- | ----------- |  | ----------------------- | ------ |  | --- | ------- |  | - | ------- | - |  | - | ------
|                           |  | AverageLife(Years) |  | March 31, 2010          |         | December 31, 2009
|                           |  | GrossAssets        |  | AccumulatedAmortization |         |                   | Net |         | GrossAssets |  | AccumulatedAmortization |        |  | Net
|Acquired patents           |  | 3-15               |  | $                       | 43,502  |                   | $   | (8,877  | )           |  | $                       | 34,625 |  | $   | 41,895  |  | $ | (7,651  | ) |  | $ | 34,244
|Existing technology        |  | 5-10               |  |                         | 51,162  |                   |     | (19,934 | )           |  |                         | 31,228 |  |     | 51,162  |  |   | (18,284 | ) |  |   | 32,878
|Trade name                 |  | 4-10               |  |                         | 3,620   |                   |     | (1,390  | )           |  |                         | 2,230  |  |     | 3,620   |  |   | (1,288  | ) |  |   | 2,332 
|Customer contracts         |  | 3-9                |  |                         | 11,900  |                   |     | (4,161  | )           |  |                         | 7,739  |  |     | 11,900  |  |   | (3,687  | ) |  |   | 8,213 
|Non-competition agreements |  | 2                  |  |                         | 1,400   |                   |     | (1,400  | )           |  |                         |       |  |     | 1,400   |  |   | (1,400  | ) |  |   |      
|Assembled workforce        |  | 4                  |  |                         | 300     |                   |     | (233    | )           |  |                         | 67     |  |     | 300     |  |   | (214    | ) |  |   | 86    
|                           |  |                    |  |                         |         |                   |     |         |             |  |                         |        |  |     |         |  |   |         |   |  |   |       
|                           |  |                    |  | $                       | 111,884 |                   | $   | (35,995 | )           |  | $                       | 75,889 |  | $   | 110,277 |  | $ | (32,524 | ) |  | $ | 77,753
|                           |  |                    |  |                         |         |                   |     |         |             |  |                         |        |  |     |         |  |   |         |   |  |   |       

Amortization expense for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and
March 31, 2009 amounted to $3.5 million and $2.9 million, respectively.

As of March 31, 2010, the estimated future amortization
expense of intangible assets is as follows (in thousands):



|                          |  |   |       
|------------------------- |  | - | ------
|2010 (remaining 9 months) |  | $ | 10,365
|2011                      |  |   | 13,537
|2012                      |  |   | 12,768
|2013                      |  |   | 11,904
|2014                      |  |   | 10,094
|Thereafter                |  |   | 17,221
|                          |  |   |       
|                          |  | $ | 75,889
|                          |  |   |       



8



---

##### Table of Contents

NOTE 6  NET INCOME PER SHARE

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income per share (in thousands, except per share amounts):





|                                                   |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ------ | - | ------------- | - | ------ | -
|                                                   |  | Three Months Ended |       
|                                                   |  | March 31,2010      |        |   | March 31,2009 |  
|Numerator:                                         |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|Net income                                         |  | $                  | 9,827  |   |               | $ | 39,469 |  
|Denominator:                                       |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|Weighted average common shares outstanding         |  |                    | 50,041 |   |               |   | 48,581 |  
|Less: Unvested common shares subject to repurchase |  |                    | (231   | ) |               |   | (434   | )
|                                                   |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|Total shares-basic                                 |  |                    | 49,810 |   |               |   | 48,147 |  
|Effect of dilutive securities:                     |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|Stock awards                                       |  |                    | 158    |   |               |   | 143    |  
|Restricted stock awards and units                  |  |                    | 155    |   |               |   | 28     |  
|                                                   |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|Total shares-diluted                               |  |                    | 50,123 |   |               |   | 48,318 |  
|                                                   |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|Net income per common share-basic                  |  | $                  | 0.20   |   |               | $ | 0.82   |  
|                                                   |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|Net income per common share-diluted                |  | $                  | 0.20   |   |               | $ | 0.82   |  
|                                                   |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  

Basic net income per share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period,
excluding any unvested restricted stock awards that are subject to repurchase. Diluted net income per share is computed using the treasury stock method to calculate the weighted average number of common shares and, if dilutive, potential common
shares outstanding during the period. Potential dilutive common shares include unvested restricted shares and the incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants, less shares from assumed proceeds. The assumed
proceeds calculation includes actual proceeds to be received from the employee upon exercise, the average unrecognized compensation cost during the period and any tax benefits that will be credited upon exercise to additional paid in capital.

For the three months ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009, approximately 5.3 million and 6.5 million shares of common
stock, respectively, subject to stock options, restricted stock awards and units were excluded from the computation of diluted net income per share as they were anti-dilutive.

NOTE 7  STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY

Stock Repurchase Programs

In
August 2007, the Companys Board of Directors authorized a plan to repurchase up to a maximum total of $100.0 million of the Companys outstanding shares of common stock dependent on market conditions, share price and other factors. As of
March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 the Company has repurchased a total of 645,000 shares of common stock at an average price of $16.26 per share for a total cost of $10.5 million under this plan, respectively. The shares repurchased are
recorded as treasury stock and are accounted for under the cost method. No expiration date has been specified for this plan. As of March 31, 2010, the total amount available for repurchase was $89.5 million. The Company may continue to execute
authorized repurchases from time to time under the plan.

Stock Option Plans

The 1996 Plan and the 1999 Plan

In December 1996, the Company adopted the 1996 Stock Option Plan (1996 Plan). In February 1999, the Company adopted the 1999 Stock
Option Plan (1999 Plan) which was approved by the stockholders in May 1999. Under the 1996 Plan and the 1999 Plan, incentive stock options may be granted to the Companys employees at an exercise price of no less than 100% of the
fair value on the date of grant, and nonstatutory stock options may be granted to the Companys employees, non-employee directors and consultants at an exercise price of no less than 85% of the fair value. In both cases, when the optionees own
stock representing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of stock of the Company, the exercise price shall be no less than 110% of the fair value on the date of grant. For options granted with an exercise price below fair market value, a
stock-based compensation charge has been determined. Options granted under these plans generally have a term of ten years from the date of grant and vest over a four-year period. Shares issued in connection with the exercise of unvested options are
subject to repurchase by the Company until such options vest. After February 1999, no further options were granted from the 1996 Plan. After December 2000, no further options were granted from the 1999 Plan. The Company has no intention of issuing
additional grants under these plans. As of March 31, 2010, there were no shares reserved for grant under these plans and only cancellations under the 1999 Plan are recorded as available for grant. Based on a Board of Directors decision,
cancellations under the 1996 Plan are not considered available for grant.



9



---

##### Table of Contents

The 2003 Plan

In February 2003, the Board of Directors adopted and the Company stockholders approved the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (2003 Plan). Under the
2003 Plan, incentive stock options may be granted to the Companys employees at an exercise price of no less than 100% of the fair value on the date of grant, and nonstatutory stock options may be granted to the Companys employees,
non-employee directors and consultants at an exercise price of no less than 85% of the fair value. In both cases, when the optionees own stock representing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of stock of the Company, the exercise price
shall be no less than 110% of the fair value on the date of grant. For options granted with an exercise price below fair market value, a stock-based compensation charge has been determined. Options and restricted stock awards and units granted under
this plan generally have a term of ten years from the date of grant and vest over a four-year period. Restricted stock, performance awards, dividend equivalents, deferred stock, stock payments and stock appreciation rights may also be granted under
the 2003 Plan either alone, in addition to, or in tandem with any options granted thereunder. Restricted stock awards and units are full-value awards that reduce the number of shares reserved for grant under this plan by one and one-half shares for
each share granted. The vesting criteria for restricted stock awards and units is generally the passage of time or meeting certain performance-based objectives, and continued employment through the vesting period generally over four years. As of
March 31, 2010, there were 2,651,000 shares reserved for grant under this plan.

A summary of the activity is presented below (in
thousands, except per share amounts):



|                                        |  |                           |   |  |                                                  |      
|--------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------- | - |  | ------------------------------------------------ | -----
|                                        |  | Shares Outstanding       
|                                        |  | Number        
  ofShares |   |  | Weighted     
     AverageExercisePrice
PerShare
|Balance at December 31, 2009            |  | 5,859                     |   |  | $                                                | 22.74
|Options granted                         |  | 58                        |   |  | $                                                | 19.98
|Options exercised                       |  | (27                       | ) |  | $                                                | 12.70
|Options cancelled / forfeited / expired |  | (68                       | ) |  | $                                                | 32.47
|                                        |  |                           |   |  |                                                  |      
|Balance at March 31, 2010               |  | 5,822                     |   |  | $                                                | 22.64
|                                        |  |                           |   |  |                                                  |      

Information with respect to outstanding restricted stock awards and units as of March 31, 2010 is as follows
(in thousands, except per share amounts):



|                                       |  |                                             |   |  |                                                    |   |  |                               |   |  |                                                |      
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- | - |  | -------------------------------------------------- | - |  | ----------------------------- | - |  | ---------------------------------------------- | -----
|                                       |  | Restricted Stock                           
|                                       |  | Number of SharesSubject
toTime-based Awards |   |  | Number of SharesSubject toPerformance-based Awards |   |  | Total
Number        of Shares |   |  | Weighted AverageGrant DateFair Value Per Share
|Balance at December 31, 2009           |  | 526                                         |   |  | 395                                                |   |  | 921                           |   |  | $                                              | 27.07
|Awards and units granted               |  | 47                                          |   |  | 5                                                  |   |  | 52                            |   |  | $                                              | 20.38
|Awards and units vested / earned       |  | (105                                        | ) |  | (49                                                | ) |  | (154                          | ) |  | $                                              | 33.16
|Awards and units cancelled / forfeited |  | (23                                         | ) |  |                                                   |   |  | (23                           | ) |  | $                                              | 25.37
|                                       |  |                                             |   |  |                                                    |   |  |                               |   |  |                                                |      
|Balance at March 31, 2010              |  | 445                                         |   |  | 351                                                |   |  | 796                           |   |  | $                                              | 25.51
|                                       |  |                                             |   |  |                                                    |   |  |                               |   |  |                                                |      

Performance Awards

Performance awards may be granted to employees or consultants based upon, among other things, the contributions, responsibilities and other compensation
of the particular employee or consultant. The value and the vesting of such performance awards is generally linked to one or more performance goals or other specific performance goals determined by the Company, in each case on a specified date or
dates or over any period or periods determined by the Company, and is generally ranging from 0 to 100 percent of the shares.

Employee
Stock Purchase Plan

In August 2003, the Company adopted the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which was approved by the
Companys stockholders in September 2003. The Company initially reserved 200,000 shares of common stock for issuance under the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The reserve will automatically increase on the first day of each fiscal year
during the term of the ESPP by an amount equal to the lesser of (1) 200,000 shares, (2) 1.0% of the Companys outstanding shares on such date or (3) a lesser amount determined by the Board of Directors. Subsequently, the Company
adopted the International Employee Stock Purchase Plan in June 2008 which reserves 200,000 shares of common stock for issuance under this plan. The 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the International Employee Stock Purchase Plan (collectively,
ESPP) are designed to allow eligible employees residing in the U.S. or internationally to purchase shares of common stock, at semi-annual intervals, with their accumulated payroll deductions.



10



---

##### Table of Contents

The ESPP has a series of consecutive, overlapping 24-month offering periods. The first offering period
commenced February 1, 2004, the effective date of the ESPP, as determined by the Board of Directors.

Individuals who own less than 5% of
the Companys voting stock, are scheduled to work more than 20 hours per week and whose customary employment is for more than five months in any calendar year may join an offering period on the first day of the offering period or the beginning
of any semi-annual purchase period within that period. Individuals who become eligible employees after the start date of an offering period may join the ESPP at the beginning of any subsequent semi-annual purchase period.

Participants may contribute up to 20% of their cash earnings through payroll deductions, and the accumulated deductions will apply to the purchase of
shares on each semi-annual purchase date. The purchase price per share will equal 85% of the fair market value per share on the participants entry date into the offering period or, if lower, 85% of the fair market value per share on the
semi-annual purchase date.

An eligible employees right to buy the Companys common stock under the ESPP may not accrue at a rate
in excess of $25,000 of the fair market value of such shares per calendar year for each calendar year of an offering period.

If the fair
market value per share of the Companys common stock on any purchase date is less than the fair market value per share on the start date of the two-year offering period, then that offering period will automatically terminate and a new 24-month
offering period will begin on the next business day. All participants in the terminated offering will be transferred to the new offering period.

In the event of a proposed sale of all or substantially all of the Companys assets, or merger with or into another company, the outstanding rights
under the ESPP will be assumed or an equivalent right substituted by the successor company or its parent or subsidiary. If the successor company or its parent refuses to assume the outstanding rights or substitute an equivalent right, then all
outstanding purchase rights will automatically be exercised prior to the effective date of the transaction. The purchase price will equal 85% of the market value per share on the participants entry date into the offering period in which an
acquisition occurs or, if lower, 85% of the fair market value per share on the date the purchase rights are exercised.

The ESPP will
terminate no later than the tenth anniversary of the ESPPs initial adoption by the Board of Directors.

As of March 31, 2010, there
were 553,000 shares reserved for grant under the ESPP.

NOTE 8  STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION EXPENSE

The effect of recording stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 is as follows (in
thousands):



|                                              |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ----- | ------------- | - | -----
|                                              |  | Three Months Ended
|                                              |  | March 31,2010      |       | March 31,2009
|Cost of revenues                              |  | $                  | 175   |               | $ | 111  
|Research, development and other related costs |  |                    | 2,677 |               |   | 2,667
|Selling, general and administrative           |  |                    | 4,014 |               |   | 3,538
|                                              |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|Total stock-based compensation expense        |  | $                  | 6,866 |               | $ | 6,316
|                                              |  |                    |       |               |   |      

The stock-based compensation expense categorized by various equity
components for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 is summarized in the table below (in thousands):



|                                       |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ----- | ------------- | - | -----
|                                       |  | Three Months Ended
|                                       |  | March 31,2010      |       | March 31,2009
|Employee stock options                 |  | $                  | 3,751 |               | $ | 3,444
|Restricted stock awards and units      |  |                    | 2,609 |               |   | 2,454
|Employee stock purchase plan           |  |                    | 506   |               |   | 418  
|                                       |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|Total stock-based compensation expense |  | $                  | 6,866 |               | $ | 6,316
|                                       |  |                    |       |               |   |      

The Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine
the estimated fair value of stock-based awards. The fair value of each option grant is determined on the date of grant and the expense is recorded on a straight-line basis. The assumptions used in the model include expected life, volatility,
risk-free interest rate, and dividend yield. The Companys determinations of these assumptions are outlined below.

Expected life  The expected life assumption is based on analysis of the Companys historical employee exercise patterns.
The expected life of options granted under the ESPP represents the amount of time remaining in the 24-month offering period ranging from 0.5 to 2 years.



11



---

##### Table of Contents

Volatility  Volatility is calculated using the historical volatility of the
Companys common stock for a term consistent with the expected life. Historical volatility of the Companys common stock is also utilized for the ESPP.

Risk-free interest rate  The risk-free interest rate assumption is based on the U.S. treasury rate for issues with remaining
terms similar to the expected life of the options.

Dividend yield  The Company does not anticipate paying any
cash dividends in the foreseeable future and therefore uses an expected dividend yield of zero in the option pricing model.

In addition, the
Company estimates forfeiture rates. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of grant and revised in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Historical data is used to estimate pre-vesting option forfeitures and record
stock-based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest.

The following assumptions were used to value the options
granted:



|                         |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|------------------------ |  | ------------------ | - |  | ------------- | -
|                         |  | Three Months Ended |  
|                         |  | March 31,2010      |   |  | March 31,2009 |  
|Expected life (in years) |  | 3.8                |   |  | 3.7           |  
|Risk-free interest rate  |  | 2.6                | % |  | 1.2           | %
|Dividend yield           |  | 0.0                | % |  | 0.0           | %
|Expected volatility      |  | 75.4               | % |  | 73.5          | %

NOTE 9  INCOME
TAXES

The provision for income taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2010 was $8.1 million and was comprised of domestic income
tax and foreign income and withholding tax. The income tax provision for the three months ended March 31, 2009 was $31.0 million and was comprised of domestic income tax and foreign income and withholding tax. The Companys provision for
income taxes is based on its worldwide estimated annualized effective tax rate, except for jurisdictions for which a loss is expected for the year and no benefit can be realized for those losses. Such jurisdictions tax is based on actual
withholding taxes for the quarter. The decrease in the income tax provision for the three months ended March 31, 2010 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2009 is primarily attributable to the decrease in pre-tax income for the
period and the effect of the reduced benefit for domestic research and foreign tax credits.

As of March 31, 2010 and December 31,
2009, unrecognized tax benefits approximated $4.5 million, of which $3.5 million would affect the effective tax rate if recognized. The change in the unrecognized tax benefits was immaterial for the period. As of March 31, 2010, the Company is
unable to estimate significant increases or decreases to unrecognized tax benefits that are reasonably possible within the next 12 months.

It
is the Companys policy to classify accrued interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in the provision for income taxes. For the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, interest and penalties related to unrecognized
tax benefits were immaterial and are included in unrecognized tax benefits.

At March 31, 2010, the Companys 2005 through 2009 tax
years were open and may be subject to potential examination in one or more jurisdictions. In addition, in the U.S., any net operating losses or credits that were generated in prior years but utilized in the open years may also be subject to
examination. The Company is not currently under federal or foreign income tax examination. The Company is currently under a state tax examination in California for the years 2006 and 2007.

NOTE 10  COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

The Company
leases office and research facilities and office equipment under operating leases which expire at various dates through 2015. Under lease agreements that contain escalating rent provisions, lease expense is recorded on a straight-line basis over the
lease term. In addition, the Company has agreements containing non-cancelable, nonrefundable payment terms with third parties to purchase services. Rent expense for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 amounted to $0.7
million and $0.7 million, respectively.



12



---

##### Table of Contents

As of March 31, 2010, future minimum lease payments and non-cancelable purchase obligations are as
follows (in thousands):



|                          |  |                     |    |                   |   |        |  |   |       
|------------------------- |  | ------------------- | -- | ----------------- | - | ------ |  | - | ------
|                          |  | PurchaseObligations |    | Lease Obligations |   | Total 
|2010 (remaining 9 months) |  | $                   | 35 |                   | $ | 1,911  |  | $ | 1,946 
|2011                      |  |                     |   |                   |   | 2,151  |  |   | 2,151 
|2012                      |  |                     |   |                   |   | 2,044  |  |   | 2,044 
|2013                      |  |                     |   |                   |   | 1,935  |  |   | 1,935 
|2014                      |  |                     |   |                   |   | 1,742  |  |   | 1,742 
|Thereafter                |  |                     |   |                   |   | 813    |  |   | 813   
|                          |  |                     |    |                   |   |        |  |   |       
|                          |  | $                   | 35 |                   | $ | 10,596 |  | $ | 10,631
|                          |  |                     |    |                   |   |        |  |   |       

Litigation

Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal)

On October 7, 2005, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) and Spansion LLC in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of Tesseras U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 5,852,326, 6,433,419 and 6,465,893 arising from AMDs and Spansion LLCs respective manufacture,
use, sale, offer to sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. Tessera seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorneys fees, interest and costs. The
Company also seeks other relief, including enjoining AMD and Spansion LLC from continuing to infringe these patents.

On December 16,
2005, Tessera filed a first amended complaint to add Spansion Inc. and Spansion Technology, Inc. to the lawsuit.

On January 31, 2006,
the Company filed a second amended complaint to add claims for breach of contract and/or patent infringement against several new defendants, including Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc., ASE (U.S.) Inc., ChipMOS Technologies, Inc., ChipMOS
U.S.A., Inc., Siliconware Precision Industries Co. Ltd, Siliconware USA Inc., STMicroelectronics N.V., STMicroelectronics, Inc., STATS ChipPAC Ltd., STATS ChipPAC, Inc. and STATS ChipPAC Ltd. (BVI). The defendants in this action have asserted
affirmative defenses to the Companys claims, and some of them have brought related counterclaims alleging that the Tessera patents at issue are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed, and/or that Tessera is not the owner of the patents.

On May 24, 2007, the parties stipulated to temporarily stay this action pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-605,
including appeals, before the International Trade Commission (ITC). On August 5, 2008, the court ordered that this action be further stayed pending completion, including appeals, of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC,
which Investigation was terminated in July 2009. The matter currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2010. The Company expects that potential damages will continue to accrue during the stay period
through the anticipated expiration of the asserted patents in September of 2010. Upon completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-605, including any appeals, the proceeding may continue, with Tessera seeking to recover its damages attributable to
the alleged infringement.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could
significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera
Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. et. al, Case No. 106CV-076688

On December 18, 2006, the Company filed a
complaint against Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. (collectively, Hynix) in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Santa Clara, alleging violations of California antitrust law and
California common law based on Hynixs alleged anticompetitive actions in markets related to synchronous DRAM. The Company also seeks other relief, including enjoining Hynix from continuing their alleged anticompetitive actions. On June 1,
2007, the Superior Court overruled the demurrer to Tesseras Cartwright Act claims against Hynix, thus allowing the claims to proceed. On September 14, 2007, the court overruled another demurrer to Tesseras claim for interference
with contract and business relations, allowing those claims to proceed as well.

On September 17, 2009, the judge to whom the case
previously had been assigned filed a petition with the Judicial Council to coordinate the Tessera v. Hynix action with the Rambus v. Micron action pending before Judge Kramer in the San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. 04-0431105). On
October 15, 2009, the Judicial Council issued an order appointing Judge Kramer as the coordination motion judge. In December 2009, the action was formally coordinated with the Rambus v. Micron action.

Fact and expert discovery in the action are closed. On June 12, 2009, Hynix filed three motions for summary adjudication, addressing among other
things Tesseras standing to bring antitrust claims, its permitted damages, and the propriety of its causes of action for violation of certain California state laws. Tesseras oppositions to the summary adjudication motions were filed on
August 14, 2009. The hearing on Hynixs motions took place on February 22, 2010 and February 24, 2010. The court denied Hynixs motion for summary adjudication for alleged lack of standing and Hynixs motion for summary
adjudication regarding Tesseras claims for damages. The court granted Hynixs motion to dismiss Tesseras intentional interference claim. A written order regarding the courts rulings has not yet issued.

At present, no trial date has been set. The parties are proceeding with trial preparation activities and are scheduled to appear for a Case Management
Conference on May 25, 2010.



13



---

##### Table of Contents

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could
significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In re Certain
Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, ITC No. 337-TA-605

On April 17, 2007, the
Company filed a complaint with the ITC, requesting that the ITC commence an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The ITC officially instituted an investigation as requested by Tessera on May 21, 2007. The
respondents are ATI Technologies, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Motorola, Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., Spansion, Inc., Spansion, LLC and ST Microelectronics N.V. The ITC, among other things, investigated infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326
and 6,433,419, and considered Tesseras request for issuance of an order excluding from entry into the United States infringing packaged semiconductor components, assemblies thereof, and products containing the same, as well as cease and desist
orders directing the respondents with domestic inventories to desist from activities with respect to infringing products.

On
September 19, 2007, the ITC issued an order setting key dates for the investigation, including for the ITC hearing which was scheduled to run from February 25, 2008 to February 29, 2008. On October 17, 2007, the investigation was
assigned to Administrative Law Judge Theodore Essex.

On June 11, 2007, the respondents filed a motion to stay the investigation pending
the completion of reexamination proceedings relating to the asserted Tessera patents. Tessera opposed the motion on June 21, 2007; Judge Essex did not rule on the motion. On February 22, 2008, the respondents filed a renewed motion to stay
the ITC action pending completion of reexamination proceedings relating to the patents at issue, in view of office actions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in the reexamination of these patents described
below in Reexamination Proceedings. An initial hearing of the matter was held on February 25, 2008, and Tessera further opposed the motion in writing on that date. On February 26, 2008, Judge Essex ruled that the action would be stayed in
view of the pending reexamination proceedings relating to the patents at issue.

On March 4, 2008, Tessera filed a Request for Emergency
Review with the ITC, seeking reversal of the order staying the case, and seeking reinstatement of the hearing date. On March 27, 2008, the ITC issued an order reversing the stay, and requiring that the hearing proceedings be rescheduled for the
earliest practicable date. On April 29, 2008, the ITC issued its confidential written opinion regarding reversal of the stay.

The
five-day hearing began on July 14, 2008, and was completed on July 18, 2008. On October 16, 2008, Judge Essex issued an order extending the target date for completion of the investigation by the ITC from February 20, 2009 to
April 3, 2009, and extended the target date for issuance of the initial determination regarding violation from October 20, 2008 to December 1, 2008.

On December 1, 2008, Judge Essex issued the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond.
He found, among other things, that Tessera had established a domestic industry in the United States due to Tesseras licensing program, that the asserted patents are valid, but that Tessera had failed to prove infringement of the asserted
claims of the patents-in-suit.

On December 15, 2008, Tessera, certain respondents, and the Staff filed petitions for review of the
Initial Determination. The parties filed replies to each others petitions for review on December 23, 2008.

On January 29,
2009, the Commission announced that it had decided to review the Initial Determination in part. Specifically, the Commission determined to review, among other issues, Judge Essexs findings that the respondents accused devices do not
infringe the asserted claims and that a particular prior art device does not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) or (g). The Commission originally set a deadline of February 13, 2009 for the parties to submit
responses to particular questions posed by the Commission, with February 23, 2009 set as the deadline for reply submissions. The Commission later extended those deadlines to February 23, 2009 and March 5, 2009, respectively.

On March 12, 2009, respondents Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (collectively Spansion) filed a Notice of Commencement of
Bankruptcy Proceedings and Automatic Stay, notifying the Commission of Spansions recent filings for bankruptcy and asserting that certain administrative claims against Spansion must be stayed pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy
Code. On March 18, 2009, Tessera filed a response to Spansions filing, noting that Spansion did not expressly claim that the bankruptcy filing required a stay of this action. On March 23, 2009, the ITC staff submitted a response to
Spansions filing, asserting that Spansions bankruptcy filing does not require any stay of the investigation against Spansion. On May 20, 2009, the ITC denied Spansions request to stay the investigation against Spansion.

On March 26, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Commission Decision to Request Additional Briefing on Remedy and to Extend the
Target Date. Pursuant to the notice, the Commission requested additional briefing from the parties, or from any interested third parties, addressing three issues specified in the notice regarding the appropriateness of Tesseras proposed
remedy. The Commission also determined that the target date for issuance of its final determination would be extended from April 14, 2009 until May 20, 2009. Initial written submissions in response to the Commissions notice were
filed by Tessera, certain respondents, the ITC staff, and by certain third parties on April 10, 2009. Reply submissions were filed by Tessera, certain respondents, the ITC staff and certain third parties on April 20, 2009. On
April 20, 2009, the Commission also issued an order permitting interested third parties to have an extra nine days, until April 29, 2009, to file additional reply submissions.

On May 20, 2009, the Commission issued its Final Determination in the action. The Commission, among other things, reversed Judge Essexs ruling
that Tessera had not proven infringement by the respondents, and ruled that Tessera had established infringement. The Commission affirmed Judge Essexs ruling that the patents are not invalid. The Commission denied Tesseras request for a
General Exclusion Order, but granted a Limited Exclusion Order against all respondents (and certain related entities) and Cease and Desist Orders against certain respondents (and certain related entities).



14



---

##### Table of Contents

On or about July 19, 2009, the Presidential Review period expired, and no alterations were made to the
ITCs orders in the investigation. The Investigation by the ITC is now being appealed, as discussed immediately below.

On or about
June 2, 2009, Motorola, Inc. and Tessera entered into a settlement and license agreement regarding certain Tessera technology, including the patents at issue in the ITC investigation.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, which may be impacted by appellate proceedings, as discussed immediately below. An adverse
decision in proceedings regarding this action could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Spansion, Inc. et al., v. International Trade Commission and Tessera, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case Nos. 2009-1460,
2009-1461, 2009-1462, and 2009-1465

On or about July 20, 2009, respondents ATI Technologies, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
Qualcomm, Inc., Spansion, Inc., Spansion LLC and ST Microelectronics N.V. filed appeals of the ITCs Final Determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-605 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also
filed certain emergency motions seeking a stay of the ITCs limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, as well as an immediate stay of those ITC orders while the Federal
Circuit considered briefing as to whether to grant a stay during the appeal.

On July 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued an order
consolidating appeals from the ITCs 337-TA-605 investigation, and ordering Tessera and the ITC to file responses to the appellants motion to stay no later than July 29, 2009. On July 29, 2009, Tessera and the ITC each filed
their briefing in opposition to a stay of the ITCs orders during the appeal. On August 3, 2009, the respondents filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On August 4, 2009, Tessera filed a supplemental response to the
respondents reply brief. Also on August 4, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying Tesseras request for leave to file a brief in excess of the usual page limits, and ordered Tessera to file a corrected version of its
July 29, 2009 brief consisting of no more than 20 pages. Tessera filed its corrected brief on August 6, 2009. On September 8, 2009, the Federal Circuit denied the motions for a stay.

On September 22, 2009, respondents ATI Technologies, Inc. and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. filed a Combined Motion for Reconsideration and
Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc of the Federal Circuits denial of their stay motion. Tessera opposed the motion on October 5, 2009. The ITC also opposed the motion on October 5, 2009. On October 23, 2009, the Federal Circuit
ruled in the Companys favor, denying the respondents request to stay the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders during the appeal. The Federal Circuit also notified the parties that it had circulated the petition for
rehearing en banc to the court. On November 5, 2009, the petition for rehearing en banc was denied.

On October 30, 2009, the
respondents filed their appellate briefing regarding the merits of the ITCs ruling. Tessera filed its response brief in the appeal on January 15, 2010, and the respondents reply briefs were filed on February 19, 2010. Oral
argument has been scheduled for May 7, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this
proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:07cv143 (E.D. Tex.)

On April 17, 2007, the Company filed a complaint against Motorola, Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., and ATI Technologies, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Tesseras U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326 and 6,433,419, arising from, among other things, the defendants respective manufacture, use, sale, offer to
sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. The Company seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorneys fees, interest and costs. The Company also
seeks other relief, including enjoining the defendants from continuing to infringe these patents. The defendants have not yet answered Tesseras complaint. The parties have agreed that the case will be temporarily stayed pending completion,
including appeals, of ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-605 titled In re Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same.

On or about June 2, 2009, Motorola, Inc. and Tessera entered into a settlement and license agreement regarding certain Tessera technology, including
the patents at issue in this action. Tesseras request to dismiss Motorola, Inc. from the action was granted by the Court on June 8, 2009.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm the Companys
business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with
Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), ITC No. 337-TA-630 (the 630 ITC Action)

On
December 7, 2007, the Company filed a complaint with the ITC, requesting that the ITC commence an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The ITC officially instituted an investigation as requested by Tessera
on January 3, 2008. The respondents named in the complaint were A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., A-Data Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., Centon Electronics, Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.,
International Products Sourcing Group, Inc., Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corp., U.S.A., Peripheral Devices & Products Systems, Inc. d/b/a Patriot Memory, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp.,
ProMOS Technologies Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. In the Notice of Institution, the ITC stated that it would, among other things, investigate
infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627, 5,663,106, and 6,458,681, and consider Tesseras request for issuance of an order excluding from entry into the United States infringing packaged semiconductor components, assemblies
thereof, and products containing the same, as well as cease and desist orders directing parties with domestic inventories to desist from activities with respect to infringing products.



15



---

##### Table of Contents

The action was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Bullock. On January 14, 2008, Judge Bullock issued
a protective order in the action, and ground rules setting case procedures. On January 23, 2008, Judge Bullock issued an order setting the target date for completion of the investigation at April 14, 2009. On February 27, 2008, Judge
Bullock ordered the hearing date to be set for September 22, 2008.

With the exception of the TwinMOS respondents, all of the respondents
answered Tesseras complaint. On February 19, 2008, Tessera filed a motion for an order to show cause why the TwinMOS respondents should not be found to be in default. Tesseras motion was granted. The TwinMOS respondents have not
responded to the order to show cause.

On May 15, 2008, Company filed a motion to withdraw U.S. Patent No. 6,458,681 from the ITC
action. The respondents did not oppose the motion, and the motion was granted. In July 2008, the action was assigned to Judge Essex.

On
May 21, 2008, Company settled its dispute with one of the respondents, International Products Sourcing Group (IPSG), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with IPSG and its parent, Micro Electronics, Inc. As part of
the settlement, IPSG and Micro Electronics acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that their accused products infringe those patents. IPSG has been dismissed from the ITC action. On
August 14, 2008, Company settled its dispute with another respondent, Peripheral Devices & Products Systems, Inc. (PDP), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with PDP. As part of the settlement, PDP, on
behalf of itself and its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries, acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that its accused products infringe those patents. On September 22, 2008, Judge Essex
granted the motion of A-DATA Technology Co., Ltd. and A-DATA Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. to dismiss those respondents from the ITC action based on their stipulation to a consent order pursuant to which they agreed not to import or sell for
importation into the United States any products infringing Tesseras asserted patents.

A nine-day hearing in this action began on
September 22, 2008 and was completed on October 3, 2008. The parties completed their initial post-hearing briefing on October 31, 2008. On January 2, 2009, Judge Essex issued an order extending the date for issuance of his
initial determination regarding violation from January 14, 2009 until March 6, 2009. On February 10, 2009, Judge Essex again extended the date for issuance of his initial determination regarding violation until May 22, 2009, and
extended the target date for completion of the Commissions investigation until September 22, 2009. On April 2, 2009, Judge Essex again extended the date for issuance of his initial determination regarding violation until
July 17, 2009, and extended the target date for completion of the Commissions investigation until November 17, 2009. On June 12, 2009, Judge Essex again extended the date for issuance of his initial determination until
August 28, 2009. The June 12, 2009 order also extended the target date for completion of the Commissions investigation until December 29, 2009.

In a separate June 12, 2009 order, Judge Essex requested briefing from the parties as to the effect, if any, of the Commissions opinion in the
337-TA-605 investigation on the infringement analysis that Judge Essex should undertake in the 377-TA-630 investigation. The parties submitted their initial briefing on this issue on June 26, 2009, and their reply briefing on July 6, 2009.

On August 28, 2009, Judge Essex issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy
and Bond, in which he found that no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 had occurred. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held, among other things, that the Commission had subject matter jurisdiction over the parties
and products, that the importation or sale requirement of Section 337 was satisfied, that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims, that the asserted claims are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness or indefiniteness, that a
domestic industry exists, that the respondents failed to approve the affirmative defense of licensing, that respondents except for Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively, Elpida) failed to prove the affirmative
defense of patent exhaustion for certain accused products but had established it for others, and that Elpida proved that all of its accused products are subject to patent exhaustion. The section addressing the recommended remedy and bond
provisionally recommended among other things that, if a violation of Section 337 had been found, Tessera had not demonstrated entitlement to a general exclusion order or an order extending to downstream products, and that a bond could have been
set at a reasonable royalty rate as determined by Tesseras license agreements.

On September 17, 2009, Tessera and the ITC Staff
filed petitions for review of portions of the Initial Determination. Certain respondents also conditionally sought review of portions of the Initial Determination. The parties filed replies to each others petitions for review on
October 1, 2009. On October 30, 2009, the ITC announced that it will review portions of the Initial Determination. The Commission stated that it would review, among other things, whether the respondents infringed the Tessera patents
asserted in the action.

On December 29, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination holding, among other things, that it would
(1) modify the ALJs construction of the claim terms top layer and thereon recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 (the 106 patent); (2) reverse the ALJs finding that the accused
μBGA products do not meet all of the limitations of the asserted claims of the 106 patent but affirm his finding that there is no infringement due to patent exhaustion; (3) affirm the ALJs finding that the accused wBGA
products do not infringe the asserted claims of the 106 patent; (4) affirm the ALJs validity and domestic industry analyses pertaining to the asserted claims of the 106 patent; (5) affirm the ALJs finding that the
Direct Loading testing methodology employed by Tesseras expert fails to prove infringement; and (6) affirm the ALJs finding that the 1989 Motorola OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,679,977 (the 977 patent) under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but modify a portion of the Initial Determination. A public version of the ITCs full opinion was issued on February 24, 2010. The
ruling by the ITC is now being appealed, as discussed immediately below.



16



---

##### Table of Contents

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, which may be impacted by appellate proceedings,
as discussed immediately below. An adverse decision in proceedings regarding this action could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. et al., v. International Trade Commission., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case No. 2010-1176

On January 28, 2010, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the ITCs Final Determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-630 with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Substantive briefing to the Federal Circuit has not yet been filed. Under the current schedule, the Companys opening brief will be due on May 13, 2010 and its reply brief will be due on
July 6, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm
the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. v. A-DATA
Technology Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-534 (E.D. Tex.)

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed a complaint
against A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., A-Data Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., Centon Electronics, Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., International Products Sourcing Group, Inc., Kingston Technology Co.,
Inc., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corp., U.S.A., Peripheral Devices & Products Systems, Inc. d/b/a Patriot Memory, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., ProMOS Technologies Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Smart Modular
Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Tesseras U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627, 5,663,106 and
6,458,681, arising from, among other things, the defendants respective manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. The Company seeks to recover damages, up to
treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorneys fees, interest and costs. The Company also seeks other relief, including enjoining the defendants from continuing to infringe these patents.

The defendants have not yet answered Tesseras complaint, but, with the exception of the TwinMOS defendants and Ramaxel, filed motions to stay the
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 pending final resolution of the 630 ITC action. Tessera did not oppose the motions to stay. Tessera filed a motion seeking to find TwinMOS Technologies U.S.A. Inc. in default, and the clerk has entered
the default. On February 25, 2008, the district court granted the defendants motion to stay the action.

As noted above, on
May 21, 2008, the Company settled its dispute with one of the defendants, International Products Sourcing Group (IPSG), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with IPSG and its parent, Micro Electronics, Inc. As part of
the settlement, IPSG and Micro Electronics acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that their accused products infringe those patents. IPSG was dismissed from the Texas district court action on
June 30, 2008. On August 14, 2008, Company settled its dispute with another defendant, Peripheral Devices & Products Systems, Inc. (PDP), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with PDP. As part of the
settlement, PDP, on behalf of itself and its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries, acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that its accused products infringe those patents. On September 9,
2008, PDP was dismissed from the Texas district court action.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision
in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03667 (N.D. Cal.)

On July 31, 2008, Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Siliconware)
filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106.
The Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 5, 2008, asserting infringement of the patent at issue by Siliconware. On September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and assigned to the same judge. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which Investigation was terminated in July
2009. The matter currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2010.

The Company cannot predict
the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Advanced Semiconductor Engineering Inc., ASE Test Limited, and ASE (U.S.) Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03726 (N.D. Cal.)

On August 4, 2008, Advanced Semiconductor Engineering Inc., ASE Test Limited, and ASE (U.S.) Inc. (collectively, ASE)
filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On
September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and assigned to the same judge. The Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 1, 2008,
asserting infringement of the patent at issue by ASE. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which Investigation was terminated in July 2009. The
matter currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2010.



17



---

##### Table of Contents

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could
significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

ChipMOS
Technologies Inc., ChipMOS U.S.A. Inc. and ChipMOS Technologies (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-04063 (N.D. Cal.)

On August 11, 2008, ChipMOS Technologies Inc., ChipMOS U.S.A. Inc. and ChipMOS Technologies (Bermuda) Ltd. (collectively, ChipMOS) filed
a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On September 11,
2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and assigned to the same judge. The Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 12, 2008, asserting
infringement of the patent at issue by ChipMOS. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which Investigation was terminated in July 2009. The matter
currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of
this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-00945 (N.D. Cal.)

On March 5, 2010, Powertech Technology Inc. (PTI) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On March 22, 2010, the case was related to Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. v.
Tessera, Inc.,Civil Action No. 08-03667 (N.D. Cal.), and assigned to the judge presiding over the action. On April 1, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The hearing on
Tesseras motion currently is scheduled for May 13, 2010. A Case Management Conference currently is set for June 22, 2010.

The
Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. v. United Test and Assembly Center Limited, et al., Case No. RG08410327

On September 18, 2008, the Company filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California against United Test and Assembly Center, Ltd.
and UTAC America, Inc. (collectively, UTAC) alleging breach of contract for failure to pay Tessera the full royalty due under its license agreement. The Company is also alleging violations of California unfair competition laws and
seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

On October 20, 2008, UTAC removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. On October 31, 2008, Judge Claudia Wilken issued an order that Tesseras case against UTAC was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.) and that the
UTAC case should be reassigned to her.

On November 19, 2008, Tessera filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On
January 6, 2009, Judge Wilken granted Tesseras motion, and remanded the case to state court.

On January 16, 2009, UTAC filed
a cross-complaint against Tessera, asserting claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of California unfair competition law. Tesseras response to
UTACs cross-complaint was filed on February 18, 2009. Tesseras answer denies generally the allegations in UTACs cross-complaint, and asserts various affirmative defenses.

On March 25, 2009, UTAC filed a motion to designate the action as complex, and have the case reassigned to a judge on the State Courts complex
panel. Tessera opposed the motion. On April 17, 2009, the Court granted UTACs motion, and the case was reassigned to Judge Robert Freedman.

On March 19, 2009, Tessera filed a Special Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, asserting
that UTACs claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the unfair competition law were barred by Californias anti- SLAPP statute. On April 16, 2009, UTAC
voluntarily moved to dismiss with prejudice its causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Tessera did not oppose UTACs motion to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice, and the dismissal
was entered by the Court. On April 22, 2009, a hearing was held before Judge Freedman and Tesseras motion was taken under submission. On May 4, 2009, Judge Freedman issued an order granting Tesseras motion, and striking
UTACs causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the unfair competition law. On June 25, 2009, Tessera filed a motion seeking recovery from UTAC of its costs and
attorneys fees incurred in connection with the successful motion. Tesseras motion for costs and attorneys fees was heard by the Court on October 23, 2009, and the Court took the matter under submission. On January 21,
2010, the Court granted Tesseras motion in part and ordered UTAC to pay Tesseras attorneys fees in the amount of $110,812.50, and costs in the amount of $1,957.00.

Tessera sought summary adjudication regarding certain contract issues, and hearings on those motions took place on November 20, 2009 and
December 11, 2009, respectively. On December 10, 2009, the Court denied summary adjudication regarding interpretation of UTACs royalty obligations under the contract. On December 14, 2009, the Court granted summary adjudication
to Tessera regarding UTACs cause of action and asserted affirmative defenses of patent misuse, finding that UTAC had presented no evidence of patent misuse by Tessera. In addition, the Court denied summary adjudication regarding whether
certain UTAC products meet certain parameters set forth in the parties agreement.



18



---

##### Table of Contents

On December 11, 2009, the Court reset the trial date from January 11, 2010 to February 1,
2010. On January 15, 2010 the Court again reset the trial date for March 1, 2010. On February 18 and 23, 2010, the Court held the Pretrial Management Conference, including hearing the parties motions in limine.

On March 1, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, agreed to a mutual dismissal of the action, and entered into an updated license
agreement. The initial term of the updated license agreement runs through the end of 2016. UTAC has the option to renew the license for an additional five year term. Among other consideration to Tessera, under the terms of the agreement UTAC will
pay $15.0 million in cash to address past royalties owed under the initial license.

Reexamination Proceedings

On February 9, 2007 and February 15, 2007, Silicon Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware USA, Inc. (collectively,
Siliconware) filed with the PTO requests for inter partes reexamination relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,433,419 and 6,465,893, and ex parte reexamination relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627 and 5,852,326. On April 19,
2007, the PTO granted the requests for ex parte reexamination. On May 4, 2007, the PTO granted the requests for inter partes reexamination. The PTO denied the Companys petition to vacate the inter partes reexamination proceeding on the
ground that the request did not name the real party in interest, and a related request for reconsideration of that decision.

The PTO issued a
non-final Official Action in connection with the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893 initially rejecting a number of patent claims on May 4, 2007, to which a response was filed on July 5, 2007. The PTO issued a
non-final Official Action in connection with the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 initially rejecting a number of the patent claims on June 5, 2007, to which a response was filed by Tessera on August 6, 2007. On
September 5, 2007, Siliconware filed comments in response to the Companys August 6, 2007 response. On March 14, 2007, Siliconware filed a second request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977. The PTO
granted this request on June 12, 2007.

On May 21, 2007, Amkor filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent
No. 5,861,666. On July 26, 2007, the PTO granted this request. On June 11, 2007, Amkor filed additional requests for reexamination regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977 and 6,133,627. The PTO granted the request for reexamination as to
the 5,679,977 patent on August 15, 2007, and the PTO granted the requests for reexamination as to the 6,133,627 patent on August 13, 2007.

A first official action rejecting some claims and confirming other claims as patentable was mailed February 21, 2008 in the reexamination of U.S.
Patent No. 5,852,326. A response to the official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,852,326 was filed on April 21, 2008. A second office action rejecting some claims and confirming other claims as patentable was mailed
on August 1, 2008. Tessera filed a response to the official action on October 1, 2008. A third, final official action rejecting all claims under reexamination was mailed on March 6, 2009. Tessera filed a response to the official
action on April 6, 2009. An advisory action was mailed by the PTO on June 22, 2009, maintaining all of the rejections presented in the Action of March 6, 2009. On July 1, 2009, Tessera filed a petition to withdraw the finality of
the official action mailed on March 6, 2009. The PTO issued a decision on July 10, 2009 dismissing Tesseras petition of July 1, 2009. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on August 6, 2009, and timely filed an appeal brief on
October 13, 2009.

A first official action was mailed February 22, 2008 in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,861,666
rejecting those claims which were subject to reexamination. Such official action was superseded by a substantively identical action mailed March 11, 2008 restarting the period for response. A response to such official action was filed on
May 12, 2008. A second official action was mailed on September 30, 2008 and Tessera filed an amendment to the claims and response to the second official action on October 30, 2008. On March 13, 2009, the PTO issued a Notice of
Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, after which a Supplemental Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Corrected Status) was issued on April 2, 2009, finding certain amended and newly presented claims to be
patentable. The Reexamination Certificate issued on June 30, 2009.

On February 12, 2008, the PTO issued decisions merging the three
reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 with one another and also merging the two reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 with one another. A first official action was issued on February 29, 2008 in the merged reexaminations
of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627, rejecting those claims subject to reexamination. A response to the official action in the merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 was filed on April 29, 2008. On August 10, 2008, the PTO
issued a second official action, to which Tessera filed a Request to Vacate the Second Official Action on August 26, 2008 on procedural grounds. As a result, on September 11, 2008, the PTO issued a third non-final official action. Tessera
filed a response to the non-final office action on October 17, 2008.

A first official action was issued on March 28, 2008 in the
merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977, rejecting those claims subject to reexamination. On May 28, 2008 a response to the official action in the merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 was filed. On
October 10, 2008, the PTO issued a second non-final official action, to which Tessera filed a response on November 10, 2008. On October 1, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action. Tessera filed a response to the final official
action on December 1, 2009. On January 14, 2010, the PTO issued an Advisory Action indicating that Tesseras response of December 1, 2009 failed to overcome all of the rejections set forth in the final official action mailed
October 1, 2009. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2010, and timely filed an appeal brief on April 5, 2010.

On
February 19, 2008 the PTO issued a second official action maintaining the rejections in U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419. On March 10, 2008, Tessera filed a petition to vacate the second official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent
No. 6,433,419 on the ground that the second official action did not properly take account of an amendment to the specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419. On March 19, 2008, Tessera filed a substantive response to such second
official action. On June 3, 2008 Tessera filed a renewed petition to vacate the inter partes reexamination on the ground that the request for such reexamination did not name the real party in interest. On June 11, 2008 Siliconware filed an
opposition to such petition. The petition was denied on September 10, 2008. On June 13, 2008, the PTO issued a third official action in the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 which was denominated as an action
closing prosecution. On July 14, 2008, Tessera filed a substantive response to the action closing prosecution, to which a response was filed by Siliconware on August 8, 2008. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on September 17, 2008,
and Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2008. On November 3, 2008, the PTO issued a decision withdrawing the Right of Appeal Notice and returning the case to the examiner for issuance of a further action. On December 23,
2008, the PTO issued a non-final official action, also denominated as an action closing prosecution, to which Tessera filed a response on January 23, 2009. On February 23, 2009, Siliconware filed a response to Tesseras
January 23, 2009 response. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on June 19, 2009. On July 1, 2009, Tessera filed a petition to withdraw the Right of Appeal Notice. Having not yet received a decision on the petition of July 1,
2009, Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on July 20, 2009. On July 30, 2009, the PTO issued a decision dismissing Tesseras petition of July 1, 2009. Tessera filed a request for reconsideration of this decision on August 7,
2009, upon which a decision from the PTO has not yet been received. Tessera timely filed an appeal brief on October 5, 2009, to which Requestor Siliconware filed a Response Brief on November 5, 2009. Requestor Siliconware refiled their
Response Brief on March 17, 2010.



19



---

##### Table of Contents

On February 15, 2008, the PTO issued a second official action, also denominated as an action closing
prosecution, maintaining the rejections of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893. On March 28, Tessera filed a petition to vacate the second official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893 on the ground that the second official
action did not properly take account of an amendment to the specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893. On April 15, Tessera filed a response to the second official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893, to which
Siliconware filed comments on May 15, 2008. On June 9, 2008 Tessera filed a renewed petition to vacate the inter partes reexamination on the ground that the request for such reexamination did not name the real party in interest, which
petition was denied on September 10, 2008. On August 21, 2008, a non-final office action was issued. Tessera filed a response on October 21, 2008. On February 5, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official action, also denominated
as the second action closing prosecution. Tessera filed a response on March 5, 2009, to which Siliconware filed a response on April 6, 2009. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on June 22, 2009. On July 13, 2009, Tessera filed a
petition to withdraw the Right of Appeal Notice. Having not yet received a decision on the petition of July 13, 2009, Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on July 22, 2009. Tessera timely filed an appeal brief on October 5, 2009, to which
Requestor Siliconware filed a Response Brief on November 5, 2009.

On March 26, 2008, a request for a third ex parte reexamination
of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 patent was filed, ostensibly by PowerChip Semiconductor Corporation (Powerchip). On May 2, 2008, the PTO granted this request. On November 18, 2008, the PTO issued a first non-final official
action, to which Tessera filed a response on December 18, 2008. On February 13, 2009, the PTO issued an order merging all of the reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627. On March 17, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official
action rejecting all claims under reexamination, to which Tessera filed a response on April 17, 2009. On July 14, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action which held certain claims patentable but rejected other claims to which Tessera
filed a response on August 14, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the PTO issued an Advisory Action indicating that Tesseras response of August 14, 2009 failed to overcome all of the rejections set forth in the final official action
mailed July 14, 2009. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on December 14, 2009. Tessera timely filed an appeal brief on February 17, 2010.

On April 2, 2008, a request for inter partes reexamination of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 6,458,681 was filed, ostensibly by Powerchip. On
June 6, 2008, the PTO granted this request and issued an official action rejecting certain claims of the 681 patent, to which Tessera filed a response on August 6, 2008, and to which Powerchip filed responsive comments on
October 10, 2008. On September 21, 2009, the PTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution rejecting certain claims and holding one claim patentable, to which Tessera timely filed a response on October 21, 2009. On November 20, 2009,
Requestor Powerchip filed comments to Tesseras response of October 21, 2009. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on February 22, 2010. In response to the Right of Appeal Notice, Tessera has filed an application for reissue of the
patent to further address the matters raised during the reexamination proceedings.

On July 18, 2008, a request for ex parte
reexamination of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 was filed, ostensibly by Powerchip. On September 4, 2008, the PTO granted the request for reexamination. On April 10, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official action rejecting
all claims under reexamination. Tessera filed a response on June 10, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action finding certain claims patentable and rejecting other claims. Tessera filed a response on
January 19, 2010. On April 7, 2010, the PTO issued a non-final official action withdrawing the rejections previously made but rejecting all claims under reexamination on new grounds. Tessera will have an opportunity to respond.

On or about January 3, 2006, Koninklijke Phillips Electronics N.V. and Philips Semiconductors B.V. (Philips), MICRON Semiconductor
Deutschland GmbH (Micron GmbH), Infineon and STMicroelectronics, Inc. (STM) filed oppositions to Tesseras European Patent No. EP1111672 (the EP672 Patent) before the European Patent Office (the
EPO). Micron GmbH and Infineon withdrew their oppositions on July 24, 2006 and November 4, 2006, respectively. On October 10, 2006, Tessera filed its response to the remaining oppositions with the EPO. On December 4,
2006, Phillips withdrew its opposition. On September 16, 2008, the EPO Opposition Division issued a Summons to attend oral proceedings which states preliminary opinions unfavorable to the claims of the EP672 Patent. The
Company filed a written response to the summons on January 5, 2009. STM also filed comments responsive to the summons on December 31, 2008, to which the Company filed a response to STMs comments on January 12, 2009. An oral
hearing before the EPO Opposition Division, was held on June 4, 2009, resulting in a decision to revoke the EP672 Patent. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on August 24, 2009. On October 26, 2009, Tessera filed a Statement of Grounds
for Appeal with the EPO. STM filed comments to the Grounds for Appeal on March 8, 2010. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If the opposition results in a limitation or a revocation of the EP672 Patent, this could
significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.



20



---

##### Table of Contents

The patents that are subject to these reexamination proceedings include some of the key patents in
Tesseras portfolio, and claims that have been preliminarily rejected in the current official actions are being asserted in certain of Tesseras various litigations. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. An adverse
decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm the Companys business and financial condition. An adverse decision could also significantly affect Tesseras ongoing litigations, as described in this Note
10Commitments and Contingencies, in which patents are being asserted, which in turn could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Insolvency Proceedings over the Estate of Qimonda AG, Local Court of Munich, Insolvency Court, File No. 1542 IN 209/09

On January 23, 2009, Qimonda AG filed a bankruptcy petition with the Local Court of Munich, Insolvency Court. On April 1, 2009, the Court opened
insolvency proceedings over the estate of Qimonda AG and appointed Rechtsanwalt Dr. Michael Jaffé as the insolvency administrator. On or about May 27, 2009, Dr. Jaffé chose non-performance of Tesseras license
agreement with Qimonda AG under Section 103 of the German Insolvency Code and purported to terminate the license agreement. On June 12, 2009, Tessera filed a Proof of Claim in the Qimonda AG bankruptcy alleging amounts due of approximately
15.7 million Euros. On December 2, 2009, Dr. Jaffé preliminarily contested Tesseras claim in full. Tessera is in ongoing discussions with the insolvency administrator.

In re Spansion, LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case No. 09-1069; In re Spansion, Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case
No. 09-10690; In re Spansion Technology LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case No. 09-10691

On or about March 1, 2009,
Spansion LLC, Spansion, Inc. and Spansion Technology LLC initiated bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On or about July 17, 2009, Tessera filed a Proof of Claim in each of the above
Spansion bankruptcy proceedings alleging amounts due of not less than $25 million. On July 28, 2009, the Company sought permission under the Bankruptcy rules to serve certain discovery requests in the actions, seeking various documents and
testimony regarding potential administrative claims that Tessera may assert in the action. Tesseras request for such discovery was denied without prejudice on August 11, 2009. The parties thereafter completed certain fact and expert
discovery relating to Tesseras administrative expense claim in December and January of 2010.

On January 12, 2010, Spansion filed a
motion to determine and estimate the amount of Tesseras administrative expense claim, for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of Spansions Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. Tesseras administrative expense claim
at issue relates to the damages that would be owed to Tessera for Spansions post-petition (post-March 1, 2009) infringement of certain Tessera patents. Tessera filed its objection to Spansions motion on January 22, 2010. On
January 29, 2010, the court held a hearing on Spansions motion. The parties submitted post-hearing letter briefs on February 3, 2010. The Court announced its ruling that a reasonable royalty rate for Spansion products sold in the
United States during the administrative period was 56.7 cents per unit. On April 6, 2010, the Court entered an order estimating the amount of any alleged administrative expensive claim of Tessera for purposes of plan confirmation in the amount
of $4,232,986.13 for the period from March 1, 2009 to July 20, 2009.

On February 5, 2010, Spansion filed a motion for an order
estimating the amount of certain contingent, unliquidated, duplicative and/or overstated claims for purposes of establishing class 5 plan distribution reserves. Tessera filed its objection to the estimation motion on February 17,
2010 and on that same date submitted three Amended Proofs of Claim based in part on the Courts 56.7 cents per unit royalty rate. On February 18, 2010, Tessera filed a motion for authority to file its Amended Proofs of Claim. On
March 23, 2010, the Court entered an order allowing Tessera to file its Amended Proofs of Claim.

Spansions February 5, 2010
estimation motion is pending and a hearing relating to the motions is currently scheduled for May 26, 2010.

On January 26, 2010,
Tessera filed its objection to Spansions Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, asserting that the plan is not feasible and that it fails to provide for the payout of administrative expense claims on the plan effective date. On
February 2, 2010, Tessera submitted three ballots, one for each previously submitted Proof of Claim. The ballots, among other things, rejected Spansions Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization.

On April 1, 2010, the Court issued its Order and Opinion on Confirmation in which, among other things, it denied Spansions request for plan
confirmation due to, among other reasons, the failure to set aside a reserve for Tesseras administrative expense claim in the amount of $4,232,986. 13. The Court overruled certain Tessera objections regarding irregularities in the plan voting
solicitation and tabulation and Spansions failure to properly count Tesseras three plan ballots. On April 7, Spansion filed an amended plan that included a reserve for the alleged administrative expense claim of Tessera in the
amount of $4,232,986.13. On April 16, 2010, the Court issued its finding of facts, conclusions of law, and Order confirming the plan as amended.

Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.

On or about August 7, 2009, Amkor filed a request for arbitration against the Company before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
The request, among other things, accuses the Company of interference with Amkors existing and prospective business relationships, of improperly claiming that Amkor had breached the parties license agreement, and of improperly threatening
to terminate that agreement. Amkor seeks relief including judgment that it is in compliance with the license agreement and is a licensee in good standing under the license agreement; judgment that the license agreement remains in effect and no
breach alleged by the Company against Amkor has terminated the License Agreement; judgment that Amkors method of calculating royalties on a going-forward basis complies with Amkors obligations under the license agreement; an injunction
against the Company forbidding it from making statements to Amkors customers and potential customers inconsistent with the above; an injunction against the Company forbidding it from attempting to terminate the license agreement or threatening
to terminate the license agreement during the arbitration or based on events occurring prior to the conclusion of the arbitration; a damage award against the Company for attorneys fees and costs to Amkor associated with this arbitration, together
with all other damages resulting from the Companys alleged acts of tortious interference and punitive damages; all other relief recoverable under the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC; such other and further relief as the arbitrators deem just
and proper.



21



---

##### Table of Contents

On or about November 2, 2009, the Company filed its answer to the request, including counterclaims. The
answer, among other things, denies Amkors accusations and accuses Amkor of failing to pay Tessera full royalties on products Amkor sold to Qualcomm and potentially others that are subject to ITC injunctions, of refusing to allow Tessera to
audit in accordance with the parties license agreement, of interference with Tesseras prospective economic relationships, of failing to pay royalties or full royalties on products that infringe various U.S. and foreign patents owned by
Tessera, and of violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company seeks relief including judgment that the license agreement has been breached and that Tessera is entitled to terminate the license agreement; judgment that
products on which Amkor has not paid the full contractual royalties to Tessera are not licensed under Tesseras patents; damages for Amkors breaches of the license agreement; damages, including punitive damages, for Amkors
interference with Tesseras prospective business relationships; interest on any damages; attorneys fees and costs incurred by Tessera; denial of Amkors claims against Tessera; an order that awards Tessera all other relief
recoverable under the rules of Arbitration of the ICC; and an order for such other and further relief as the arbitrators deem just and proper.

On January 15, 2010, Amkor filed its response to Tesseras counterclaims, along with certain new counterclaims by Amkor and a motion for
priority consideration of certain issues. In its responsive pleading, Amkor denied Tesseras counterclaims, arguing in part that Tesseras counterclaims for royalties are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and
sought a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and that its packages are not made under any of the patents asserted in Tesseras answer and that the patents are invalid and unenforceable. Tessera filed an answer denying Amkors
counterclaims and a response to Amkors motion on February 12, 2010. On March 28, 2010, the Tribunal ruled on Amkors motion for priority consideration, holding that certain issuesincluding royalties payable on a
going-forward basis for the patents addressed in the previous arbitration, including but not limited to royalties applicable to packages assembled for Qualcomm, Inc., and Tesseras counterclaim for breach of the audit provisionwould be
considered in an early hearing scheduled for August 30, 2010. That hearing has since been rescheduled for September 27-28, 2010. On April 22, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Provisional Order proposing a two week hearing on remaining
issues to be held beginning on August 15, 2011. The case is in the discovery phase.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this
proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 11  SEGMENT AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

The Company has two reportable segments: Micro-electronics and Imaging and Optics. In addition to these reportable segments, the Corporate Overhead
division includes certain operating amounts that are not allocated to the reportable segments because these operating amounts are not considered in evaluating the operating performance of the Companys business segments.

The Micro-electronics segment is primarily composed of the Companys licensing business in its core markets, including DRAM, Flash, SRAM, DSP, ASIC,
ASSP, micro-controllers, general purpose logic and analog devices, and the Companys development and licensing efforts in emerging areas of packaging, interconnect, miniaturization such as its μPILR platform, and thermal management
technology.

The Imaging and Optics segment is composed of two elements. The first is the licensing business in the imaging and optics
market, such as wafer-level image sensor packaging and image enhancement technologies. The second is the product and service business, which includes manufacturing small form factor micro-optics and non-recurring services such as engineering,
design, assembly and infrastructure improvement. In addition, the product and service business includes the Product Launch Services, a strategic initiative that supports infrastructure licensees with proof of high-volume manufacturability and
provides customers access to the Companys new technologies to accelerate the rate of adoption of the Companys Imaging & Optics technologies in the industry. Through the Product Launch Services, the Company is currently
manufacturing and selling OptiML single-element VGA lens directly to manufacturers.

The Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM), as
defined by the authoritative guidance on segment reporting, is the Companys President and Chief Executive Officer. The CODM assesses the performance of the reportable segments using information about revenue and operating income (loss) before
other income and expense and income taxes. The CODM is not presented with financial information for each division nor is each division evaluated separately from the reportable segments.

The Company does not identify or allocate assets by reportable segment, nor does the CODM evaluate reportable segments using discrete asset information.
Reportable segments do not record inter-segment revenue and accordingly there is none to report. The Company does not allocate other income and expense to reportable segments. Although the CODM uses operating income to evaluate reportable segments,
operating costs included in one segment may benefit other segments.



22



---

##### Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the Companys segment revenue, operating expenses and operating income
for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 (in thousands):



|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | ------- | - | ---- | - | ------- | -
|                                  |  | Three Months EndedMarch 31, |        
|                                  |  | 2010                        |         |   | 2009 |  
|Revenues:                         |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Micro-electronics Segment:        |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Royalty and license fees          |  | $                           | 55,756  |   |      | $ | 106,523 |  
|Product and service revenues      |  |                             |        |   |      |   | 36      |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total Micro-electronics revenues  |  |                             | 55,756  |   |      |   | 106,559 |  
|Imaging and Optics Segment:       |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Royalty and license fees          |  |                             | 3,097   |   |      |   | 5,334   |  
|Product and service revenues      |  |                             | 5,409   |   |      |   | 2,683   |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total Imaging and Optics revenues |  |                             | 8,506   |   |      |   | 8,017   |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total revenues                    |  |                             | 64,262  |   |      |   | 114,576 |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Operating expenses:               |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Micro-electronics Segment         |  |                             | 15,937  |   |      |   | 17,870  |  
|Imaging and Optics Segment        |  |                             | 19,908  |   |      |   | 18,640  |  
|Corporate overhead                |  |                             | 11,016  |   |      |   | 10,339  |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total operating expenses          |  |                             | 46,861  |   |      |   | 46,849  |  
|Operating income (loss):          |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Micro-electronics Segment         |  |                             | 39,819  |   |      |   | 88,689  |  
|Imaging and Optics Segment        |  |                             | (11,402 | ) |      |   | (10,623 | )
|Corporate overhead                |  |                             | (11,016 | ) |      |   | (10,339 | )
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total operating income            |  | $                           | 17,401  |   |      | $ | 67,727  |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  

A significant portion of the Companys revenues is derived from licensees headquartered outside of the U.S.,
principally in Asia and Europe, and it is expected that these revenues will continue to account for a significant portion of total revenues in future periods. The table below lists the geographic revenue information for the periods indicated (in
thousands, except for percentages):



|                 |  |                              |        |  |      |   |  |   |         |  |     |  
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------- | ------ |  | ---- | - |  | - | ------- |  | --- | -
|                 |  | Three Months Ended March 31, |       
|                 |  | 2010                         |        |  | 2009 |  
|U.S.             |  | $                            | 20,915 |  | 33   | % |  | $ | 74,623  |  | 65  | %
|Asia Pacific     |  |                              | 38,016 |  | 59   | % |  |   | 36,297  |  | 32  | %
|Europe and other |  |                              | 5,331  |  | 8    | % |  |   | 3,656   |  | 3   | %
|                 |  |                              |        |  |      |   |  |   |         |  |     |  
|                 |  | $                            | 64,262 |  | 100  | % |  | $ | 114,576 |  | 100 | %
|                 |  |                              |        |  |      |   |  |   |         |  |     |  

For the three months ended March 31, 2010, three customers each accounted for 10% or more of total revenues. For the
three months ended March 31, 2009, two customers each accounted for 10% or more of total revenues.

Net property and equipment are
presented below by geographical area (in thousands):



|                 |  |                             |        |      |   |       
|---------------- |  | --------------------------- | ------ | ---- | - | ------
|                 |  | Three Months EndedMarch 31,
|                 |  | 2010                        |        | 2009
|U.S.             |  | $                           | 41,166 |      | $ | 37,682
|Japan            |  |                             | 801    |      |   | 1,329 
|Romania          |  |                             | 596    |      |   | 468   
|Ireland          |  |                             | 429    |      |   | 561   
|Israel and other |  |                             | 278    |      |   | 338   
|                 |  |                             |        |      |   |       
|Total            |  | $                           | 43,270 |      | $ | 40,378
|                 |  |                             |        |      |   |       



23



---

##### Table of Contents

NOTE 12  FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

The following is a summary of marketable securities at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 (in thousands):



|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|-------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ------- | -------------------- | - | --------------------- |  | - | ------------------- | - |  | - | -------
|                                       |  | March 31, 2010   
|                                       |  | Cost              |         | GrossUnrealizedGains |   | GrossUnrealizedLosses |  |   | EstimatedFairValues
|Available-for-sale securities          |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Commercial paper                       |  | $                 | 87,956  |                      | $ | 23                    |  | $ | (16                 | ) |  | $ | 87,963 
|Money market funds                     |  |                   | 21,630  |                      |   |                      |  |   |                    |   |  |   | 21,630 
|Bank deposits                          |  |                   | 5,709   |                      |   |                      |  |   |                    |   |  |   | 5,709  
|Corporate bonds and notes              |  |                   | 83,116  |                      |   | 555                   |  |   | (60                 | ) |  |   | 83,611 
|Treasury and agency notes and bills    |  |                   | 93,770  |                      |   | 85                    |  |   | (60                 | ) |  |   | 93,795 
|Municipal bonds and notes              |  |                   | 88,215  |                      |   | 122                   |  |   | (19                 | ) |  |   | 88,318 
|Variable rate demand notes             |  |                   | 8,500   |                      |   |                      |  |   | (2                  | ) |  |   | 8,498  
|Asset-backed securities                |  |                   | 1,055   |                      |   |                      |  |   | (365                | ) |  |   | 690    
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Total available-for-sale securities    |  |                   | 389,951 |                      |   | 785                   |  |   | (522                | ) |  |   | 390,214
|Trading securities                     |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Auction rate municipal bond securities |  |                   | 14,010  |                      |   |                      |  |   |                    |   |  |   | 14,010 
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Total marketable securities            |  | $                 | 403,961 |                      | $ | 785                   |  | $ | (522                | ) |  | $ | 404,224
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Reported in:                           |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Cash and cash equivalents              |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  | $ | 78,257 
|Short-term investments                 |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   | 311,267
|Long-term investments                  |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   | 14,700 
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Total marketable securities            |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  | $ | 404,224
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|                                       | 
|                                       |  | December 31, 2009
|                                       |  | Cost              |         | GrossUnrealizedGains |   | GrossUnrealizedLosses |  |   | EstimatedFairValues
|Available-for-sale securities          |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Commercial paper                       |  | $                 | 82,347  |                      | $ | 7                     |  | $ | (6                  | ) |  | $ | 82,348 
|Money market funds                     |  |                   | 13,971  |                      |   |                      |  |   |                    |   |  |   | 13,971 
|Bank deposits                          |  |                   | 5,808   |                      |   |                      |  |   |                    |   |  |   | 5,808  
|Corporate bonds and notes              |  |                   | 84,245  |                      |   | 452                   |  |   | (142                | ) |  |   | 84,555 
|Treasury and agency notes and bills    |  |                   | 59,680  |                      |   | 62                    |  |   | (78                 | ) |  |   | 59,664 
|Municipal bonds and notes              |  |                   | 119,886 |                      |   | 168                   |  |   | (69                 | ) |  |   | 119,985
|Asset-backed securities                |  |                   | 1,642   |                      |   |                      |  |   | (449                | ) |  |   | 1,193  
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Total available-for-sale securities    |  |                   | 367,579 |                      |   | 689                   |  |   | (744                | ) |  |   | 367,524
|Trading securities                     |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Auction rate municipal bond securities |  |                   | 14,498  |                      |   |                      |  |   |                    |   |  |   | 14,498 
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Total marketable securities            |  | $                 | 382,077 |                      | $ | 689                   |  | $ | (744                | ) |  | $ | 382,022
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Reported in:                           |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Cash and cash equivalents              |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  | $ | 86,246 
|Short-term investments                 |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   | 280,085
|Long-term investments                  |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   | 15,691 
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        
|Total marketable securities            |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  | $ | 382,022
|                                       |  |                   |         |                      |   |                       |  |   |                     |   |  |   |        



24



---

##### Table of Contents

At March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the Company held $432.1 million and $403.6 million in
cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments, respectively. Of these amounts, the majority are held in marketable securities as shown above. The remaining balances are generally cash held in operating accounts.

At March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the Company had $14.7 million and $15.7 million, respectively, of auction rate municipal bonds
securities (ARS) and asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed securities (collectively, ABS) recorded at fair value. The original cost for these securities was $17.2 million and $18.5 million, respectively. Based
upon an analysis of market and other factors, ABS with an original par value of $2.1 million were written-down to an estimated fair value of $0.7 million as of March 31, 2010 as the decline in value of these certain investments were determined
to be other-than-temporary. The Company recorded impairment charges that decreased pre-tax income by $1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and did not record any impairment charges in the three months ended March 31, 2010.
Net unrealized gains of $0.3 million, net of tax, as of the three months ended March 31, 2010, related to a temporary increase in value of the remaining available-for-sale securities and were due primarily to changes in interest rates and
market and credit conditions of the underlying securities. For certain investments with a temporary decline in value, because the Company has the ability to hold these investments to allow for recovery, does not anticipate having to sell these
securities with unrealized losses and continues to receive interest at the maximum contractual rate, these investments are not considered to be other-than-temporarily impaired as of March 31, 2010.

The gross realized losses on sales of marketable securities were $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, almost all of which were
previously recorded as impairment. The gross realized gains on sales of marketable securities were not significant during the three months ended March 31, 2010. The gross realized gains and losses on sales of marketable securities were not
significant during the three months ended March 31, 2009.

Prior to the first quarter of 2008, ARS and ABS investments were presented as
current assets under short-term investments based on their expected maturities. Given the lack of active markets for these investments, the entire amount of the Companys ARS and ABS holdings, have been classified as long-term investments. Due
to the lack of observable market quotes on the Companys ARS and ABS investments, the Company utilizes valuation models that rely exclusively on unobservable inputs including those that are based on a discounted cash flow model and assessments
of counterparty credit quality, default risk underlying the security, discount rates and overall capital market liquidity.

In November 2008,
the Company entered into an agreement with UBS which granted the Company and UBS various rights (the Rights), including the right to permit the Company to sell the ARS investments to UBS at par value at any time during a two-year period
beginning June 30, 2010 and gave UBS the right to call such securities at par value. The Rights are an unsecured obligation of UBS and are not transferable by the Company. The Company has elected to record the Rights, a free-standing asset
aside from the ARS investments, under the provisions of the guidance for the fair value option for financial assets and financial liabilities. Upon acceptance of the Rights, the Company recorded the fair value of the Rights in other assets with an
offsetting entry to other income and expense, net. Additionally, in conjunction with the acceptance of the Rights, the Company reclassified the ARS investments from available-for-sale to trading to reflect its intention to exercise the Rights during
the relevant two-year period. As a trading security, unrealized gains and losses are recorded in current period earnings. For the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company recorded an insignificant amount of unrealized gains in relation to
the change in the fair value of the ARS investment and an offsetting entry of an insignificant amount related to the change in fair value of the Rights to other assets. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company recorded $2.8 million of
unrealized gains in relation to the change in the fair value of the ARS investment and an offsetting entry of approximately $2.8 million related to the change in fair value of the Rights to other assets. The fair value of the Rights was based on the
Companys expected value to be received from UBS, which was the difference between par and fair value of the ARS at the end of the current period. This value was discounted using UBSs credit default swap rate to account for the
counterparty risk. The Company expects that future changes in the fair value of the Rights will approximate fair value movements in the related ARS.

The following table summarizes the fair value and gross unrealized losses related to individual available-for-sale and trading securities which have been
in a continuous unrealized loss position, at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, aggregated by investment category and length of time (in thousands):



|                                       |  |                     |         |                       |                   |      |           |       |                       |        |  |            |      |                       |  |   |         |  |   |      |  
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | ------- | --------------------- | ----------------- | ---- | --------- | ----- | --------------------- | ------ |  | ---------- | ---- | --------------------- |  | - | ------- |  | - | ---- | -
|March 31, 2010                         |  | Less Than 12 Months |         |                       | 12 Months or More |      |           | Total |                      
|                                       |  | Fair Value          |         | GrossUnrealizedLosses |                   |      | FairValue |       | GrossUnrealizedLosses |        |  | Fair Value |      | GrossUnrealizedLosses | 
|Commercial Paper                       |  | $                   | 51,078  |                       | $                 | (16  | )         |       | $                     |       |  | $          |     |                       |  | $ | 51,078  |  | $ | (16  | )
|Corporate bonds and notes              |  |                     | 15,893  |                       |                   | (55  | )         |       |                       | 1,948  |  |            | (5   | )                     |  |   | 17,841  |  |   | (60  | )
|Treasury and agency notes and bills    |  |                     | 32,083  |                       |                   | (60  | )         |       |                       |       |  |            |     |                       |  |   | 32,083  |  |   | (60  | )
|Municipal bonds and notes              |  |                     | 35,450  |                       |                   | (19  | )         |       |                       |       |  |            |     |                       |  |   | 35,450  |  |   | (19  | )
|Variable rate demand notes             |  |                     | 3,498   |                       |                   | (2   | )         |       |                       |       |  |            |     |                       |  |   | 3,498   |  |   | (2   | )
|Asset-backed securities                |  |                     | 120     |                       |                   | (14  | )         |       |                       | 570    |  |            | (351 | )                     |  |   | 690     |  |   | (365 | )
|Auction rate municipal bond securities |  |                     |        |                       |                   |     |           |       |                       | 14,010 |  |            |     |                       |  |   | 14,010  |  |   |     |  
|                                       |  |                     |         |                       |                   |      |           |       |                       |        |  |            |      |                       |  |   |         |  |   |      |  
|Total                                  |  | $                   | 138,122 |                       | $                 | (166 | )         |       | $                     | 16,528 |  | $          | (356 | )                     |  | $ | 154,650 |  | $ | (522 | )
|                                       |  |                     |         |                       |                   |      |           |       |                       |        |  |            |      |                       |  |   |         |  |   |      |  



25



---

##### Table of Contents

|                                       |  |                     |         |                       |                   |      |           |       |                       |        |  |            |      |                       |  |   |         |  |   |      |  
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | ------- | --------------------- | ----------------- | ---- | --------- | ----- | --------------------- | ------ |  | ---------- | ---- | --------------------- |  | - | ------- |  | - | ---- | -
|December 31, 2009                      |  | Less Than 12 Months |         |                       | 12 Months or More |      |           | Total |                      
|                                       |  | Fair Value          |         | GrossUnrealizedLosses |                   |      | FairValue |       | GrossUnrealizedLosses |        |  | Fair Value |      | GrossUnrealizedLosses | 
|Commercial Paper                       |  | $                   | 29,024  |                       | $                 | (6   | )         |       | $                     |       |  | $          |     |                       |  | $ | 29,024  |  | $ | (6   | )
|Corporate bonds and notes              |  |                     | 27,158  |                       |                   | (124 | )         |       |                       | 3,285  |  |            | (18  | )                     |  |   | 30,443  |  |   | (142 | )
|Treasury and agency notes and bills    |  |                     | 21,454  |                       |                   | (78  | )         |       |                       |       |  |            |     |                       |  |   | 21,454  |  |   | (78  | )
|Municipal bonds and notes              |  |                     | 45,380  |                       |                   | (69  | )         |       |                       |       |  |            |     |                       |  |   | 45,380  |  |   | (69  | )
|Asset-backed securities                |  |                     | 90      |                       |                   | (50  | )         |       |                       | 1,103  |  |            | (399 | )                     |  |   | 1,193   |  |   | (449 | )
|Auction rate municipal bond securities |  |                     |        |                       |                   |     |           |       |                       | 14,498 |  |            |     |                       |  |   | 14,498  |  |   |     |  
|                                       |  |                     |         |                       |                   |      |           |       |                       |        |  |            |      |                       |  |   |         |  |   |      |  
|Total                                  |  | $                   | 123,106 |                       | $                 | (327 | )         |       | $                     | 18,886 |  | $          | (417 | )                     |  | $ | 141,992 |  | $ | (744 | )
|                                       |  |                     |         |                       |                   |      |           |       |                       |        |  |            |      |                       |  |   |         |  |   |      |  

The estimated fair value of marketable securities by contractual maturity at March 31, 2010 is shown below (in
thousands). Asset-backed securities are excluded as they do not have a single maturity date. Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because issuers may have the right to call or prepay obligations without call or prepayment
penalties.



|                        |  |                     |        
|----------------------- |  | ------------------- | -------
|                        |  | EstimatedFair Value
|Due in one year or less |  | $                   | 258,980
|Due in one to two years |  |                     | 144,554
|                        |  |                     |        
|Total                   |  | $                   | 403,534
|                        |  |                     |        

NOTE 13  FAIR VALUE

The Company follows the authoritative guidance for fair value measurements and the fair value option for financial assets and financial liabilities. The
guidance for fair value measurements establishes a consistent framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure requirements about fair value measurements. The guidance for the fair value option for financial assets and financial liabilities
provides companies the irrevocable option to measure many financial assets and liabilities at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in earnings. The Company has elected to record the Rights related to the ARS invested with UBS, as
discussed above, at fair value under the provisions of the guidance for the fair value option for financial assets and financial liabilities.

Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability, or an exit price, in the principal or
most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The established fair value hierarchy requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use
of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. The guidance describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:



|        |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Level 1 |  | Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|Level 2 |  | Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are
observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.                                                                                                                                          
|Level 3 |  | Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. Level 3 assets and liabilities
include financial instruments whose value is determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, as well as instruments for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or
estimation.



26



---

##### Table of Contents

The following is a list of the Companys assets and liabilities required to be measured at fair value
on a recurring basis and where they are classified within the hierarchy as of March 31, 2010 (in thousands):



|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------- | ------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------- | ------- |  | - | ------
|                                        |  | Fair Value |         | Quoted Pricesin ActiveMarkets forIdenticalAssets(Level 1) |   | SignificantOtherObservableInputs(Level 2) |  | SignificantUnobservableInputs(Level 3)
|Assets                                  |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|Money market funds (1)                  |  | $          | 21,630  |                                                           | $ | 21,630                                    |  | $                                      |        |  | $ |      
|Bank deposits (1)                       |  |            | 5,709   |                                                           |   | 5,709                                     |  |                                        |        |  |   |      
|Commercial paper (2)                    |  |            | 87,963  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 87,963  |  |   |      
|Treasury and agency notes and bills (2) |  |            | 93,795  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 93,795  |  |   |      
|Corporate bonds and notes (3)           |  |            | 83,611  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 83,611  |  |   |      
|Municipal bonds and notes (3)           |  |            | 88,318  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 88,318  |  |   |      
|Variable rate demand notes (3)          |  |            | 8,498   |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 8,498   |  |   |      
|Asset-backed securities (4)             |  |            | 690     |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        |        |  |   | 690   
|Auction rate municipal bonds (4)        |  |            | 14,010  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        |        |  |   | 14,010
|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|Total marketable securities             |  |            | 404,224 |                                                           |   | 27,339                                    |  |                                        | 362,185 |  |   | 14,700
|Rights related to the UBS agreement (5) |  |            | 1,115   |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        |        |  |   | 1,115 
|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|Total Assets                            |  | $          | 405,339 |                                                           | $ | 27,339                                    |  | $                                      | 362,185 |  | $ | 15,815
|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       



The following footnotes indicate where the noted items are recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2010:



|(1) | Money market funds and bank deposits are reported as cash and cash equivalents.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Commercial paper and treasury and government agency notes and bills are reported as either cash and cash equivalents or short-term investments.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Corporate bonds and notes, municipal bonds and notes and variable rate demand notes are reported as short-term investments.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(4) | Asset-backed securities and auction rate municipal bond securities are reported as long-term investments.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(5) | Rights related to the UBS agreement are reported as other assets.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a list of the Companys assets and liabilities required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis and where they are
classified within the hierarchy as of December 31, 2009 (in thousands):



|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------- | ------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------- | ------- |  | - | ------
|                                        |  | Fair Value |         | Quoted Pricesin ActiveMarkets forIdenticalAssets(Level 1) |   | SignificantOtherObservableInputs(Level 2) |  | SignificantUnobservableInputs(Level 3)
|Assets                                  |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|Money market funds (1)                  |  | $          | 13,971  |                                                           | $ | 13,971                                    |  | $                                      |        |  | $ |      
|Bank deposits (1)                       |  |            | 5,808   |                                                           |   | 5,808                                     |  |                                        |        |  |   |      
|Commercial paper (2)                    |  |            | 82,348  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 82,348  |  |   |      
|Corporate bonds and notes (2)           |  |            | 84,555  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 84,555  |  |   |      
|Municipal bonds and notes (3)           |  |            | 119,985 |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 119,985 |  |   |      
|Treasury and agency notes and bills (3) |  |            | 59,664  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        | 59,664  |  |   |      
|Asset-backed securities (4)             |  |            | 1,193   |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        |        |  |   | 1,193 
|Auction rate municipal bonds (4)        |  |            | 14,498  |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        |        |  |   | 14,498
|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|Total marketable securities             |  |            | 382,022 |                                                           |   | 19,779                                    |  |                                        | 346,552 |  |   | 15,691
|Rights related to the UBS agreement (5) |  |            | 1,127   |                                                           |   |                                          |  |                                        |        |  |   | 1,127 
|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       
|Total Assets                            |  | $          | 383,149 |                                                           | $ | 19,779                                    |  | $                                      | 346,552 |  | $ | 16,818
|                                        |  |            |         |                                                           |   |                                           |  |                                        |         |  |   |       



The following footnotes indicate where the noted items are recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2009:



|(1) | Money market funds and bank deposits are reported as cash and cash equivalents.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Commercial paper and corporate bond and notes are reported as either cash and cash equivalents or short-term investments.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Municipal bonds and notes and treasury and government agency notes and bills are reported as short-term investments.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



27



---

##### Table of Contents

|(4) | Asset-backed securities and auction rate municipal bond securities are reported as long-term investments.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(5) | Rights related to the UBS agreement are reported as other assets.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

The Companys ARS and ABS holdings have been classified as Level 3 long-term investments due to the lack of active markets for these investments.
For the valuation of the Companys ARS and ABS investments, the Company utilizes valuation models that rely exclusively on unobservable inputs including those that are based on a discounted cash flow model and assessments of counterparty credit
quality, default risk underlying the security, discount rates and overall capital market liquidity. Also included in the Level 3 classification is the fair value of the Rights related to UBS agreement. See Note 12  Financial
Instrumentsabove for further information.

The table below presents a reconciliation for all assets measured at fair value on a
recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (in thousands):



|                                                 |  |                 |       |   |                                                  |   |        |                |  |   |        |  
|------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------- | ----- | - | ------------------------------------------------ | - | ------ | -------------- |  | - | ------ | -
|                                                 |  | Rights(Level 3) |       |   | Available-for-saleand
tradingsecurities(Level 3) |   |        | Total(Level 3) | 
|Balance at December 31, 2009                     |  | $               | 1,127 |   |                                                  | $ | 15,691 |                |  | $ | 16,818 |  
|Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements, net |  |                 |      |   |                                                  |   | (971   | )              |  |   | (971   | )
|Total gains or losses (realized and unrealized): |  |                 |       |   |                                                  |   |        |                |  |   |        |  
|Included in earnings                             |  |                 | (12   | ) |                                                  |   | (104   | )              |  |   | (116   | )
|Included in other comprehensive income           |  |                 |      |   |                                                  |   | 84     |                |  |   | 84     |  
|Transfers in/(out) of Level 3                    |  |                 |      |   |                                                  |   |       |                |  |   |       |  
|                                                 |  |                 |       |   |                                                  |   |        |                |  |   |        |  
|Balance at March 31, 2010                        |  | $               | 1,115 |   |                                                  | $ | 14,700 |                |  | $ | 15,815 |  
|                                                 |  |                 |       |   |                                                  |   |        |                |  |   |        |  

NOTE 14  RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION

In September 2007, the Company licensed its OptiML Wafer-Level Camera technology and SHELLCASE Wafer-Level Packaging solutions to NemoTek Technologie S.
A. (NemoTek), a supplier of camera solutions for the cell phone market. As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the Company invested $2.0 million in NemoTek, which represented less than a 10 percent holding in NemoTek,
respectively. Revenues from NemoTek were less than 1 percent of total revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The account receivable from NemoTek was $0.3 million as of March 31, 2010 and December 31,
2009, respectively.



28



---

##### Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The following select abbreviations or acronyms are used within Part I, Item 2 Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations and Part II, Item 1A Risk Factors in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q:



|                        |  |            |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ---------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Abbreviation or Acronym |  | Definition
|                        |  | 3D         |  | 3 dimensional                                       
|                        |  | ASIC       |  | Application-specific integrated circuits            
|                        |  | ASSP       |  | Application-specific standard product semiconductors
|                        |  | CSP        |  | Chip-scale packaging                                
|                        |  | DDR2       |  | Double-data-rate two                                
|                        |  | DDR3       |  | Double-data-rate three                              
|                        |  | DDR4       |  | Double-data-rate four                               
|                        |  | DRAM       |  | Dynamic random access memory                        
|                        |  | DSP        |  | Digital signal processors                           
|                        |  | IC         |  | Integrated circuits                                 
|                        |  | IP         |  | Intellectual property                               
|                        |  | NAND       |  | Not And Flash memory                                
|                        |  | NOR        |  | Not Or Flash memory                                 
|                        |  | RTL        |  | Register transfer level                             
|                        |  | SRAM       |  | Static random access memory                         
|                        |  | TCC        |  | Tessera Compliant Chip                              
|                        |  | VGA        |  | Video graphics array                                



29



---

##### Table of Contents

Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the attached unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements and notes thereto, and with our audited financial statements and notes thereto for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 25, 2010.

This Quarterly Report contains forward-looking statements, which are subject to the safe harbor provisions created by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. Certain, but not all, of the forward-looking statements in this report are specifically identified. The identification of certain statements as forward-looking is not intended to mean that other statements not
specifically identified are not forward-looking. All statements other than statements about historical facts are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements that relate to our future revenue,
product development, demand, acceptance and market share, growth rate, competitiveness, gross margins, levels of research, development and other related costs, expenditures, the outcome or effects of and expenses related to litigation and
administrative proceedings related to our patents, our intent to enforce our intellectual property, our ability to license our intellectual property, tax expenses, cash flows, our ability to liquidate and recover the carrying value of our
investments, our managements plans and objectives for our current and future operations, managements plans for repurchasing our common stock pursuant to the authorization of our Board of Directors, the levels of customer spending or
research and development activities, general economic conditions, the sufficiency of financial resources to support future operations and capital expenditures. Words such as expects, anticipates, plans,
believes, seeks, estimates, could, would, may, intends, targets and similar expressions or variations of such words are intended to identify
forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report.

Although forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report reflect the good faith judgment of our management, such statements can only be based on
facts and factors currently known by us. Consequently, forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks, uncertainties, and changes in condition, significance, value and effect, including those discussed below under the heading Risk
Factors within Part II, Item 1A of this Quarterly Report and other documents we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), such as our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q and our current reports on Form 8-K. Such risks, uncertainties and changes in condition, significance, value and effect could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed herein and in ways not readily foreseeable.
Readers are urged not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Quarterly Report and are based on information currently and reasonably known to us. We undertake no obligation to revise or
update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any event or circumstance that may arise after the date of this Quarterly Report. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made in this Quarterly Report,
which attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.



30



---

##### Table of Contents

Corporate Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 3025 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California 95134. We also have offices, research and development and
manufacturing facilities in other locations. Our telephone number is (408) 321-6000. We maintain a website at www.tessera.com. The reference to our website address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on
this website.

Tessera, the Tessera logo, μBGA, μPILR, OptiML, DigitalOptics, SHELLCASE and FotoNation are trademarks or
registered trademarks of Tessera or its affiliated companies in the United States (U.S.) and other countries. All other company, brand and product names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

In this Quarterly Report, the Company, Tessera, we, us and our refer to Tessera
Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.

Business Overview

Tessera is a technology innovator that invests in, licenses and delivers innovative miniaturization technologies for next-generation electronic devices.
Our Micro-electronics solutions enable smaller, higher-functionality devices through chip-scale, 3 dimensional (3D) and wafer-level packaging technology, as well as high-density substrate and thermal management technology. Our
Imaging & Optics solutions provide low-cost, high-quality camera functionality in electronic products and include image sensor packaging, wafer-level optics, and image enhancement intellectual property. We also offer customized micro-optic
lenses, from diffractive and refractive optical elements to integrated micro-optical subassemblies. We license our technologies worldwide, as well as deliver products based on these technologies, some of which is done to promote the development of
supply chain infrastructure.

Our patent portfolio includes more than 1,900 domestic and internationally issued patents and patent
applications, covering a range of advanced semiconductor packaging, substrate, interconnect, imaging and optics, and thermal management technologies.

We have two reportable segments: Micro-electronics and Imaging and Optics. The Micro-electronics segment is primarily composed of our licensing business
in our core markets, including DRAM, Flash, SRAM, DSP, ASIC, ASSP, micro-controllers, general purpose logic and analog devices, and our development and licensing efforts in emerging areas of packaging, interconnect, miniaturization such as our
μPILR platform, and thermal management technology.

The Imaging and Optics segment is composed of two elements. The first is our
licensing business in the imaging and optics market, such as our wafer-level image sensor packaging and image enhancement technologies. The second is our product and service business, which includes manufacturing small form factor micro-optics and
non-recurring services such as engineering, design, assembly and infrastructure improvement. In addition, our product and service business includes our Product Launch Services, a strategic initiative that supports our infrastructure licensees with
proof of high-volume manufacturability and provides our customers access to our new technologies to accelerate the rate of adoption of our Imaging & Optics technologies in the industry. Through our Product Launch Services, we are currently
manufacturing and selling OptiML single-element VGA lens directly to manufacturers.

We derive the majority of our revenues from license fees
and royalties associated with our Micro-electronics technology, with a growing contribution from our Imaging & Optics technologies. Our Micro-electronics packaging technologies have been widely adopted and aspects of our technologies have
been licensed to more than 70 companies, including Motorola, Inc., Intel Corporation, Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Renesas Technology Co., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Powertech Technology, Inc., Texas Instruments, Inc. and
Toshiba Corporation. We believe that more than 100 companies across the semiconductor supply chain have invested in the materials, equipment and assembly infrastructure needed to manufacture products incorporating our packaging technology.

Our Technologies

We
develop, license and manufacture technologies in two key areas:



| |  | Micro-electronics including semiconductor packaging technologies encompassing interconnect and substrates, and thermal management technology; and
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Imaging & Optics including wafer-level packaging, wafer-level optics, image enhancement technologies and micro-optics
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micro-electronics Technologies

In the
early 1990s, Tesseras founders invented packaging technology which is now widely used throughout the semiconductor industry. Our innovations include the industrys first chip-scale packaging technology. Our chip scale packaging
technology also supports a variety of multi-chip packaging implementations, which satisfy the diverse requirements for stacked, Package-on-Package and System-in-Package designs. Our packaging technologies are widely used today in high volume
packaging for a full range of integrated circuits (ICs). A few examples are listed below.



| |  | High performance dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips, such as:
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



31



---

##### Table of Contents

| |  | Double-Data-Rate two (DDR2); and
| | - | ----------------------------------



| |  | Double-Data-Rate three (DDR3)
| | - | -------------------------------



| |  | Other memory chips, such as:
| | - | ----------------------------



| |  | Not Or (NOR) and Not And (NAND) Flash memory; and
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------



| |  | Static random access memory (SRAM)
| | - | ------------------------------------



| |  | Application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and application-specific standard product semiconductors (ASSPs), such as:
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Baseband processors;
| | - | --------------------



| |  | Radio Frequency transceivers;
| | - | -----------------------------



| |  | Audio/video/image processors;
| | - | -----------------------------



| |  | Power management; and
| | - | ---------------------



| |  | Connectivity (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Global Positioning System among others)
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | General purpose ICs, such as:
| | - | -----------------------------



| |  | Microcontrollers;
| | - | -----------------



| |  | Digital Signal Processors (DSPs); and
| | - | ---------------------------------------



| |  | Analog
| | - | ------

In interconnect and substrates, we are
focused on applying our μPILR technology to achieve dense interconnection of components for chip scale Package-on-Package stacking and advanced flip chip package substrate technologies. We continue to invest in our relationships with leading
substrate vendors, materials and equipment suppliers as well as subcontract assemblers to make sure the right mix of supporting materials and services are available.

We are also applying our industry-leading miniaturization expertise to thermal management solutions. We are developing a unique silent air cooling
technology that we believe enables more efficient heat dissipation than what is currently provided by traditional fans or other air cooling methods.

Imaging & Optics Technologies

Advancements in Imaging & Optics technologies are enabling higher quality images in considerably smaller digital still cameras and other
camera-enabled devices including cell phones, security systems and personal computers. Our portfolio of imaging and optics technologies include the following:



| |  | Wafer-level Packaging technologies used in image sensor packaging:
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | SHELLCASE MVP is one of the industrys first available through silicon via technology. It uses a glass-silicon sandwich structure, which enables image-sensing
capabilities through the actual packaging structure;
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Wafer-level Optics technology, which enables the manufacturing and assembly of lens modules:
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Offered either as an Intellectual Property license or products such as the OptiML single-element VGA lens we manufacture in our Product Launch Services;
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Wafer-level Camera technology, which combines OptiML Wafer-Level Optics with SHELLCASE MVP technology to manufacture camera modules at the wafer level;
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Optical Image Enhancement technologies, which improve the quality of captured cell phone images:
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | OptiML Focus enables a high-quality image to be simultaneously brought into focus;
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | OptiML UFL improves low-light performance; and
| | - | ----------------------------------------------



| |  | OptiML Zoom, our first combination Optical and Embedded Image Enhancement technology, which offers 3X zoom capabilities;
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Embedded Image Enhancement technologies, which provide a portfolio of in-camera image enhancement solutions for digital photos:
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | FotoNation Red automatically detects and removes red- and golden-eye defects;
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



32



---

##### Table of Contents

| |  | FotoNation FaceTracker, which includes the SmileCheck, BlinkCheck and Face Beautification extension modules, detects the presence of human faces in pictures to ensure
optimal focus, exposure, and color balance, while also reducing the appearance of wrinkles or other skin imperfections for optimal image quality; and
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | FotoNation FaceRecognition performs automatic identification of specific human faces in camera equipped mobile devices;
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Micro-optics, which are small form factor optics developed and delivered on a variety of substrates, on one or both surfaces of a wafer and in multi-wafer forms:
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Digital Optics solutions include diffractive optical elements, such as the lenses used in off-axis illumination for lithography; refractive optical elements, such as
lens arrays; and integrated micro-optical subassemblies, such as optical and electro-optic modules.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Products and
Solutions

Within our Imaging and Optics segment, we develop and manufacture imaging and optics solutions as well as provide
services to our licensees to shorten their development effort and time to market. We manufacture small form factor micro-optics solutions using our wafer-level processes and equipment, targeted at three main markets: lithography, communications and
barcode scanners. Our Product Launch Services is a strategic initiative to support our infrastructure licensees with proof of high-volume manufacturability and enables customers access to our new technology. We are currently manufacturing OptiML
single-element VGA lens directly to manufacturers. We also provide our customers and partners with engineering, assembly and infrastructure services.

Acquisitions

We have grown our
business partly through acquisitions. All of these acquisitions are related to our Imaging and Options segment. The impact of these acquisitions on our financial results has been included in the following discussion. In May 2009, we completed our
purchase of certain intellectual property and customer agreements from Dblur Technologies Ltd., an Israeli company. In February 2008, we completed our acquisition of FotoNation, Inc., a Delaware corporation. In February 2007, we completed our
acquisition of Eyesquad GmbH, a private limited liability company organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany and its subsidiary, which operated in Israel. In February 2007 and May 2005, we purchased from North Corporation all of its
patents and patent applications filed in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions, trademark assets and certain tangible assets. In July 2006, we completed our acquisition of Digital Optics Corporation, a Delaware corporation. In December 2005, we
completed our purchase of certain assets of Shellcase, Ltd., an Israeli company.

Results of Operations

The following table sets forth our operating results for the periods indicated as a percentage of revenues:



|                                              |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | - |  | ------------- | -
|                                              |  | Three Months Ended |  
|                                              |  | March 31,2010      |   |  | March 31,2009 |  
|Revenues:                                     |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|Royalty and license fees                      |  | 92                 | % |  | 98            | %
|Product and service revenues                  |  | 8                  |   |  | 2             |  
|                                              |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|                                              |  |                   
|Total revenues                                |  | 100                |   |  | 100           |  
|                                              |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|                                              |  |                   
|Operating expenses:                           |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|Cost of revenues                              |  | 8                  |   |  | 4             |  
|Research, development and other related costs |  | 25                 |   |  | 14            |  
|Selling, general and administrative costs     |  | 30                 |   |  | 15            |  
|Litigation expense                            |  | 10                 |   |  | 8             |  
|                                              |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|                                              |  |                   
|Total operating expenses                      |  | 73                 |   |  | 41            |  
|Operating income                              |  | 27                 |   |  | 59            |  
|Other income and expense, net                 |  | 1                  |   |  | 2             |  
|                                              |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|                                              |  |                   
|Income before taxes                           |  | 28                 |   |  | 61            |  
|Provision for income taxes                    |  | 13                 |   |  | 27            |  
|                                              |  |                    |   |  |               |  
|                                              |  |                   
|Net income                                    |  | 15                 | % |  | 34            | %
|                                              |  |                    |   |  |               |  



33



---

##### Table of Contents

Revenues

The following table sets forth our revenues by type (in thousands, except for percentages):



|                             |  |                    |        |  |                |   |  |                     |         |  |         |   |  |   |         |   |  |     |   
|---------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ------ |  | -------------- | - |  | ------------------- | ------- |  | ------- | - |  | - | ------- | - |  | --- | --
|                             |  | Three Months Ended |        |  |                |   |  |                     |        
|                             |  | March 31, 2010     |        |  | March 31, 2009 |   |  | Increase/(Decrease) |         |  | %Change |  
|Royalty and license fees     |  | $                  | 58,853 |  | 92             | % |  | $                   | 111,857 |  | 98      | % |  | $ | (53,004 | ) |  | (47 | )%
|Product and service revenues |  |                    | 5,409  |  | 8              |   |  |                     | 2,719   |  | 2       |   |  |   | 2,690   |   |  | 99  |   
|                             |  |                    |        |  |                |   |  |                     |         |  |         |   |  |   |         |   |  |     |   
|Total revenues               |  | $                  | 64,262 |  | 100            | % |  | $                   | 114,576 |  | 100     | % |  | $ | (50,314 | ) |  | (44 | )%
|                             |  |                    |        |  |                |   |  |                     |         |  |         |   |  |   |         |   |  |     |   

Revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $64.3 million as compared to $114.6 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2009, a decrease of $50.3 million, or 44%. The overall decrease in revenues in the three months ended March 31, 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009 is primarily due to a non-recurring royalty revenue of $60.6
million from Amkor Technology, Inc. in February 2009, awarded by an arbitration panel for Amkors material breach of its license agreement with Tessera. Excluding this award, revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were up $10.3
million as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2009. The increase was due to a $3.0 million payment for past royalties under a $15.0 million litigation settlement with United Test Assembly Center Ltd. (UTAC), the remainder
of which is to be received in the second half of 2010. Also contributing to the increase are unit growth in the semiconductor market and increased demand in the photolithography industry.

Cost of Revenues

Cost of revenues
primarily consists of direct compensation, materials, amortization of intangible assets related to acquired technologies, supplies and depreciation expense. Amortization of certain acquired intangible assets and depreciation expense of property and
equipment were reclassified as a component of cost of revenues from research, development and other related costs starting in fiscal year 2009 as revenue was generated from these assets. The amortization of acquired intangible assets as a component
of cost of revenues relates primarily to royalty and license fees revenues derived from our imaging and optics technologies. Excluding amortization of acquired intangible assets, cost of revenues relates primarily to product and service revenues.
For each associated period, cost of revenues as a percentage of total revenues varies based on the rate of adoption of our imaging and optics technologies, the product and service revenues component of total revenues, on the mix of product sales to
semiconductor, optics and communications industries and timing of property and equipment being placed in service.

Cost of revenues for the
three months ended March 31, 2010 was $5.2 million, as compared to $4.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, an increase of $1.1 million, or 27%. The increase was primarily attributable to the increase in production expenses
related to increased Micro-optics sales.

Research, Development and Other Related Costs

Research, development and other related costs consist primarily of compensation and related costs for personnel as well as costs related to patent
applications and examinations, amortization of intangible assets, materials, supplies and equipment depreciation. Research and development is conducted primarily in-house and targets development of chip-scale, 3 dimensional and wafer-level packaging
technology, high-density substrate, thermal management technology, image sensor packaging, wafer-level optics, image enhancement technology, and micro-optic lenses solutions including diffractive and refractive optical elements to integrated
micro-optical subassemblies. All research, development and other related costs are expensed as incurred.

Research, development and other
related costs for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $15.8 million, a decrease of $0.8 million, or 5%, as compared to $16.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The decrease was primarily due to a reduction in
personnel related expenses of $0.6 million and lower depreciation expense of $0.3 million.

We believe that a significant level of research
and development expenses will be required for us to remain competitive in the future.

Selling, General and Administrative

Selling expenses consist primarily of compensation and related costs for sales and marketing personnel, marketing programs, public relations, promotional
materials, travel, trade show expenses, and stock-based compensation expense. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of compensation and related costs for general management, information technology, finance and accounting personnel,
legal expenses, facilities costs, stock-based compensation expense, and professional services. Our general and administrative expenses, other than facilities related expenses, are not allocated to other expense line items.

Selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $19.3 million, an increase of $1.8 million, or 10%, as
compared to $17.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The increase was primarily attributable to an increase of $0.9 million in general legal consulting expenses and $0.8 million in depreciation and amortization expenses.

Litigation Expense.Litigation expense for the three months ended March 31, 2010 was $6.6 million, as compared to $8.6
million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, a decrease of $2.0 million, or 24%. The decrease was primarily attributable to a decrease in case activities in our legal proceedings related to the International Trade Commission, offset by an
increase in legal proceedings related to the UTAC litigation. Refer to Part II, Item 1 Legal Proceedings for additional details.



34



---

##### Table of Contents

We expect that litigation expenses will continue to be a material portion of our operating expenses in
future periods, and may fluctuate significantly in some periods, because of our ongoing litigation, as described in Part II, Item 1 Legal Proceedings and because we expect that we will become involved in other litigation from time
to time in the future in order to enforce and protect our intellectual property rights.

Stock-based Compensation Expense

The effect of recording stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 is as follows (in thousands):



|                                              |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ----- | ------------- | - | -----
|                                              |  | Three Months Ended
|                                              |  | March 31,2010      |       | March 31,2009
|Cost of revenues                              |  | $                  | 175   |               | $ | 111  
|Research, development and other related costs |  |                    | 2,677 |               |   | 2,667
|Selling, general and administrative           |  |                    | 4,014 |               |   | 3,538
|                                              |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|Total stock-based compensation expense        |  | $                  | 6,866 |               | $ | 6,316
|                                              |  |                    |       |               |   |      

Stock-based compensation expense categorized by various equity
components for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 is summarized in the table below (in thousands):



|                                       |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ----- | ------------- | - | -----
|                                       |  | Three Months Ended
|                                       |  | March 31,2010      |       | March 31,2009
|Employee stock options                 |  | $                  | 3,751 |               | $ | 3,444
|Restricted stock awards and units      |  |                    | 2,609 |               |   | 2,454
|Employee stock purchase plan           |  |                    | 506   |               |   | 418  
|                                       |  |                    |       |               |   |      
|Total stock-based compensation expense |  | $                  | 6,866 |               | $ | 6,316
|                                       |  |                    |       |               |   |      

Stock-based compensation awards included employee stock options,
restricted stock and employee stock purchases under our 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 was $6.9 million and $6.3 million, respectively. The overall increase
was primarily related to an increase in grants of stock awards to employees based on our compensation incentive program and additional stock-based compensation expense resulting from modification of stock awards to employees terminated from the
company. Future stock-based compensation expense and unrecognized stock-based compensation expense will increase as we grant additional stock awards.

Other Income and Expense, Net

Other
income and expense, net, for the three months ended March 31, 2010 was $0.5 million, as compared to $2.8 million, for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The decrease is due to a reduction in interest income on our investments in the
first quarter of 2010, as a result of lower prevailing interest rates as compared to the first quarter of 2009 which also included a $3.5 million interest payment from Amkor received in February 2009 as part of the $64.1 million awarded by an
arbitration panel for Amkors breach of its license agreement and a $1.6 million other-than-temporary write-down of our asset-backed securities.

Provision for Income Taxes

Income tax
provision for the three months ended March 31, 2010 was $8.1 million and was comprised of domestic income tax and foreign income and withholding tax. For the three months ended March 31, 2009, the income tax provision was $31.0 million and
was comprised of domestic income tax and foreign income and withholding tax. The decrease in the income tax provision from the three months ended March 31, 2009 is primarily attributable to the decrease in domestic pre-tax income for the period
and the effect of the reduced benefit for domestic research and foreign tax credits.

Segment Operating Results

We have two reportable segments: Micro-electronics and Imaging and Optics. In addition to these reportable segments, the Corporate Overhead division
includes certain operating amounts that are not allocated to the reportable segments because these operating amounts are not considered in evaluating the operating performance of our business segments.



35



---

##### Table of Contents

The Micro-electronics segment is primarily composed of the licensing business in our core markets, including
DRAM, Flash, SRAM, DSP, ASIC, ASSP, micro-controllers, general purpose logic and analog devices, and our development and licensing efforts in emerging areas of packaging, interconnect, miniaturization such as our μPILR platform, and
thermal management technology.

The Imaging and Optics segment is composed of two elements. The first is our licensing business in the imaging
and optics market, such as our wafer-level image sensor packaging and image enhancement technologies. The second is our product and service business, which includes manufacturing small form factor micro-optics and non-recurring services such as
engineering, design, assembly and infrastructure improvement. In addition, our product and service business includes our Product Launch Services, a strategic initiative that supports our infrastructure licensees with proof of high-volume
manufacturability and provides our customers access to our new technologies to accelerate the rate of adoption of our Imaging & Optics technologies in the industry. Through our Product Launch Services, we are currently manufacturing and
selling OptiML single-element VGA lens directly to manufacturers.

Our reportable segments were determined based upon the manner in which our
management views and evaluates our operations. Segment information below and in Note 11 of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements is presented in accordance with the authoritative guidance on segment reporting. We do not present
financial data to our Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM) for each of our divisions, and our CODM does not evaluate each division separately from our segments when measuring the operating performance of our business.

The following table sets forth our segments revenues, operating expenses and operating income (loss) (in thousands):



|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | ------- | - | ---- | - | ------- | -
|                                  |  | Three Months EndedMarch 31, |        
|                                  |  | 2010                        |         |   | 2009 |  
|Revenues:                         |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Micro-electronics Segment:        |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Royalty and license fees          |  | $                           | 55,756  |   |      | $ | 106,523 |  
|Product and service revenues      |  |                             |        |   |      |   | 36      |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total Micro-electronics revenues  |  |                             | 55,756  |   |      |   | 106,559 |  
|Imaging and Optics Segment:       |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Royalty and license fees          |  |                             | 3,097   |   |      |   | 5,334   |  
|Product and service revenues      |  |                             | 5,409   |   |      |   | 2,683   |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total Imaging and Optics revenues |  |                             | 8,506   |   |      |   | 8,017   |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total revenues                    |  |                             | 64,262  |   |      |   | 114,576 |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Operating expenses:               |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Micro-electronics Segment         |  |                             | 15,937  |   |      |   | 17,870  |  
|Imaging and Optics Segment        |  |                             | 19,908  |   |      |   | 18,640  |  
|Corporate overhead                |  |                             | 11,016  |   |      |   | 10,339  |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total operating expenses          |  |                             | 46,861  |   |      |   | 46,849  |  
|Operating income (loss):          |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Micro-electronics Segment         |  |                             | 39,819  |   |      |   | 88,689  |  
|Imaging and Optics Segment        |  |                             | (11,402 | ) |      |   | (10,623 | )
|Corporate overhead                |  |                             | (11,016 | ) |      |   | (10,339 | )
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  
|Total operating income            |  | $                           | 17,401  |   |      | $ | 67,727  |  
|                                  |  |                             |         |   |      |   |         |  

The revenues and operating income amounts in this section have been presented on a basis consistent with U.S. GAAP applied
at the segment level. Corporate overhead expenses which have been excluded are primarily support services, human resources, legal, finance, IT, corporate development, procurement activities, and insurance expenses. For the three months ended
March 31, 2010, corporate overhead expenses were $11.0 million compared to $10.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The increase of $0.7 million from the three months ended March 31, 2009 was mainly attributable to an
increase in stock-based compensation expense of $0.7 million and legal and consulting expenses of $0.4 million related to corporate development activity in pursuit of our ongoing investigations of various businesses and technologies that we might
acquire to further our strategic goals, offset by a decrease in marketing-related expenses of $0.6 million.



36



---

##### Table of Contents

Micro-electronics Segment



|                                              |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ------ | ------------- | - | -------
|                                              |  | Three Months Ended
|                                              |  | March 31,2010      |        | March 31,2009
|Revenues:                                     |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Micro-electronics:                            |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Royalty and license fees                      |  | $                  | 55,756 |               | $ | 106,523
|Product and service revenues                  |  |                    | 0      |               |   | 36     
|                                              |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Total Micro-electronics revenues              |  |                    | 55,756 |               |   | 106,559
|Operating expenses:                           |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Cost of revenues                              |  |                    |       |               |   | 163    
|Research, development and other related costs |  |                    | 6,575  |               |   | 6,993  
|Selling, general and administrative           |  |                    | 2,765  |               |   | 2,089  
|Litigation expense                            |  |                    | 6,597  |               |   | 8,625  
|                                              |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Total operating expenses                      |  |                    | 15,937 |               |   | 17,870 
|                                              |  |                    |        |               |   |        
|Total operating income                        |  | $                  | 39,819 |               | $ | 88,689 
|                                              |  |                    |        |               |   |        

Micro-electronics revenues for the three months ended March 31,
2010 were $55.8 million as compared to $106.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, which represented a decrease of $50.8 million, or 48%. The decrease was primarily attributed to a non-recurring royalty revenue of $60.6 million
from Amkor, awarded by an arbitration panel for their material breach of their license agreement with our Company in February 2009. Excluding this award, revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were up $9.8 million as compared to the
three months ended March 31, 2009. The increase was due to a $3.0 million payment for past royalties under a $15.0 million litigation settlement with UTAC, the remainder of which is to be received in the second half of 2010. Also contributing
to the increase is unit growth in the semiconductor market.

Micro-electronics revenues consist primarily of royalties received from our TCC
licensees. Such royalty revenues are distributed between two primary market segments: DRAM and Wireless. In 2005, we provided two major DRAM manufacturers with first-mover pricing advantages in respect of royalties due to us under their respective
TCC licenses, based on several factors including volumes. The effect of the volume pricing adjustments may cause, at certain high shipment volumes and for these two DRAM manufacturers only, our aggregate annual DRAM royalty revenue to grow less
rapidly than annual growth in overall unit shipments in the DRAM segment. An additional effect may include, depending on the relative DRAM market share enjoyed by these two DRAM manufacturers in a given calendar quarter and their royalty payments
within a calendar year, some quarter-to-quarter as well as year-to-year fluctuations in the growth in our revenues from the DRAM segment. We have no other contracts that provide volume-based pricing adjustments.

Operating expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $15.9 million and consisted primarily of research, development and other related
costs of $6.6 million, SG&A costs of $2.7 million and $6.6 million in litigation expenses. Operating expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2010 of $15.9 million represented a decrease of $2.0 million as compared to $17.9 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2009, which was primarily attributable to a decrease in litigation expenses of $2.0 million, a decrease of $0.5 million in personnel and related expenses, and a reduction of $0.4 million in stock-based
compensation expense, offset by an increase in legal and outside consulting expenses of $0.7 million.

We expect that litigation expense will
continue to be a material portion of the Micro-electronics segments operating expenses in future periods, and may fluctuate significantly in some periods, because of our ongoing legal actions, as described in Part II, Item 1
Legal Proceedings, and because we expect that we will become involved in other litigation from time to time in the future in order to enforce and protect our intellectual property rights.

Operating income for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 was $39.8 million and $88.7 million, respectively, which
represented a decrease of $48.9 million, or 55%, for the reasons stated above.



37



---

##### Table of Contents

Imaging and Optics Segment



|                                              |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ------- | - | ------------- | - | ------- | -
|                                              |  | Three Months Ended |        
|                                              |  | March 31,2010      |         |   | March 31,2009 |  
|Revenues:                                     |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  
|Imaging and Optics:                           |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  
|Royalty and license fees                      |  | $                  | 3,097   |   |               | $ | 5,334   |  
|Product and service revenues                  |  |                    | 5,409   |   |               |   | 2,683   |  
|                                              |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  
|Total Imaging and Optics revenues             |  |                    | 8,506   |   |               |   | 8,017   |  
|Operating expenses:                           |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  
|Cost of revenues                              |  |                    | 5,195   |   |               |   | 3,935   |  
|Research, development and other related costs |  |                    | 9,236   |   |               |   | 9,637   |  
|Selling, general and administrative           |  |                    | 5,477   |   |               |   | 5,068   |  
|Litigation expense                            |  |                    |        |   |               |   |        |  
|                                              |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  
|Total operating expenses                      |  |                    | 19,908  |   |               |   | 18,640  |  
|                                              |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  
|Total operating loss                          |  | $                  | (11,402 | ) |               | $ | (10,623 | )
|                                              |  |                    |         |   |               |   |         |  

Imaging and Optics revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $8.5 million as compared to $8.0 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2009, an increase of $0.5 million, or 6%. The increase in Imaging and Optics revenues was primarily attributable to increased demand in the photolithography industry.

Operating expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $19.9 million and consisted of cost of revenues of $5.2 million, research,
development and other related costs of $9.2 million and SG&A costs of $5.5 million. Operating expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2009 were $18.6 million. The increase of $1.3 million in total operating expenses from the three
months ended March 31, 2009 was primarily due to increases in personnel related expenses of $0.8 million, increases in stock-based compensation expense of $0.3 million, offset by a decrease in outside services expense of $0.4 million.

Operating loss for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 was $11.4 million and $10.6 million, respectively,
which represented an increased loss of $0.8 million, or 8%, for the reasons stated above.

Liquidity and Capital Resources



|                                                                   |  |                    |         |   |                       |   |         |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------ | ------- | - | --------------------- | - | ------- | -
|(in thousands, except for percentages)                             |  | As ofMarch 31,2010 |         |   | As ofDecember 31,2009 |  
|Cash and cash equivalents                                          |  | $                  | 106,115 |   |                       | $ | 107,873 |  
|Short-term investments                                             |  |                    | 311,267 |   |                       |   | 280,085 |  
|Long-term investments                                              |  |                    | 14,700  |   |                       |   | 15,691  |  
|                                                                   |  |                    |         |   |                       |   |         |  
|Total cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments |  | $                  | 432,082 |   |                       | $ | 403,649 |  
|                                                                   |  |                    |         |   |                       |   |         |  
|Percentage of total assets                                         |  |                    | 68      | % |                       |   | 65      | %
|                                                                   | 
|                                                                   |  | Three Months Ended |        
|                                                                   |  | March 31,2010      |         |   | March 31,2009         |  
|Net cash provided by operating activities                          |  | $                  | 29,181  |   |                       | $ | 85,764  |  
|Net cash used in investing activities                              |  | $                  | (33,559 | ) |                       | $ | (22,477 | )
|Net cash provided by financing activities                          |  | $                  | 2,620   |   |                       | $ | 2,584   |  

Cash generated from operations is our
primary source of liquidity and capital resources. Our investment portfolio is also available for future cash requirements. Cash, cash equivalents and investments were $432.1 million at March 31, 2010, an increase of $28.5 million from $403.6
million at December 31, 2009. Cash and cash equivalents were $106.1 million at March 31, 2010, a decrease of $1.8 million from $107.9 million at December 31, 2009. The decrease in cash and cash equivalents was primarily the result of
$33.6 million net cash used in investing activities, offset by $29.2 million in cash provided by operating activities and $2.6 million in cash provided by financing activities.



38



---

##### Table of Contents

Cash flows from operations were $29.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, primarily due
to net income of $9.8 million, adjusted for non-cash items of depreciation and amortization of $6.1 million and stock-based compensation expense of $6.9 million, and a net increase in the changes in operating assets and liabilities of $6.7 million.

Cash flows from operations were $85.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, primarily due to net income of $39.5 million,
adjusted for non-cash items of depreciation and amortization of $5.0 million, impairment charge of long-term investments of $1.6 million, stock-based compensation expense of $6.3 million, and a net increase in the changes in operating assets and
liabilities of $32.3 million.

Net cash used in investing activities was $33.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2010,
primarily related to purchases of short-term investments of $155.3 million, purchases of property and equipment of $2.1 million, purchases of intangible assets of $1.6 million, offset by proceeds from maturities and sales of investments of $125.4
million.

Net cash used in investing activities was $22.5 million in the three months ended March 31, 2009, primarily related to
purchases of short-term investments of $52.8 million, purchases of property and equipment of $5.7 million, increase in equity investments of $0.9 million, offset by proceeds from maturities and sales of investments of $35.4 million.

The primary objectives of our investment activities are to preserve principal and maintain liquidity while at the same time capturing a market rate of
return. To achieve these objectives, we maintain a diversified portfolio of securities including cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments in a variety of securities, including municipal bonds and notes, corporate bonds and notes,
commercial paper, treasury and agency notes and bills, money market funds, auction rate municipal bond securities, bank demand accounts, and asset-backed obligations. We invest excess cash predominantly in marketable debt securities that are of
high-quality investment grade and the majority of which have maturities of less than one year. The majority of our marketable debt and equity securities are classified as available-for-sale and are reported at fair value, with unrealized gains and
losses, net of tax, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Unrealized losses and declines in value determined to be other-than-temporary, if any, on available-for-sale securities are generally reported in other income and
expense, net. The fair values for our securities are determined based on quoted market prices as of the valuation date, observable prices for similar assets and externally provided pricing models.

We evaluate all of our investments periodically for possible other-than-temporary impairment and review factors such as the length of time and extent to
which fair value has been below cost basis, the financial condition of the issuer, our intent to hold and whether we will not be required to sell the security before its anticipated recovery, on a more likely than not basis. We also have a small
portfolio of investments in auction rate municipal bond securities (ARS) which are classified as trading and are reported at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses recorded in the other income and expense, net.

In November 2008, we entered into an agreement with UBS which granted us and UBS various rights (the Rights), including the right to permit
us to sell the ARS investments to UBS at par value at any time during a two-year period beginning June 30, 2010 and gave UBS the right to call such securities at par value. The Rights are an unsecured obligation of UBS and are not transferable
by us. We have elected to record the Rights, a free-standing asset aside from the ARS investments, under the provisions of the guidance for the fair value option for financial assets and financial liabilities. Upon acceptance of the Rights, we
recorded the fair value of the Rights in other assets with an offsetting entry to other income and expense, net. Additionally, in conjunction with the acceptance of the Rights, we reclassified the ARS investments from available-for-sale to trading
to reflect our intention to exercise the Rights during the relevant two-year period. As a trading security, unrealized gains and losses are recorded in current period earnings. For the three months ended March 31, 2010, we recorded an
insignificant amount of unrealized gains in relation to the change in the fair value of the ARS investment and an offsetting entry of an insignificant amount related to the change in fair value of the Rights to other assets. For the three month
period ended March 31, 2009, we recorded $3.0 million of unrealized gains in relation to the increase in the fair value of the ARS investments and an offsetting entry of approximately $3.0 million related to the decrease in fair value of the
Rights to other assets. The fair value of the Rights was based on our expected value to be received from UBS, which was the difference between par and fair value of the ARS at the end of the current period. This value was discounted using UBSs
credit default swap rate to account for the counterparty risk. We expect that future changes in the fair value of the Rights will approximate fair value movements in the related ARS.

In connection with the liquidity issues experienced in the global credit and capital markets, our asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed
securities (collectively ABS), and ARS investment portfolio has experienced failed auctions or thinly traded markets. However, we continue to earn and receive interest on these investments at the maximum contractual rate. Due to the lack
of observable market quotes on our ARS and ABS investment portfolio, we utilize valuation models that rely on Level 3 unobservable inputs including those that are based on a discounted cash flow model and assessments of counterparty credit quality,
default risk underlying the security, discount rates and overall capital market liquidity. The valuation of our investments is subject to uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Net unrealized gain of $0.3 million, net of tax, related to a
temporary increase in the fair value of the remaining available-for-sale securities were recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) as an increase in stockholders equity at March 31, 2010.



39



---

##### Table of Contents

We continue to monitor the market for ARS and ABS and consider its impact, if any, on the fair value of our
investments. If uncertainties in these credit and capital markets continue, these markets deteriorate further or we experience any additional ratings downgrades on any investments in our portfolio, we may incur impairment charges to net income or
additional unrealized losses in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), which could negatively affect our financial condition, statement of operations or cash flow. For certain investments with a temporary decline in value, because we have
the ability to hold these investments until the market recovers or until they reach maturity, do not anticipate having to sell these securities with unrealized losses in order to operate our business and continue to receive interest at the maximum
contractual rate, these investments are not considered to be other-than-temporarily impaired. We believe that based on our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investment balances of $417.4 million at March 31, 2010 and expected operating cash
flows, the current lack of an active market in the credit and capital markets will not have a material impact on our ability to fund our operations.

In August 2007, our Board of Directors authorized a plan to repurchase up to a maximum total of $100.0 million of our outstanding shares of common stock
dependent on market conditions, share price and other factors. No expiration has been specified for this plan. Repurchases may take place in the open market or through private transactions. As of March 31, 2010, we have repurchased a total of
645,000 shares of common stock at a total cost of $10.5 million under this plan at an average price of $16.26. As of March 31, 2010, the total amount available for repurchase was $89.5 million. We may continue to execute authorized repurchases
from time to time under the plan.

Net cash from financing activities was $2.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, due to
$2.3 million from the issuance of common stock under our employee stock option programs and employee stock purchase plans and $0.3 million of excess tax benefits from stock compensation expense for the period. Net cash from financing activities was
$2.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, due to $1.1 million from the issuance of common stock under our employee stock purchase plans and $1.5 million of excess tax benefits from stock compensation expense for the period.

We believe that based on current levels of operations and anticipated growth, our cash from operations, together with cash, cash equivalents
and short-term investments currently available, will be sufficient to fund our operations, anticipated growth and acquisition funding needs for at least the next twelve months. Poor financial results, unanticipated expenses, unanticipated
acquisitions of technologies or businesses or unanticipated strategic investments could give rise to additional financing requirements sooner than we expect. There can be no assurance that equity or debt financing will be available when needed or,
if available, that such financing will be on terms satisfactory to us and not dilutive to our then-current stockholders.

Contractual Cash
Obligations



|                            |  |                        |        |          |   |          |  |            |       |  |   |    
|--------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | ------ | -------- | - | -------- |  | ---------- | ----- |  | - | ---
|                            |  | Payments Due by Period
|                            |  | Total                  |        | 1-3Years |   | 4-5Years |  | Thereafter
|                            |  | (In thousands)        
|Operating lease obligations |  | $                      | 10,596 |          | $ | 6,106    |  | $          | 3,677 |  | $ | 813
|Purchase obligations        |  |                        | 35     |          |   | 35       |  |            |      |  |   |   
|                            |  |                        |        |          |   |          |  |            |       |  |   |    
|Total                       |  | $                      | 10,631 |          | $ | 6,141    |  | $          | 3,677 |  | $ | 813
|                            |  |                        |        |          |   |          |  |            |       |  |   |    

The amounts reflected in the table above for obligations represent
aggregate future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable facility and equipment operating leases. In addition, we have agreements containing non-cancelable, nonrefundable payment terms with third parties to purchase services. For our facilities
lease, rent expense charged to operations differs from rent paid because of scheduled rent increases. Rent expense is calculated by amortizing total rental payments on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

We have recognized approximately $4.8 million in the liability for unrecognized tax benefits, including accrued interest and penalties. At this time, we
are unable to reasonably estimate the timing of the long-term payments or the amount by which the liability will increase or decrease over time. As a result, this amount is not included in the table above.

See Note 10Commitments and Contingencies of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional detail.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Related Party Transactions

As of March 31, 2010, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in item 303(a)(4)(ii) of Regulation S-K.

In September 2007, we licensed our OptiML Wafer-Level Camera technology and SHELLCASE Wafer-Level Packaging solutions to NemoTek Technologie S. A.
(NemoTek), a supplier of camera solutions for the cell phone market. As of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, we invested $2.0 million in NemoTek, which represented less than a 10 percent holding in NemoTek, respectively.
Revenues from NemoTek were less than 1 percent of total revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The account receivable from NemoTek was $0.3 million as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009,
respectively.

Critical Accounting Estimates

During the three months ended March 31, 2010 there were no significant changes in our critical accounting estimates. For a discussion of our critical
accounting policies, see Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed February 25, 2010.



40



---

##### Table of Contents

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 3 Recent Accounting Pronouncements of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for a full
description of recent accounting pronouncements including the respective expected dates of adoption.

Item 3.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

For a discussion of the Companys market risk, see
Item 7AQuantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk in the Companys 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 25, 2010.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Attached as exhibits to this Form 10-Q are certifications of Tesseras Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, which are required in
accordance with Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). This Controls and Procedures section includes information concerning the controls and controls evaluation referred to in the
certifications and it should be read in conjunction with the certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented.

Evaluation of Controls and Procedures. Tessera maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required
to be disclosed in our reports filed pursuant to the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SECs rules and forms and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our
management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes
that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit
relationship of possible controls and procedures.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal
executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act as of the
end of the period covered by this report (the evaluation date). Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded as of the evaluation date that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective
to provide reasonable assurance that the information relating to Tessera, including our consolidated subsidiaries, required to be disclosed in our SEC reports (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified
in SEC rules and forms, and (ii) is accumulated and communicated to Tesseras management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Change in Internal Control over Financial Reporting. There have been no changes in Tesseras internal control over financial
reporting, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f), during Tesseras most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Tesseras internal control over financial
reporting.

PART IIOTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal)

On October 7, 2005, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) and Spansion LLC in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of Tesseras U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 5,852,326, 6,433,419 and 6,465,893 arising from AMDs and Spansion LLCs respective manufacture,
use, sale, offer to sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. Tessera seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorneys fees, interest and costs. The
Company also seeks other relief, including enjoining AMD and Spansion LLC from continuing to infringe these patents.

On December 16,
2005, Tessera filed a first amended complaint to add Spansion Inc. and Spansion Technology, Inc. to the lawsuit.

On January 31, 2006,
the Company filed a second amended complaint to add claims for breach of contract and/or patent infringement against several new defendants, including Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc., ASE (U.S.) Inc., ChipMOS Technologies, Inc., ChipMOS
U.S.A., Inc., Siliconware Precision Industries Co. Ltd, Siliconware USA Inc., STMicroelectronics N.V., STMicroelectronics, Inc., STATS ChipPAC Ltd., STATS ChipPAC, Inc. and STATS ChipPAC Ltd. (BVI). The defendants in this action have asserted
affirmative defenses to the Companys claims, and some of them have brought related counterclaims alleging that the Tessera patents at issue are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed, and/or that Tessera is not the owner of the patents.

On May 24, 2007, the parties stipulated to temporarily stay this action pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-605,
including appeals, before the International Trade Commission (ITC). On August 5, 2008, the court ordered that this action be further stayed pending completion, including appeals, of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC,
which Investigation was terminated in July 2009. The matter currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2010. The Company expects that potential damages will continue to accrue during the stay period
through the anticipated expiration of the asserted patents in September of 2010. Upon completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-605, including any appeals, the proceeding may continue, with Tessera seeking to recover its damages attributable to
the alleged infringement.



41



---

##### Table of Contents

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings
could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera
Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. et. al, Case No. 106CV-076688

On December 18, 2006, the Company filed a
complaint against Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. (collectively, Hynix) in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Santa Clara, alleging violations of California antitrust law and
California common law based on Hynixs alleged anticompetitive actions in markets related to synchronous DRAM. The Company also seeks other relief, including enjoining Hynix from continuing their alleged anticompetitive actions. On June 1,
2007, the Superior Court overruled the demurrer to Tesseras Cartwright Act claims against Hynix, thus allowing the claims to proceed. On September 14, 2007, the court overruled another demurrer to Tesseras claim for interference
with contract and business relations, allowing those claims to proceed as well.

On September 17, 2009, the judge to whom the case
previously had been assigned filed a petition with the Judicial Council to coordinate the Tessera v. Hynix action with the Rambus v. Micron action pending before Judge Kramer in the San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. 04-0431105). On
October 15, 2009, the Judicial Council issued an order appointing Judge Kramer as the coordination motion judge. In December 2009, the action was formally coordinated with the Rambus v. Micron action.

Fact and expert discovery in the action are closed. On June 12, 2009, Hynix filed three motions for summary adjudication, addressing among other
things Tesseras standing to bring antitrust claims, its permitted damages, and the propriety of its causes of action for violation of certain California state laws. Tesseras oppositions to the summary adjudication motions were filed on
August 14, 2009. The hearing on Hynixs motions took place on February 22, 2010 and February 24, 2010. The court denied Hynixs motion for summary adjudication for alleged lack of standing and Hynixs motion for summary
adjudication regarding Tesseras claims for damages. The court granted Hynixs motion to dismiss Tesseras intentional interference claim. A written order regarding the courts rulings has not yet issued.

At present, no trial date has been set. The parties are proceeding with trial preparation activities and are scheduled to appear for a Case Management
Conference on May 25, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could
significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In re Certain
Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, ITC No. 337-TA-605

On April 17, 2007, the
Company filed a complaint with the ITC, requesting that the ITC commence an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The ITC officially instituted an investigation as requested by Tessera on May 21, 2007. The
respondents are ATI Technologies, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Motorola, Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., Spansion, Inc., Spansion, LLC and ST Microelectronics N.V. The ITC, among other things, investigated infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326
and 6,433,419, and considered Tesseras request for issuance of an order excluding from entry into the United States infringing packaged semiconductor components, assemblies thereof, and products containing the same, as well as cease and desist
orders directing the respondents with domestic inventories to desist from activities with respect to infringing products.

On
September 19, 2007, the ITC issued an order setting key dates for the investigation, including for the ITC hearing which was scheduled to run from February 25, 2008 to February 29, 2008. On October 17, 2007, the investigation was
assigned to Administrative Law Judge Theodore Essex.

On June 11, 2007, the respondents filed a motion to stay the investigation pending
the completion of reexamination proceedings relating to the asserted Tessera patents. Tessera opposed the motion on June 21, 2007; Judge Essex did not rule on the motion. On February 22, 2008, the respondents filed a renewed motion to stay
the ITC action pending completion of reexamination proceedings relating to the patents at issue, in view of office actions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in the reexamination of these patents described
below in Reexamination Proceedings. An initial hearing of the matter was held on February 25, 2008, and Tessera further opposed the motion in writing on that date. On February 26, 2008, Judge Essex ruled that the action would be stayed in
view of the pending reexamination proceedings relating to the patents at issue.

On March 4, 2008, Tessera filed a Request for Emergency
Review with the ITC, seeking reversal of the order staying the case, and seeking reinstatement of the hearing date. On March 27, 2008, the ITC issued an order reversing the stay, and requiring that the hearing proceedings be rescheduled for the
earliest practicable date. On April 29, 2008, the ITC issued its confidential written opinion regarding reversal of the stay.

The
five-day hearing began on July 14, 2008, and was completed on July 18, 2008. On October 16, 2008, Judge Essex issued an order extending the target date for completion of the investigation by the ITC from February 20, 2009 to
April 3, 2009, and extended the target date for issuance of the initial determination regarding violation from October 20, 2008 to December 1, 2008.

On December 1, 2008, Judge Essex issued the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond.
He found, among other things, that Tessera had established a domestic industry in the United States due to Tesseras licensing program, that the asserted patents are valid, but that Tessera had failed to prove infringement of the asserted
claims of the patents-in-suit.

On December 15, 2008, Tessera, certain respondents, and the Staff filed petitions for review of the
Initial Determination. The parties filed replies to each others petitions for review on December 23, 2008.



42



---

##### Table of Contents

On January 29, 2009, the Commission announced that it had decided to review the Initial Determination
in part. Specifically, the Commission determined to review, among other issues, Judge Essexs findings that the respondents accused devices do not infringe the asserted claims and that a particular prior art device does not anticipate the
asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) or (g). The Commission originally set a deadline of February 13, 2009 for the parties to submit responses to particular questions posed by the Commission, with February 23, 2009 set as
the deadline for reply submissions. The Commission later extended those deadlines to February 23, 2009 and March 5, 2009, respectively.

On March 12, 2009, respondents Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (collectively Spansion) filed a Notice of Commencement of Bankruptcy
Proceedings and Automatic Stay, notifying the Commission of Spansions recent filings for bankruptcy and asserting that certain administrative claims against Spansion must be stayed pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. On
March 18, 2009, Tessera filed a response to Spansions filing, noting that Spansion did not expressly claim that the bankruptcy filing required a stay of this action. On March 23, 2009, the ITC staff submitted a response to
Spansions filing, asserting that Spansions bankruptcy filing does not require any stay of the investigation against Spansion. On May 20, 2009, the ITC denied Spansions request to stay the investigation against Spansion.

On March 26, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Commission Decision to Request Additional Briefing on Remedy and to Extend the
Target Date. Pursuant to the notice, the Commission requested additional briefing from the parties, or from any interested third parties, addressing three issues specified in the notice regarding the appropriateness of Tesseras proposed
remedy. The Commission also determined that the target date for issuance of its final determination would be extended from April 14, 2009 until May 20, 2009. Initial written submissions in response to the Commissions notice were
filed by Tessera, certain respondents, the ITC staff, and by certain third parties on April 10, 2009. Reply submissions were filed by Tessera, certain respondents, the ITC staff and certain third parties on April 20, 2009. On
April 20, 2009, the Commission also issued an order permitting interested third parties to have an extra nine days, until April 29, 2009, to file additional reply submissions.

On May 20, 2009, the Commission issued its Final Determination in the action. The Commission, among other things, reversed Judge Essexs ruling
that Tessera had not proven infringement by the respondents, and ruled that Tessera had established infringement. The Commission affirmed Judge Essexs ruling that the patents are not invalid. The Commission denied Tesseras request for a
General Exclusion Order, but granted a Limited Exclusion Order against all respondents (and certain related entities) and Cease and Desist Orders against certain respondents (and certain related entities).

On or about July 19, 2009, the Presidential Review period expired, and no alterations were made to the ITCs orders in the investigation. The
Investigation by the ITC is now being appealed, as discussed immediately below.

On or about June 2, 2009, Motorola, Inc. and Tessera
entered into a settlement and license agreement regarding certain Tessera technology, including the patents at issue in the ITC investigation.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, which may be impacted by appellate proceedings, as discussed immediately below. An adverse
decision in proceedings regarding this action could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Spansion, Inc. et al., v. International Trade Commission and Tessera, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case Nos. 2009-1460,
2009-1461, 2009-1462, and 2009-1465

On or about July 20, 2009, respondents ATI Technologies, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
Qualcomm, Inc., Spansion, Inc., Spansion LLC and ST Microelectronics N.V. filed appeals of the ITCs Final Determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-605 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also
filed certain emergency motions seeking a stay of the ITCs limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, as well as an immediate stay of those ITC orders while the Federal
Circuit considered briefing as to whether to grant a stay during the appeal.

On July 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued an order
consolidating appeals from the ITCs 337-TA-605 investigation, and ordering Tessera and the ITC to file responses to the appellants motion to stay no later than July 29, 2009. On July 29, 2009, Tessera and the ITC each filed
their briefing in opposition to a stay of the ITCs orders during the appeal. On August 3, 2009, the respondents filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On August 4, 2009, Tessera filed a supplemental response to the
respondents reply brief. Also on August 4, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying Tesseras request for leave to file a brief in excess of the usual page limits, and ordered Tessera to file a corrected version of its
July 29, 2009 brief consisting of no more than 20 pages. Tessera filed its corrected brief on August 6, 2009. On September 8, 2009, the Federal Circuit denied the motions for a stay.

On September 22, 2009, respondents ATI Technologies, Inc. and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. filed a Combined Motion for Reconsideration and
Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc of the Federal Circuits denial of their stay motion. Tessera opposed the motion on October 5, 2009. The ITC also opposed the motion on October 5, 2009. On October 23, 2009, the Federal Circuit
ruled in the Companys favor, denying the respondents request to stay the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders during the appeal. The Federal Circuit also notified the parties that it had circulated the petition for
rehearing en banc to the court. On November 5, 2009, the petition for rehearing en banc was denied.

On October 30, 2009, the
respondents filed their appellate briefing regarding the merits of the ITCs ruling. Tessera filed its response brief in the appeal on January 15, 2010, and the respondents reply briefs were filed on February 19, 2010. Oral
argument has been scheduled for May 7, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this
proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.



43



---

##### Table of Contents

Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:07cv143 (E.D. Tex.)

On April 17, 2007, the Company filed a complaint against Motorola, Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., and ATI Technologies, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Tesseras U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326 and 6,433,419, arising from, among other things, the defendants respective manufacture, use, sale, offer to
sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. The Company seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorneys fees, interest and costs. The Company also
seeks other relief, including enjoining the defendants from continuing to infringe these patents. The defendants have not yet answered Tesseras complaint. The parties have agreed that the case will be temporarily stayed pending completion,
including appeals, of ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-605 titled In re Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same.

On or about June 2, 2009, Motorola, Inc. and Tessera entered into a settlement and license agreement regarding certain Tessera technology, including
the patents at issue in this action. Tesseras request to dismiss Motorola, Inc. from the action was granted by the Court on June 8, 2009.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm the Companys
business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with
Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), ITC No. 337-TA-630 (the 630 ITC Action)

On
December 7, 2007, the Company filed a complaint with the ITC, requesting that the ITC commence an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The ITC officially instituted an investigation as requested by Tessera
on January 3, 2008. The respondents named in the complaint were A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., A-Data Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., Centon Electronics, Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.,
International Products Sourcing Group, Inc., Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corp., U.S.A., Peripheral Devices & Products Systems, Inc. d/b/a Patriot Memory, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp.,
ProMOS Technologies Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. In the Notice of Institution, the ITC stated that it would, among other things, investigate
infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627, 5,663,106, and 6,458,681, and consider Tesseras request for issuance of an order excluding from entry into the United States infringing packaged semiconductor components, assemblies
thereof, and products containing the same, as well as cease and desist orders directing parties with domestic inventories to desist from activities with respect to infringing products.

The action was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Bullock. On January 14, 2008, Judge Bullock issued a protective order in the action, and ground
rules setting case procedures. On January 23, 2008, Judge Bullock issued an order setting the target date for completion of the investigation at April 14, 2009. On February 27, 2008, Judge Bullock ordered the hearing date to be set
for September 22, 2008.

With the exception of the TwinMOS respondents, all of the respondents answered Tesseras complaint. On
February 19, 2008, Tessera filed a motion for an order to show cause why the TwinMOS respondents should not be found to be in default. Tesseras motion was granted. The TwinMOS respondents have not responded to the order to show cause.

On May 15, 2008, Company filed a motion to withdraw U.S. Patent No. 6,458,681 from the ITC action. The respondents did not oppose
the motion, and the motion was granted. In July 2008, the action was assigned to Judge Essex.

On May 21, 2008, Company settled its
dispute with one of the respondents, International Products Sourcing Group (IPSG), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with IPSG and its parent, Micro Electronics, Inc. As part of the settlement, IPSG and Micro
Electronics acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that their accused products infringe those patents. IPSG has been dismissed from the ITC action. On August 14, 2008, Company settled its
dispute with another respondent, Peripheral Devices & Products Systems, Inc. (PDP), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with PDP. As part of the settlement, PDP, on behalf of itself and its parents, affiliates
and subsidiaries, acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that its accused products infringe those patents. On September 22, 2008, Judge Essex granted the motion of A-DATA Technology Co.,
Ltd. and A-DATA Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. to dismiss those respondents from the ITC action based on their stipulation to a consent order pursuant to which they agreed not to import or sell for importation into the United States any products
infringing Tesseras asserted patents.

A nine-day hearing in this action began on September 22, 2008 and was completed on
October 3, 2008. The parties completed their initial post-hearing briefing on October 31, 2008. On January 2, 2009, Judge Essex issued an order extending the date for issuance of his initial determination regarding violation from
January 14, 2009 until March 6, 2009. On February 10, 2009, Judge Essex again extended the date for issuance of his initial determination regarding violation until May 22, 2009, and extended the target date for completion of the
Commissions investigation until September 22, 2009. On April 2, 2009, Judge Essex again extended the date for issuance of his initial determination regarding violation until July 17, 2009, and extended the target date for
completion of the Commissions investigation until November 17, 2009. On June 12, 2009, Judge Essex again extended the date for issuance of his initial determination until August 28, 2009. The June 12, 2009 order also
extended the target date for completion of the Commissions investigation until December 29, 2009.

In a separate June 12, 2009
order, Judge Essex requested briefing from the parties as to the effect, if any, of the Commissions opinion in the 337-TA-605 investigation on the infringement analysis that Judge Essex should undertake in the 377-TA-630 investigation. The
parties submitted their initial briefing on this issue on June 26, 2009, and their reply briefing on July 6, 2009.



44



---

##### Table of Contents

On August 28, 2009, Judge Essex issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and
Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond, in which he found that no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 had occurred. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held, among other things, that the Commission had subject
matter jurisdiction over the parties and products, that the importation or sale requirement of Section 337 was satisfied, that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims, that the asserted claims are not invalid for anticipation,
obviousness or indefiniteness, that a domestic industry exists, that the respondents failed to approve the affirmative defense of licensing, that respondents except for Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively,
Elpida) failed to prove the affirmative defense of patent exhaustion for certain accused products but had established it for others, and that Elpida proved that all of its accused products are subject to patent exhaustion. The section
addressing the recommended remedy and bond provisionally recommended among other things that, if a violation of Section 337 had been found, Tessera had not demonstrated entitlement to a general exclusion order or an order extending to
downstream products, and that a bond could have been set at a reasonable royalty rate as determined by Tesseras license agreements.

On
September 17, 2009, Tessera and the ITC Staff filed petitions for review of portions of the Initial Determination. Certain respondents also conditionally sought review of portions of the Initial Determination. The parties filed replies to each
others petitions for review on October 1, 2009. On October 30, 2009, the ITC announced that it will review portions of the Initial Determination. The Commission stated that it would review, among other things, whether the respondents
infringed the Tessera patents asserted in the action.

On December 29, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination holding,
among other things, that it would (1) modify the ALJs construction of the claim terms top layer and thereon recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 (the 106 patent); (2) reverse the
ALJs finding that the accused μBGA products do not meet all of the limitations of the asserted claims of the 106 patent but affirm his finding that there is no infringement due to patent exhaustion; (3) affirm the ALJs
finding that the accused wBGA products do not infringe the asserted claims of the 106 patent; (4) affirm the ALJs validity and domestic industry analyses pertaining to the asserted claims of the 106 patent; (5) affirm the
ALJs finding that the Direct Loading testing methodology employed by Tesseras expert fails to prove infringement; and (6) affirm the ALJs finding that the 1989 Motorola OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17
and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 (the 977 patent) under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but modify a portion of the Initial Determination. A public version of the ITCs full opinion was issued on
February 24, 2010. The ruling by the ITC is now being appealed, as discussed immediately below.

The Company cannot predict the outcome
of this proceeding, which may be impacted by appellate proceedings, as discussed immediately below. An adverse decision in proceedings regarding this action could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. et al., v. International Trade Commission., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit Case No. 2010-1176

On January 28, 2010, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the ITCs Final Determination
in Investigation No. 337-TA-630 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Substantive briefing to the Federal Circuit has not yet been filed. Under the current schedule, the Companys opening brief will be due on
May 13, 2010 and its reply brief will be due on July 6, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse
decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. v. A-DATA Technology Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-534 (E.D. Tex.)

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed a complaint against A-Data Technology Co., Ltd., A-Data Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd., Acer, Inc., Acer
America Corp., Centon Electronics, Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., International Products Sourcing Group, Inc., Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corp., U.S.A., Peripheral
Devices & Products Systems, Inc. d/b/a Patriot Memory, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., ProMOS Technologies Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Tesseras U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627, 5,663,106 and 6,458,681, arising from, among other things, the defendants respective manufacture,
use, sale, offer to sell and/or importation of certain packaged semiconductor components and assemblies thereof. The Company seeks to recover damages, up to treble the amount of actual damages, together with attorneys fees, interest and costs.
The Company also seeks other relief, including enjoining the defendants from continuing to infringe these patents.

The defendants have not
yet answered Tesseras complaint, but, with the exception of the TwinMOS defendants and Ramaxel, filed motions to stay the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 pending final resolution of the 630 ITC action. Tessera did not oppose the
motions to stay. Tessera filed a motion seeking to find TwinMOS Technologies U.S.A. Inc. in default, and the clerk has entered the default. On February 25, 2008, the district court granted the defendants motion to stay the action.

As noted above, on May 21, 2008, the Company settled its dispute with one of the defendants, International Products Sourcing Group
(IPSG), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with IPSG and its parent, Micro Electronics, Inc. As part of the settlement, IPSG and Micro Electronics acknowledged the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, and
further acknowledged that their accused products infringe those patents. IPSG was dismissed from the Texas district court action on June 30, 2008. On August 14, 2008, Company settled its dispute with another defendant, Peripheral
Devices & Products Systems, Inc. (PDP), and entered into a settlement and license agreement with PDP. As part of the settlement, PDP, on behalf of itself and its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries, acknowledged the validity
and enforceability of the asserted patents, and further acknowledged that its accused products infringe those patents. On September 9, 2008, PDP was dismissed from the Texas district court action.



45



---

##### Table of Contents

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could
significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Siliconware
Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03667 (N.D. Cal.)

On
July 31, 2008, Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Siliconware) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. The Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 5, 2008, asserting infringement of the patent at
issue by Siliconware. On September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and assigned to the same judge. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered
this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which Investigation was terminated in July 2009. The matter currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22,
2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the
Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Advanced Semiconductor Engineering
Inc., ASE Test Limited, and ASE (U.S.) Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-03726 (N.D. Cal.)

On August 4, 2008,
Advanced Semiconductor Engineering Inc., ASE Test Limited, and ASE (U.S.) Inc. (collectively, ASE) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory
judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and
assigned to the same judge. The Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 1, 2008, asserting infringement of the patent at issue by ASE. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of
Investigation No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which Investigation was terminated in July 2009. The matter currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business
and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

ChipMOS Technologies Inc., ChipMOS U.S.A. Inc. and ChipMOS
Technologies (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-04063 (N.D. Cal.)

On August 11, 2008, ChipMOS Technologies
Inc., ChipMOS U.S.A. Inc. and ChipMOS Technologies (Bermuda) Ltd. (collectively, ChipMOS) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of
noninfringement and invalidity of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On September 11, 2008, the case was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal) and assigned to the
same judge. The Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 12, 2008, asserting infringement of the patent at issue by ChipMOS. On December 19, 2008, the court ordered this action be stayed pending completion of Investigation
No. 337-TA-649 before the ITC, which Investigation was terminated in July 2009. The matter currently remains stayed, with a Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business
and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Civil Action
No. 10-00945 (N.D. Cal.)

On March 5, 2010, Powertech Technology Inc. (PTI) filed a complaint
against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106. On March 22, 2010, the case was
related to Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. v. Tessera, Inc.,Civil Action No. 08-03667 (N.D. Cal.), and assigned to the judge presiding over the action. On April 1, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The hearing on Tesseras motion currently is scheduled for May 13, 2010. A Case Management Conference currently is set for June 22, 2010.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the
Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. v. United Test and
Assembly Center Limited, et al., Case No. RG08410327

On September 18, 2008, the Company filed a complaint in the Superior Court
for the State of California against United Test and Assembly Center, Ltd. and UTAC America, Inc. (collectively, UTAC) alleging breach of contract for failure to pay Tessera the full royalty due under its license agreement. The Company is
also alleging violations of California unfair competition laws and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

On October 20, 2008, UTAC
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 31, 2008, Judge Claudia Wilken issued an order that Tesseras case against UTAC was related to Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
et al., Civil Action No. 05-04063 (N.D. Cal.) and that the UTAC case should be reassigned to her.

On November 19, 2008, Tessera
filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On January 6, 2009, Judge Wilken granted Tesseras motion, and remanded the case to state court.

On January 16, 2009, UTAC filed a cross-complaint against Tessera, asserting claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of California unfair competition law. Tesseras response to UTACs cross-complaint was filed on February 18, 2009. Tesseras answer denies generally the allegations in
UTACs cross-complaint, and asserts various affirmative defenses.



46



---

##### Table of Contents

On March 25, 2009, UTAC filed a motion to designate the action as complex, and have the case reassigned
to a judge on the State Courts complex panel. Tessera opposed the motion. On April 17, 2009, the Court granted UTACs motion, and the case was reassigned to Judge Robert Freedman.

On March 19, 2009, Tessera filed a Special Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, asserting
that UTACs claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the unfair competition law were barred by Californias anti- SLAPP statute. On April 16, 2009, UTAC
voluntarily moved to dismiss with prejudice its causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Tessera did not oppose UTACs motion to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice, and the dismissal
was entered by the Court. On April 22, 2009, a hearing was held before Judge Freedman and Tesseras motion was taken under submission. On May 4, 2009, Judge Freedman issued an order granting Tesseras motion, and striking
UTACs causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the unfair competition law. On June 25, 2009, Tessera filed a motion seeking recovery from UTAC of its costs and
attorneys fees incurred in connection with the successful motion. Tesseras motion for costs and attorneys fees was heard by the Court on October 23, 2009, and the Court took the matter under submission. On January 21,
2010, the Court granted Tesseras motion in part and ordered UTAC to pay Tesseras attorneys fees in the amount of $110,812.50, and costs in the amount of $1,957.00.

Tessera sought summary adjudication regarding certain contract issues, and hearings on those motions took place on November 20, 2009 and
December 11, 2009, respectively. On December 10, 2009, the Court denied summary adjudication regarding interpretation of UTACs royalty obligations under the contract. On December 14, 2009, the Court granted summary adjudication
to Tessera regarding UTACs cause of action and asserted affirmative defenses of patent misuse, finding that UTAC had presented no evidence of patent misuse by Tessera. In addition, the Court denied summary adjudication regarding whether
certain UTAC products meet certain parameters set forth in the parties agreement.

On December 11, 2009, the Court reset the trial
date from January 11, 2010 to February 1, 2010. On January 15, 2010 the Court again reset the trial date for March 1, 2010. On February 18 and 23, 2010, the Court held the Pretrial Management Conference, including hearing
the parties motions in limine.

On March 1, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, agreed to a mutual dismissal of
the action, and entered into an updated license agreement. The initial term of the updated license agreement runs through the end of 2016. UTAC has the option to renew the license for an additional five year term. Among other consideration to
Tessera, under the terms of the agreement UTAC will pay $15.0 million in cash to address past royalties owed under the initial license.

Reexamination Proceedings

On
February 9, 2007 and February 15, 2007, Silicon Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware USA, Inc. (collectively, Siliconware) filed with the PTO requests for inter partes reexamination relating to U.S. Patent Nos.
6,433,419 and 6,465,893, and ex parte reexamination relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977, 6,133,627 and 5,852,326. On April 19, 2007, the PTO granted the requests for ex parte reexamination. On May 4, 2007, the PTO granted the requests
for inter partes reexamination. The PTO denied the Companys petition to vacate the inter partes reexamination proceeding on the ground that the request did not name the real party in interest, and a related request for reconsideration of that
decision.

The PTO issued a non-final Official Action in connection with the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893
initially rejecting a number of patent claims on May 4, 2007, to which a response was filed on July 5, 2007. The PTO issued a non-final Official Action in connection with the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419
initially rejecting a number of the patent claims on June 5, 2007, to which a response was filed by Tessera on August 6, 2007. On September 5, 2007, Siliconware filed comments in response to the Companys August 6, 2007
response. On March 14, 2007, Siliconware filed a second request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977. The PTO granted this request on June 12, 2007.

On May 21, 2007, Amkor filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,861,666. On July 26, 2007, the PTO granted this
request. On June 11, 2007, Amkor filed additional requests for reexamination regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,679,977 and 6,133,627. The PTO granted the request for reexamination as to the 5,679,977 patent on August 15, 2007, and the PTO
granted the requests for reexamination as to the 6,133,627 patent on August 13, 2007.

A first official action rejecting some claims and
confirming other claims as patentable was mailed February 21, 2008 in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,852,326. A response to the official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,852,326 was filed on April 21,
2008. A second office action rejecting some claims and confirming other claims as patentable was mailed on August 1, 2008. Tessera filed a response to the official action on October 1, 2008. A third, final official action rejecting all
claims under reexamination was mailed on March 6, 2009. Tessera filed a response to the official action on April 6, 2009. An advisory action was mailed by the PTO on June 22, 2009, maintaining all of the rejections presented in the
Action of March 6, 2009. On July 1, 2009, Tessera filed a petition to withdraw the finality of the official action mailed on March 6, 2009. The PTO issued a decision on July 10, 2009 dismissing Tesseras petition of
July 1, 2009. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on August 6, 2009, and timely filed an appeal brief on October 13, 2009.



47



---

##### Table of Contents

A first official action was mailed February 22, 2008 in the reexamination of U.S. Patent
No. 5,861,666 rejecting those claims which were subject to reexamination. Such official action was superseded by a substantively identical action mailed March 11, 2008 restarting the period for response. A response to such official action
was filed on May 12, 2008. A second official action was mailed on September 30, 2008 and Tessera filed an amendment to the claims and response to the second official action on October 30, 2008. On March 13, 2009, the PTO issued a
Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, after which a Supplemental Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Corrected Status) was issued on April 2, 2009, finding certain amended and newly presented
claims to be patentable. The Reexamination Certificate issued on June 30, 2009.

On February 12, 2008, the PTO issued decisions
merging the three reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 with one another and also merging the two reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 with one another. A first official action was issued on February 29, 2008 in the
merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627, rejecting those claims subject to reexamination. A response to the official action in the merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 was filed on April 29, 2008. On
August 10, 2008, the PTO issued a second official action, to which Tessera filed a Request to Vacate the Second Official Action on August 26, 2008 on procedural grounds. As a result, on September 11, 2008, the PTO issued a third
non-final official action. Tessera filed a response to the non-final office action on October 17, 2008.

A first official action was
issued on March 28, 2008 in the merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977, rejecting those claims subject to reexamination. On May 28, 2008 a response to the official action in the merged reexaminations of U.S. Patent
No. 5,679,977 was filed. On October 10, 2008, the PTO issued a second non-final official action, to which Tessera filed a response on November 10, 2008. On October 1, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action. Tessera filed a
response to the final official action on December 1, 2009. On January 14, 2010, the PTO issued an Advisory Action indicating that Tesseras response of December 1, 2009 failed to overcome all of the rejections set forth in the
final official action mailed October 1, 2009. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2010, and timely filed an appeal brief on April 5, 2010.

On February 19, 2008 the PTO issued a second official action maintaining the rejections in U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419. On March 10, 2008,
Tessera filed a petition to vacate the second official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 on the ground that the second official action did not properly take account of an amendment to the specification of U.S. Patent
No. 6,433,419. On March 19, 2008, Tessera filed a substantive response to such second official action. On June 3, 2008 Tessera filed a renewed petition to vacate the inter partes reexamination on the ground that the request for such
reexamination did not name the real party in interest. On June 11, 2008 Siliconware filed an opposition to such petition. The petition was denied on September 10, 2008. On June 13, 2008, the PTO issued a third official action in the
inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 which was denominated as an action closing prosecution. On July 14, 2008, Tessera filed a substantive response to the action closing prosecution, to which a response was filed by
Siliconware on August 8, 2008. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on September 17, 2008, and Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2008. On November 3, 2008, the PTO issued a decision withdrawing the Right of Appeal
Notice and returning the case to the examiner for issuance of a further action. On December 23, 2008, the PTO issued a non-final official action, also denominated as an action closing prosecution, to which Tessera filed a response on
January 23, 2009. On February 23, 2009, Siliconware filed a response to Tesseras January 23, 2009 response. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on June 19, 2009. On July 1, 2009, Tessera filed a petition to withdraw
the Right of Appeal Notice. Having not yet received a decision on the petition of July 1, 2009, Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on July 20, 2009. On July 30, 2009, the PTO issued a decision dismissing Tesseras petition of
July 1, 2009. Tessera filed a request for reconsideration of this decision on August 7, 2009, upon which a decision from the PTO has not yet been received. Tessera timely filed an appeal brief on October 5, 2009, to which Requestor
Siliconware filed a Response Brief on November 5, 2009. Requestor Siliconware refiled their Response Brief on March 17, 2010.

On
February 15, 2008, the PTO issued a second official action, also denominated as an action closing prosecution, maintaining the rejections of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893. On March 28, Tessera filed a petition to vacate the second
official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893 on the ground that the second official action did not properly take account of an amendment to the specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893. On April 15, Tessera
filed a response to the second official action in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,893, to which Siliconware filed comments on May 15, 2008. On June 9, 2008 Tessera filed a renewed petition to vacate the inter partes
reexamination on the ground that the request for such reexamination did not name the real party in interest, which petition was denied on September 10, 2008. On August 21, 2008, a non-final office action was issued. Tessera filed a
response on October 21, 2008. On February 5, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official action, also denominated as the second action closing prosecution. Tessera filed a response on March 5, 2009, to which Siliconware filed a response
on April 6, 2009. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on June 22, 2009. On July 13, 2009, Tessera filed a petition to withdraw the Right of Appeal Notice. Having not yet received a decision on the petition of July 13, 2009,
Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on July 22, 2009. Tessera timely filed an appeal brief on October 5, 2009, to which Requestor Siliconware filed a Response Brief on November 5, 2009.

On March 26, 2008, a request for a third ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 patent was filed, ostensibly by PowerChip
Semiconductor Corporation (Powerchip). On May 2, 2008, the PTO granted this request. On November 18, 2008, the PTO issued a first non-final official action, to which Tessera filed a response on December 18, 2008. On
February 13, 2009, the PTO issued an order merging all of the reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627. On March 17, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final official action rejecting all claims under reexamination, to which Tessera filed
a response on April 17, 2009. On July 14, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action which held certain claims patentable but rejected other claims to which Tessera filed a response on August 14, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the
PTO issued an Advisory Action indicating that Tesseras response of August 14, 2009 failed to overcome all of the rejections set forth in the final official action mailed July 14, 2009. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on
December 14, 2009. Tessera timely filed an appeal brief on February 17, 2010.



48



---

##### Table of Contents

On April 2, 2008, a request for inter partes reexamination of Tesseras U.S. Patent
No. 6,458,681 was filed, ostensibly by Powerchip. On June 6, 2008, the PTO granted this request and issued an official action rejecting certain claims of the 681 patent, to which Tessera filed a response on August 6, 2008, and
to which Powerchip filed responsive comments on October 10, 2008. On September 21, 2009, the PTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution rejecting certain claims and holding one claim patentable, to which Tessera timely filed a response on
October 21, 2009. On November 20, 2009, Requestor Powerchip filed comments to Tesseras response of October 21, 2009. A Right of Appeal Notice was issued on February 22, 2010. In response to the Right of Appeal Notice,
Tessera has filed an application for reissue of the patent to further address the matters raised during the reexamination proceedings.

On
July 18, 2008, a request for ex parte reexamination of Tesseras U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 was filed, ostensibly by Powerchip. On September 4, 2008, the PTO granted the request for reexamination. On April 10, 2009, the PTO
issued a non-final official action rejecting all claims under reexamination. Tessera filed a response on June 10, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the PTO issued a final official action finding certain claims patentable and rejecting other
claims. Tessera filed a response on January 19, 2010. On April 7, 2010, the PTO issued a non-final official action withdrawing the rejections previously made but rejecting all claims under reexamination on new grounds. Tessera will have an
opportunity to respond.

On or about January 3, 2006, Koninklijke Phillips Electronics N.V. and Philips Semiconductors B.V.
(Philips), MICRON Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (Micron GmbH), Infineon and STMicroelectronics, Inc. (STM) filed oppositions to Tesseras European Patent No. EP1111672 (the EP672 Patent) before
the European Patent Office (the EPO). Micron GmbH and Infineon withdrew their oppositions on July 24, 2006 and November 4, 2006, respectively. On October 10, 2006, Tessera filed its response to the remaining oppositions
with the EPO. On December 4, 2006, Phillips withdrew its opposition. On September 16, 2008, the EPO Opposition Division issued a Summons to attend oral proceedings which states preliminary opinions unfavorable to
the claims of the EP672 Patent. The Company filed a written response to the summons on January 5, 2009. STM also filed comments responsive to the summons on December 31, 2008, to which the Company filed a response to STMs comments on
January 12, 2009. An oral hearing before the EPO Opposition Division, was held on June 4, 2009, resulting in a decision to revoke the EP672 Patent. Tessera filed a Notice of Appeal on August 24, 2009. On October 26, 2009, Tessera
filed a Statement of Grounds for Appeal with the EPO. STM filed comments to the Grounds for Appeal on March 8, 2010. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If the opposition results in a limitation or a revocation of the
EP672 Patent, this could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The patents that are subject to these reexamination proceedings include some of the key patents in Tesseras portfolio, and claims that have been
preliminarily rejected in the current official actions are being asserted in certain of Tesseras various litigations. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could
significantly harm the Companys business and financial condition. An adverse decision could also significantly affect Tesseras ongoing litigations, as described in this Part II, Item 1Legal Proceedings, in which patents
are being asserted, which in turn could significantly harm the Companys business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Insolvency Proceedings over the Estate of Qimonda AG, Local Court of Munich, Insolvency Court, File No. 1542 IN 209/09

On January 23, 2009, Qimonda AG filed a bankruptcy petition with the Local Court of Munich, Insolvency Court. On April 1, 2009, the Court opened
insolvency proceedings over the estate of Qimonda AG and appointed Rechtsanwalt Dr. Michael Jaffé as the insolvency administrator. On or about May 27, 2009, Dr. Jaffé chose non-performance of Tesseras license
agreement with Qimonda AG under Section 103 of the German Insolvency Code and purported to terminate the license agreement. On June 12, 2009, Tessera filed a Proof of Claim in the Qimonda AG bankruptcy alleging amounts due of approximately
15.7 million Euros. On December 2, 2009, Dr. Jaffé preliminarily contested Tesseras claim in full. Tessera is in ongoing discussions with the insolvency administrator.

In re Spansion, LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case No. 09-1069; In re Spansion, Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case
No. 09-10690; In re Spansion Technology LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Del.), Case No. 09-10691

On or about March 1, 2009,
Spansion LLC, Spansion, Inc. and Spansion Technology LLC initiated bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On or about July 17, 2009, Tessera filed a Proof of Claim in each of the above
Spansion bankruptcy proceedings alleging amounts due of not less than $25 million. On July 28, 2009, the Company sought permission under the Bankruptcy rules to serve certain discovery requests in the actions, seeking various documents and
testimony regarding potential administrative claims that Tessera may assert in the action. Tesseras request for such discovery was denied without prejudice on August 11, 2009. The parties thereafter completed certain fact and expert
discovery relating to Tesseras administrative expense claim in December and January of 2010.

On January 12, 2010, Spansion filed a
motion to determine and estimate the amount of Tesseras administrative expense claim, for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of Spansions Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. Tesseras administrative expense claim
at issue relates to the damages that would be owed to Tessera for Spansions post-petition (post-March 1, 2009) infringement of certain Tessera patents. Tessera filed its objection to Spansions motion on January 22, 2010. On
January 29, 2010, the court held a hearing on Spansions motion. The parties submitted post-hearing letter briefs on February 3, 2010. The Court announced its ruling that a reasonable royalty rate for Spansion products sold in the
United States during the administrative period was 56.7 cents per unit. On April 6, 2010, the Court entered an order estimating the amount of any alleged administrative expensive claim of Tessera for purposes of plan confirmation in the amount
of $4,232,986.13 for the period from March 1, 2009 to July 20, 2009.

On February 5, 2010, Spansion filed a motion for an order
estimating the amount of certain contingent, unliquidated, duplicative and/or overstated claims for purposes of establishing class 5 plan distribution reserves. Tessera filed its objection to the estimation motion on February 17,
2010 and on that same date submitted three Amended Proofs of Claim based in part on the Courts 56.7 cents per unit royalty rate. On February 18, 2010, Tessera filed a motion for authority to file its Amended Proofs of Claim. On
March 23, 2010, the Court entered an order allowing Tessera to file its Amended Proofs of Claim.

Spansions February 5, 2010
estimation motion is pending and a hearing relating to the motions is currently scheduled for May 26, 2010.



49



---

##### Table of Contents

On January 26, 2010, Tessera filed its objection to Spansions Second Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization, asserting that the plan is not feasible and that it fails to provide for the payout of administrative expense claims on the plan effective date. On February 2, 2010, Tessera submitted three ballots, one for each previously
submitted Proof of Claim. The ballots, among other things, rejected Spansions Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization.

On
April 1, 2010, the Court issued its Order and Opinion on Confirmation in which, among other things, it denied Spansions request for plan confirmation due to, among other reasons, the failure to set aside a reserve for Tesseras
administrative expense claim in the amount of $4,232,986. 13. The Court overruled certain Tessera objections regarding irregularities in the plan voting solicitation and tabulation and Spansions failure to properly count Tesseras three
plan ballots. On April 7, Spansion filed an amended plan that included a reserve for the alleged administrative expense claim of Tessera in the amount of $4,232,986.13. On April 16, 2010, the Court issued its finding of facts, conclusions
of law, and Order confirming the plan as amended.

Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.

On or about August 7, 2009, Amkor filed a request for arbitration against the Company before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
The request, among other things, accuses the Company of interference with Amkors existing and prospective business relationships, of improperly claiming that Amkor had breached the parties license agreement, and of improperly threatening
to terminate that agreement. Amkor seeks relief including judgment that it is in compliance with the license agreement and is a licensee in good standing under the license agreement; judgment that the license agreement remains in effect and no
breach alleged by the Company against Amkor has terminated the License Agreement; judgment that Amkors method of calculating royalties on a going-forward basis complies with Amkors obligations under the license agreement; an injunction
against the Company forbidding it from making statements to Amkors customers and potential customers inconsistent with the above; an injunction against the Company forbidding it from attempting to terminate the license agreement or threatening
to terminate the license agreement during the arbitration or based on events occurring prior to the conclusion of the arbitration; a damage award against the Company for attorneys fees and costs to Amkor associated with this arbitration, together
with all other damages resulting from the Companys alleged acts of tortious interference and punitive damages; all other relief recoverable under the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC; such other and further relief as the arbitrators deem just
and proper.

On or about November 2, 2009, the Company filed its answer to the request, including counterclaims. The answer, among other
things, denies Amkors accusations and accuses Amkor of failing to pay Tessera full royalties on products Amkor sold to Qualcomm and potentially others that are subject to ITC injunctions, of refusing to allow Tessera to audit in accordance
with the parties license agreement, of interference with Tesseras prospective economic relationships, of failing to pay royalties or full royalties on products that infringe various U.S. and foreign patents owned by Tessera, and of
violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company seeks relief including judgment that the license agreement has been breached and that Tessera is entitled to terminate the license agreement; judgment that products on which
Amkor has not paid the full contractual royalties to Tessera are not licensed under Tesseras patents; damages for Amkors breaches of the license agreement; damages, including punitive damages, for Amkors interference with
Tesseras prospective business relationships; interest on any damages; attorneys fees and costs incurred by Tessera; denial of Amkors claims against Tessera; an order that awards Tessera all other relief recoverable under the rules
of Arbitration of the ICC; and an order for such other and further relief as the arbitrators deem just and proper.

On January 15, 2010,
Amkor filed its response to Tesseras counterclaims, along with certain new counterclaims by Amkor and a motion for priority consideration of certain issues. In its responsive pleading, Amkor denied Tesseras counterclaims, arguing in part
that Tesseras counterclaims for royalties are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and sought a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and that its packages are not made under any of the patents asserted in
Tesseras answer and that the patents are invalid and unenforceable. Tessera filed an answer denying Amkors counterclaims and a response to Amkors motion on February 12, 2010. On March 28, 2010, the Tribunal ruled on
Amkors motion for priority consideration, holding that certain issuesincluding royalties payable on a going-forward basis for the patents addressed in the previous arbitration, including but not limited to royalties applicable to
packages assembled for Qualcomm, Inc., and Tesseras counterclaim for breach of the audit provisionwould be considered in an early hearing scheduled for August 30, 2010. That hearing has since been rescheduled for
September 27-28, 2010. On April 22, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Provisional Order proposing a two week hearing on remaining issues to be held beginning on August 15, 2011. The case is in the discovery phase.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. An adverse decision in this proceeding could significantly harm the Companys business
and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our operations and financial results are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including those described below, that could adversely
affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and the trading price of our common stock.

We are currently
involved in litigation and administrative proceedings involving some of our key patents; any invalidation or limitation of the scope of our key patents could significantly harm our business.



50



---

##### Table of Contents

Our patent portfolio contains some patents that are particularly significant to our ongoing revenues and
business. As more fully described in Part II, Item 1 Legal Proceedings, we are currently involved in litigation involving some of these key patents in the U.S. The parties in these legal actions have challenged the validity, scope,
enforceability and ownership of key patents that we license to generate a substantial portion of our revenues. In addition, reexamination requests have been filed against us in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) with respect to
certain key patent claims at issue in one or more of our litigation proceedings, and oppositions have been filed against us with respect to key patents in the European Patent Office. Under a reexamination proceeding and upon completion of the
proceeding, the PTO may leave a patent in its present form, narrow the scope of the patent or cancel some or all of the claims of the patent. As further described in Part II, Item 1 Legal Proceedings, the PTO issued several
Official Actions rejecting or maintaining earlier rejections of many of the claims in certain of our key patents. We are currently asserting these key patents and patent claims in certain of our ongoing litigation and administrative proceedings. If
the PTOs adverse rulings are upheld on appeal and some or all of the claims of the key patents that are subject to reexamination are canceled, our business may be significantly harmed. In addition, counterparties to our litigation and
administrative proceedings may seek and obtain motions to stay these proceedings based on rejections of claims in the PTO reexaminations, and other courts or tribunals reviewing our legal actions could make findings adverse to our interests, even if
the PTO actions are not final.

We cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings or the myriad procedural and substantive motions in
these proceedings. In the event that there is an adverse ruling in any legal or administrative proceeding relating to the infringement, validity, enforceability or ownership of any of our key patents, or if a court or an administrative body such as
the PTO limits the scope of the claims of any of our key patents, we could be prevented from enforcing or earning future revenues from such key patents, and the likelihood that companies will take new licenses and that current licensees will
continue to agree to pay under their existing licenses could be significantly reduced. The resulting reduction in license fees and royalties could significantly harm our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows,
or the trading price of our common stock. Furthermore, regardless of the merits of any claim, the continued maintenance of these legal and administrative proceedings may result in substantial legal expenses and could divert our managements
time and attention away from our other business operations, which could significantly harm our business. Our enforcement proceedings historically have been protracted and complex, and we have experienced significant delays in certain of these
proceedings. The complexity of our litigations, their disproportionate importance to our business compared to other companies, the propensity for delay in patent litigations, and the potential that we may lose particular motions as well as the
overall litigations all could cause significant volatility in our stock price and could materially adversely affect our business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We expect to continue to be involved in material legal proceedings in the future to enforce or protect our intellectual property rights, including
material litigation with existing licensees or strategic partners, which could harm our business.

In the past, we have found it necessary
to litigate to enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights, to enforce the terms of our existing license agreements, to protect our trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others or to defend
against claims of infringement or invalidity. Our current legal actions, as described in Part II, Item 1 Legal Proceedings, are examples of significant disputes and litigation that impact our business. We expect to be involved in
similar legal proceedings in the future, including proceedings to ensure proper and full payment of royalties by current licensees under the terms of their license agreements. These existing and any future legal actions could cause an existing
licensee or strategic partner to cease making royalty or other payments to us, or to challenge the validity and enforceability of our patents or the scope of our license agreements, and could significantly damage our relationship with such licensee
or strategic partner. Litigation could also severely disrupt or shut down the business operations of our licensees or strategic partners, which in turn would significantly harm our ongoing relations with them and cause us to lose royalty revenues.
In addition, many semiconductor and package assembly companies maintain their own internal design groups and have their own package design and manufacturing capabilities. If we believe these groups have designed technologies that infringe upon our
intellectual property, and if they subsequently fail to enter into a license agreement with us or pay for licensed technology, then it may become necessary for us to commence legal proceedings against them. Litigation stemming from these or other
disputes could also harm our relationships with other licensees or our ability to gain new customers, who may postpone licensing decisions pending the outcome of the litigation or dispute. In addition, these legal proceedings could be very expensive
and may reduce or eliminate our profits. The costs associated with legal proceedings are typically high, relatively unpredictable and not completely within our control. While we do our best to forecast and control such costs, the costs may be
materially higher than expected, which could adversely affect our operating results. Whether or not determined in our favor or ultimately settled, litigation diverts our managerial, technical, legal and financial resources from our business
operations. Furthermore, an adverse decision in any of these legal actions could result in a loss of our proprietary rights, subject us to significant liabilities, require us to seek licenses from others, limit the value of our licensed technology
or otherwise negatively impact our stock price or our business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Even if we prevail in our legal actions, significant contingencies will exist to their settlement and final
resolution, including the scope of the liability of each party, our ability to enforce judgments against the parties, the ability and willingness of the parties to make any payments owed or agreed upon and the dismissal of the legal action by the
relevant court, none of which are completely within our control. Parties that may be obligated to pay us royalties could also decide to alter their business activities or corporate structure, which could affect our ability to collect royalties from
such parties.

If we fail to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights and our confidential information, our business will
suffer.

We rely primarily on a combination of license, development and nondisclosure agreements and other contractual provisions and
patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright laws to protect our technology and intellectual property. If we fail to protect our technology and intellectual property, our licensees and others may seek to use our technology and intellectual property
without the payment of license fees and royalties, which could weaken our competitive position, reduce our operating results and increase the likelihood of costly litigation. The growth of our business depends in large part on our ability to obtain
intellectual property rights in a timely manner, our ability to convince third parties of the applicability of our intellectual property rights to their products, and our ability to enforce our intellectual property rights against them.



51



---

##### Table of Contents

In certain instances, we attempt to obtain patent protection for portions of our technology, and our license
agreements typically include both issued patents and pending patent applications. If we fail to obtain patents in a timely manner or if the patents issued to us do not cover all of the inventions disclosed in our patent applications, others could
use portions of our technology and intellectual property without the payment of license fees and royalties. For example, our business may suffer if we are unable to obtain patent protection in a timely manner from the PTO due to processing delays
resulting from examiner turnover and a continuing backlog of patent applications.

We also rely on trade secret laws rather than patent laws
to protect other portions of our proprietary technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. The misappropriation of our trade secrets or other proprietary information could seriously harm our business. We protect our proprietary
technology and processes, in part, through confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, suppliers and customers. We cannot be certain that these contracts have not been and will not be breached, that we will be able to timely detect
unauthorized use or transfer of our technology and intellectual property, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. If we fail to use
these mechanisms to protect our technology and intellectual property, or if a court fails to enforce our intellectual property rights, our business will suffer. We cannot be certain that these protection mechanisms can be successfully asserted in
the future or will not be invalidated or challenged.

Further, the laws and enforcement regimes of certain countries do not protect our
technology and intellectual property to the same extent as do the laws and enforcement regimes of the U.S. Therefore, in certain jurisdictions we may be unable to protect our technology and intellectual property adequately against unauthorized
third-party use, which could adversely affect our business.

Our business may suffer if third parties assert that we violate their
intellectual property rights.

Third parties may claim that we or our customers are infringing upon their intellectual property rights.
Even if we believe that such claims are without merit, they can be time-consuming and costly to defend against and will divert managements attention and resources away from our business. Claims of intellectual property infringement also might
require us to enter into costly settlement or license agreements or pay costly damage awards. Even if we have an agreement that provides for a third party to indemnify us against such costs, the indemnifying party may be unable to perform its
contractual obligations under the agreement. If we cannot or do not license the infringed intellectual property at all or on reasonable terms, or substitute similar technology from another source, our business, financial position, results of
operations or cash flows could suffer.

If the U.S. patent laws and regulations are changed, we could be adversely impacted.

Our business relies in part on the uniform and historically consistent application of U.S. patent laws and regulations. Changes to these
laws and regulations may occur as a result of decisions and actions of Congress, the PTO, and the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In recent years, certain proposals have been made to change some aspects of the patent laws and PTO rules,
the courts have interpreted U.S. patent laws and regulations differently, and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court has decided a number of patent cases and continues to actively review more patent cases than it has in the past. Some of these changes
or potential changes may not be advantageous for us, and may make it more difficult to obtain adequate patent protection or to enforce our patents against parties using them without a license or payment of royalties. These changes or potential
changes, if passed by Congress or implemented by the Administration, or required by the courts, could have a deleterious effect on our licensing program and, therefore, the royalties we can collect.

The markets for semiconductors and related products and camera modules are highly concentrated, and we may have limited opportunities to license our
technologies or sell our products.

The semiconductor industry is highly concentrated in that a small number of semiconductor designers and
manufacturers account for a substantial portion of the purchases of semiconductor products generally, including our products and products incorporating technologies that we may acquire. Consolidation in the semiconductor industry may increase this
concentration. Accordingly, we expect that licenses of our technologies and sales of our products, including sales of products and technologies that we acquire, will be concentrated with a limited number of customers for the foreseeable future. As
we acquire new technologies and integrate them into our product line, we will need to establish new relationships to sell these products. Our financial results depend in significant part on our success in establishing and maintaining relationships
with, and effecting substantial sales to, these customers. Even if we are successful in establishing and maintaining such relationships, our financial results will be dependent in large part on these customers sales and business results. This
is also true for the camera module market which is the target market for our imaging and optics business. In this market, a small number of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) account for a substantial portion of purchases of camera-enabled cell
phones and other mobile devices. We have been promoting the adoption of our technologies in this market through the supply chain infrastructure by signing licenses with the sensor, lens and camera manufacturers and assemblers. Consolidation of the
OEMs may affect our licensees ability to maintain or establish relationships with these OEMs through which they sell products incorporating our imaging and optics technologies. As a result, our financial results could be materially adversely
affected.

A significant amount of our royalty revenues comes from a few market segments and products, and our business could be harmed if
these market segments or products decline.



52



---

##### Table of Contents

A significant portion of our royalty revenues comes from the manufacture and sale of packaged semiconductor
chips for DSP, ASSP, ASIC and memory. In addition, we derive substantial revenues from the incorporation of our technology into mobile devices. If demand for semiconductors in any one or a combination of these market segments or products declines,
our royalty revenues may be reduced significantly and our business could be harmed.

Our revenue is concentrated in a few customers and if
we lose any of these customers our revenues may decrease substantially.

We earn a significant amount of our revenues from a limited number
of customers. For the three months ended March 31, 2010, there were three customers that each accounted for 10% or more of total revenue. We expect that a significant portion of our revenues will continue to come from a limited number of
customers for the foreseeable future. If we lose any of these customers, our revenues may decrease substantially.

Volume pricing
incentives in our TCC licenses with two DRAM manufacturers may slow our DRAM royalty growth.

In 2005, we provided two major DRAM
manufacturers with first-mover pricing advantages with respect to royalties due to us under their respective TCC licenses based on several factors, including volumes. The effect of the volume pricing adjustments may cause, at certain high shipment
volumes and for these two DRAM manufacturers only, our aggregate annual DRAM royalty revenue to grow less rapidly than annual growth in overall unit shipments in the DRAM segment. An additional effect may include some quarter-to-quarter fluctuations
in growth in our revenues from the DRAM segment, depending on the relative DRAM market share enjoyed by these two DRAM manufacturers in a given calendar quarter and their royalty payments within a calendar year.

Some of our license agreements have fixed terms and will need to be renewed or relicensed in the future in order to extend those terms. If we are
unable to renew or relicense these license agreements on terms favorable to us, our results of operations could be harmed.

Some of our
license agreements have fixed terms. We will need to renew or relicense our license agreements with fixed terms prior to the expiration of such license agreements in order to extend those terms. Based on various factors including the technology and
business needs of our licensees, we may not be able to renew or relicense such license agreements on terms favorable to us, or at all. We have expanded our licensable technology portfolio through internal development and acquisitions from third
parties, but there is no guarantee that these measures will meet the technology and business needs of our licensees. In order to maintain existing relationships with some of our licensees, we may be forced to renew or relicense our license
agreements on terms that are more favorable to such licensees, which could harm our results of operations. If we fail to renew or relicense our license agreements, we would lose existing licensees and our business would be materially adversely
affected.

Some of our license agreements may convert to fully paid-up licenses at the expiration of their terms, and we may not receive
royalties after that time.

We currently have one license agreement that automatically converts to a fully paid-up license after the
expiration of its current term on December 31, 2013, provided that the licensee (Texas Instruments, Inc.) complies with all terms and conditions of the license agreement up through its expiration. We also have certain other license agreements
that each provide the licensee with the option to extend the current term of their agreement for an additional five years with royalty payments throughout the expiration of the extended term, whereupon such a license automatically converts to a
fully paid-up license after the expiration of its extended term. We may not receive further royalties from licensees for any licensed technology under those agreements if they convert to fully paid-up licenses because such licensees will be entitled
to continue using some, if not all, of our relevant intellectual property under the terms of the license agreements, even if relevant patents are still in effect. If we cannot find another source of revenue to replace the revenue from these license
agreements converting to fully paid-up licenses, our results of operations following such conversion could be materially adversely affected.

We have a royalty-based business model, which is inherently risky.

Our long-term success depends on future royalties paid to us by licensees. Royalty payments under our TCC licenses are primarily based upon the number of
electrical connections to the semiconductor chip in a package covered by our licensed technology. We also have royalty arrangements for TCC and other technologies in which royalties are paid based upon a percent of the net sales price or based upon
a per package, or a per unit sold basis. We are dependent upon our ability to structure, negotiate and enforce agreements for the determination and payment of royalties, as well as upon our licensees compliance with their agreements. We face
risks inherent in a royalty-based business model, many of which are outside of our control, such as the following:



| |  |  | the rate of adoption and incorporation of our technology by semiconductor manufacturers and assemblers;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the extent to which large equipment vendors and materials providers develop and supply tools and materials to enable manufacturing using our packaging
technology;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



53



---

##### Table of Contents

| |  |  | the demand for products incorporating semiconductors that use our licensed technology;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the cyclicality of supply and demand for products using our licensed technology;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the impact of economic downturns; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------



| |  |  | the timing of receipt of royalty reports may not meet our revenue recognition criteria resulting in fluctuation in our results of operations.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is difficult for us to verify royalty amounts owed to us under our licensing agreements, and this may cause us to
lose revenues.

The terms of our license agreements generally require our licensees to document their use of Tesseras technology and
report related data to us on a quarterly basis. Although our license terms generally give us the right to audit books and records of our licensees to verify this information, audits can be expensive, time consuming, and may not be cost justified
based on our understanding of our licensees businesses. Our license compliance program audits certain licensees to review the accuracy of the information contained in their royalty reports in an effort to decrease the likelihood that we will
not receive the royalty revenues to which we are entitled under the terms of our license agreements, but we cannot give assurances that such audits will be effective to that end.

We make significant investments in new products and services that may not achieve technological feasibility or profitability or that may limit our
revenue growth.

We have made and will continue to make significant investments in research, development, and marketing of new
technologies, products and services, including wafer-level packaging, wafer-level camera and other image quality enhancement technologies, μPILR packaging technology, and thermal management technology (also referred to as silent air cooling).
Investments in new technologies are speculative and technological feasibility may not be achieved. Commercial success depends on many factors including innovativeness and demand for the technology, availability of materials and equipment, selling
price the market is willing to bear, and effective licensing or product sales. We may not achieve significant revenue from new product and service investments for a number of years, if at all. Moreover, new technologies, products and services may
not be profitable, and even if they are profitable, operating margins for new products and businesses may not be as high as the margins we have experienced historically.

Competing technologies may harm our business.

We expect that our technologies will continue to compete with technologies of internal design groups at semiconductor manufacturers, assemblers,
electronic component and system manufacturers, image sensor and lens manufacturers and camera module companies. These internal design groups create their own packaging, imaging and optics solutions. If these internal design groups design around our
patents or introduce unique solutions superior to our technology, they may not need to license our technology. These groups may design technology that is less expensive to implement than ours or that enables products with higher performance or
additional features. Many of these groups have substantially greater resources, greater financial strength and lower cost structures which may allow them to undercut our price. They also have the inherent advantage of internal access to corporate
strategies, technology roadmaps and technical information. As a result, they may be able to bring alternative solutions to market more easily and quickly. For instance, for our Micro-electronics technologies, certain flip chip technologies are being
used by large semiconductor manufacturers and assemblers for a variety of semiconductors, including processors and memory. Another example of a competitive technology is the small format lead frame package that is also getting market traction. The
companies using these technologies are utilizing their current lead frame infrastructure to achieve cost-effective results. Wafer-level packaging is an emerging competitive technology that could also erode chip-scale packaging market share as the
technology and infrastructure matures. Other examples of competitive technologies that could erode chip-scale packaging market share include the chip-on-board technique to package image sensors and certain system-in-package technologies that can
integrate multiple die.

For our imaging and optics technologies, our OptiML Focus technology enables camera modules to automatically focus
without any moving parts by employing extended depth of field technology. This technology competes with autofocus technologies including traditional lens-motion-type autofocus, emerging lens-modification-type autofocus and also other
computational-type autofocus solutions and other solutions and technologies provided by companies such as DxO Labs. Our wafer-level camera solution competes with both the traditional lens vendors who enjoy an established supply chain, as well as
other wafer-level optics technologies offered by companies such as Heptagon Oy and Anteryon B.V. For the embedded image enhancement technologies such as Face Detection and our other Face Tools products, our offerings compete with other image
processing software vendors such as ArcSoft, Inc. as well as internal design groups of our customers providing similar technologies by employing different approaches. We also expect to see other competing technologies emerge.

In the future, our licensed technologies may also compete with other technologies that emerge. These technologies may be less expensive than ours and
provide higher or additional performance. Companies with these competing technologies may also have greater resources than we have. Technological change could render our technologies obsolete, and new, competitive technologies could emerge that
achieve broad adoption and adversely affect the use of our technologies and intellectual property.



54



---

##### Table of Contents

If we do not create and implement new technologies or expand our licensable technology portfolio, our
competitive position could be harmed and our operating results adversely affected.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from
licenses and royalties from a relatively small number of key technologies. We devote significant engineering resources to develop new packaging and imaging technologies to address the evolving needs of the semiconductor and the consumer and
communication electronics industries. To remain competitive, we must introduce new technologies in a timely manner and the market must adopt them. Developments in our technologies are inherently complex, and require long development cycles and a
substantial investment before we can determine their commercial viability. We may not be able to develop and market new technologies in a timely or commercially acceptable fashion. Moreover, our patents will expire in the future. Our current U.S.
issued patents expire at various times from 2010 through 2029. We need to develop or acquire successful innovations and obtain patents on those innovations before our current patents expire, and our failure to do so could significantly harm our
business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

If we do not successfully further develop and commercialize the
technologies we acquire, or cultivate strategic relationships that expand our licensable technology portfolio, our competitive position could be harmed and our operating results adversely affected.

We also attempt to expand our licensable technology portfolio and technical expertise by acquiring and further developing new technologies or developing
strategic relationships with others. These strategic relationships may include the right for us to sublicense technology and intellectual property to others. However, we may not be able to acquire or obtain rights to licensable technology and
intellectual property in a timely manner or upon commercially reasonable terms. Even if we do acquire such rights, some of the technologies we invest in may be commercially unproven and may not be adopted or accepted by the industry. Moreover, our
research and development efforts, and acquisitions and strategic relationships, may be futile if we do not accurately predict the future needs of the semiconductor, consumer and communication electronics, and consumer imaging industries. Our failure
to acquire new technologies that are commercially viable in the semiconductor, consumer and communication electronics, and consumer imaging industries could significantly harm our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Failure by our licensees to sell products using our technology could limit our royalty revenue growth.

Because we expect a portion of our future revenues to be derived from licenses and royalties from semiconductors that use our licensed technology, our
future success depends upon our licensees developing and selling commercially successful products. Any of the following factors could limit our licensees ability to sell products that incorporate our technology:



| |  |  | the willingness and ability of materials and equipment suppliers to produce materials and equipment that support our licensed technology, in a quantity
sufficient to enable volume manufacturing;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the ability of our licensees to purchase such materials and equipment on a cost-effective and timely basis;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the willingness of our licensees and others to make investments in the manufacturing process that supports our licensed technology, and the amount and
timing of those investments; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our licensees ability to design and assemble packages incorporating our technology that are acceptable to their customers.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we expect a portion of our future growth to be derived from licenses and royalties from our imaging and optics
technology in consumer electronics, such as digital still cameras, wireless devices, personal computers and other consumer electronics, our future success depends upon our licensees developing and selling products that incorporate our technology.
Any of the following factors could limit the growth of our imaging and optics technology:



| |  |  | our ability to innovate and provide solutions at lower costs, with improved performance, or with more enhanced features than our competitors;
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the relevant markets rate of adoption of our imaging and optics technologies;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our ability to license our technologies to significant customers in imaging and optics fields; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our competitors who may have superior products or solutions which take away market shares or design wins from us.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure by the semiconductor industry to adopt our packaging technology for the next generation high performance DRAM chips would significantly harm
our business.

To date, our packaging technology has been used by several companies for high performance DRAM chips. For example, packaging
using our technology is used for DDR2 and DDR3 DRAM and we currently have licensees, including Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Micron Technology, Inc., and Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., who are paying royalties for DRAM chips in advanced packages.



55



---

##### Table of Contents

DRAM manufacturers are also currently developing next generation high performance DRAM chips, including next
generation of DDR referred to as DDR4, to meet increasing speed and performance requirements of electronic products. We believe that these next-generation, high performance DRAM chips will require advanced packaging technologies such as CSP.

We anticipate that royalties from shipments of these next-generation, high performance DRAM chips packaged using our technology may account
for a significant percentage of our future revenues. If semiconductor manufacturers do not continue to use packages employing our technology for the next generation of high performance DRAM and find a viable alternative packaging technology for use
with next generation high performance DRAM chips, or if we do not receive royalties from next generation, high performance DRAM chips that use our technology, our future revenues could be adversely affected.

Our technology may be too expensive for certain next generation high performance DRAM manufacturers, which could significantly reduce the adoption rate
of our packaging technology in next generation high performance DRAM chips. Even if our package technology is selected for at least some of these next generation high performance DRAM chips, there could be delays in the introduction of products
utilizing these chips that could materially affect the amount and timing of any royalty payments that we receive. Other factors that could affect adoption of our technology for next generation high performance DRAM products include delays or
shortages of materials and equipment and the availability of testing services.

If our licensees delay or are unable to make payments to us
due to financial difficulties, or shift their licensed products to other companies to lower their royalties to us, our operating results and cash flows could be adversely affected.

A number of companies in the semiconductor and consumer electronics industries are facing severe financial difficulties. As a result, there have been
recent bankruptcies and restructuring of companies in these industries. Our licensees may face similar financial difficulties which may result in their inability to make payments to us in a timely manner or if at all. In addition, our licensees may
merge with or may shift the manufacture of licensed products to companies that are not currently licensees to us. This could make the collection process complex and difficult which could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.

The way we integrate internally developed and acquired technologies into our products and licensing programs
may not be accepted by customers.

We have devoted, and expect to continue to devote, considerable time and resources to developing,
acquiring and integrating new and existing technologies into our products and licensing programs. However, if customers do not accept the way we have integrated our technologies, they may adopt competing solutions. In addition, as we introduce new
products or licensing programs, we cannot predict with certainty if and when our customers will transition to those new products or licensing programs. If customers fail to accept new or upgraded products or licensing programs incorporating our
technologies, our financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be adversely impacted.

Our services business, including
customization services, may subject us to specific costs and risks that we may fail to manage adequately and could harm our business.

We
derive a portion of our revenues from engineering and design services. Among the engineering services that we offer are customized package design and prototyping, modeling, simulation, failure analysis and reliability testing and related training
services. We also offer our customers design services to customize our technologies to incorporate into their products and production processes, enabling our customers to shorten the development effort and time to market. A number of factors,
including, among others, the perceived value of our intellectual property portfolio, our ability to convince customers of the value of our engineering services and our reputation for performance under our service contracts, could cause our revenues
from engineering services to decline, damage our reputation, and harm our ability to attract future customers, which would in turn harm our operating results.

Under certain contracts, we are required to perform certain services, in some cases including design services for lens, register transfer level (RTL),
high performance optical and optical components and tooling services. If we fail to deliver as required under these contracts, we could lose revenues and become subject to liability for breach of contract. We also provide certain services at or
below cost in an effort to increase the speed and breadth with which our customers adopt our technologies. For example, we provide modeling, manufacturing process training, equipment and materials characterization and other services to assist
customers in designing, implementing, upgrading and maintaining their assembly lines. We frequently provide these services as a form of training to introduce new customers to our technology and existing customers to new technologies, with the aim
that these services will generate revenues in the future. Our failure to manage these services adequately may harm our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Our imaging and optics solutions rely on the use of certain materials from a single supplier or a limited number of suppliers. The lack of
availability of these materials could delay the execution of our business strategy and adversely affect our revenue.

We rely on the use of
certain materials available from a single supplier or a limited number of suppliers for the manufacturing of our small form factor micro-optics and for our development in wafer-level optics and wafer-level camera solutions. If any or some of these
materials become unavailable, or, if any of these suppliers cease operations and we cannot find an alternative source, our development effort for our wafer-level optics and camera solutions could be delayed and our revenue from Imaging &
Optics business could be adversely affected.



56



---

##### Table of Contents

Our licensing cycle is lengthy and costly, and our marketing and sales efforts may be unsuccessful.

We generally incur significant marketing and sales expenses prior to entering into our license agreements, generating a license fee and
establishing a royalty stream from each licensee. The length of time it takes to establish a new licensing relationship can range from six to 18 months or longer for a TCC license and 18 to 24 months or longer for an Imaging & Optics
license. As such, we may incur significant losses in any particular period before any associated revenue stream begins.

We employ intensive
marketing and sales efforts to educate materials suppliers, equipment vendors, licensees, potential licensees and original equipment manufacturers about the benefits of our technologies. In addition, even if these companies adopt our technologies,
they must devote significant resources to integrate fully our technologies into their operations. If our marketing and sales efforts are unsuccessful, then we will not be able to achieve widespread acceptance of our technology. In addition, ongoing
litigation could impact our ability to gain new licensees which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our financial and operating results may vary, which may cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We currently provide guidance on revenue and expenses on a quarterly basis. Our quarterly operating results have fluctuated in the past and are likely to
do so in the future. Because our operating results are difficult to predict, you should not rely on quarterly or annual comparisons of our results of operations as an indication of our future performance. We have also stated a revenue goal for our
Imaging and Optics segment in 2011 based on certain assumptions about the market and our ability to achieve a series of strategic objectives. Factors that could cause our operating results to fluctuate during any period or that could adversely
affect our ability to achieve our Imaging and Optics revenue goal include those listed in this Risk Factors section of this report and the following:



| |  |  | the timing of and compliance with license or service agreements and the terms and conditions for payment to us of license or service fees under these
agreements;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | changes in our royalties caused by changes in demand for products incorporating semiconductors that use our licensed technology;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | decrease in our revenues caused by price erosion on high performance camera modules incorporating our imaging and optics technologies;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the amount of our product and service revenues;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | changes in the level of our operating expenses;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | delays in our introduction of new technologies or market acceptance of these new technologies through new license agreements;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our ability to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights or the terms of our agreements;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | legal proceedings affecting our patents, patent applications or license agreements;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the timing of the introduction by others of competing technologies;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | changes in demand for semiconductor chips in the specific markets in which we concentrateDSP, ASIC, ASSP semiconductors and memory;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | changes in demand for semiconductor capital equipment, digital still cameras and other camera-enabled devices including cell phones, security systems
and personal computers;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | changes in accounting principles; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------



| |  |  | cyclical fluctuations in semiconductor markets generally.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

It is difficult to predict when we will enter into additional license agreements. The time it takes to establish a new licensing arrangement can be
lengthy. Delays or deferrals in the execution of license agreements may also increase as we develop new technologies. Because the recognition period of our license revenue is dependent on meeting the requirements for revenue recognition, the timing
of revenue being recognized may significantly impact our quarterly or annual operating results. Generally we also receive ongoing royalty payments under our license agreements, and these payments may fluctuate significantly from period to period
based on manufacture or sales of products incorporating our licensed technology. In addition, some of these payments may decline if the price of camera modules declines. We expect to continue to expand our business, which will require us to increase
our operating expenses. We may not be able to increase revenues in an amount sufficient to offset these increased expenditures, which may lead to a loss for any period.



57



---

##### Table of Contents

Due to fluctuations in our operating results, reports from market and security analysts, litigation-related
developments, our ability to achieve our Imaging and Optics revenue goal, and other factors, the price at which our common stock will trade is likely to continue to be highly volatile. In future periods, if our revenues or operating results are
below our estimates or the estimates or expectations of public market analysts and investors, our stock price could decline. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against companies following a decline in the market
price of their securities. If our stock price is volatile, we may become involved in this type of litigation in the future. Any litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of managements attention and resources that are needed
to successfully run our business.

The investment of our cash, cash equivalents and investments in marketable debt securities are subject
to risks which may cause losses and affect the liquidity of these investments.

At March 31, 2010, we held approximately $106.1
million in cash and cash equivalents and $326.0 million in short-term and long-term investments. These investments include various financial securities such as municipal bonds and notes, corporate bonds and notes, commercial paper, treasury and
agency notes and bills, money market funds, auction rate municipal bond securities, bank demand accounts, and asset-backed obligations. The weakened financial markets, originally caused by the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the U. S., has at times
adversely impacted the general credit, liquidity, market and interest rates for these and other types of debt securities. The financial market risks associated with our investment portfolio may have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our investments as of March 31, 2010 include $14.0 million in auction rate municipal
bond securities (ARS) and $0.7 million in asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed securities (collectively ABS). In connection with the liquidity issues experienced in the global credit and capital markets, our ARS
and ABS holdings have experienced failed auctions or thinly traded markets. A failed auction results when sell orders exceed buy orders. As of March 31, 2010, we have recorded net unrealized gains of $0.3 million, net of tax, in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) as an increase in stockholders equity, reflecting adjustments to the remaining available-for-sale securities with a temporary increase in value. See Note 12  Financial instrumentsin
the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional details. As a result of auction failures and thinly traded markets, our ability to liquidate and fully recover the carrying value of our ARS and ABS in the near term may be
limited or not exist. We may be required to wait until market stability is restored for these instruments or until the final maturity of the underlying notes to realize our investments recorded value. If uncertainties in these credit and
capital markets continue, these markets deteriorate further or we experience any additional deterioration in underlying collateral on any investments in our portfolio, we may incur impairment charges or additional realized and unrealized losses, and
investments may be reclassified as long-term investments in our financial statements in future reporting periods. These events could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The economic downturn and weakened financial markets could negatively affect our businesses, results of operations and financial condition.

Slow economic activity, increased unemployment, concerns about inflation and energy costs, decreased business and consumer confidence,
reduced corporate profits and capital spending, adverse business conditions and liquidity concerns have contributed to and continue to contribute to a challenging economic environment. This environment has led to reduced customer spending in the
wireless communications and semiconductor markets, made it difficult for our customers, our vendors and us to accurately forecast and plan future business activities and has caused businesses to slow spending on our products and services. Our major
licensees have experienced reductions in semiconductor sales which could materially and adversely affect our revenues, results of operations and financial condition. Furthermore, the constraints in the capital and credit markets may limit the
ability of our customers to timely borrow and access the capital and credit markets to meet their liquidity needs, which could result in an impairment of their ability to make timely payments to us and reduce their demand for our products and
services, which could materially and adversely impact our results of operations or cash flows.

We operate in a highly cyclical
semiconductor industry, which is subject to significant downturns.

The semiconductor industry has historically been cyclical and is
characterized by wide fluctuations in product supply and demand. From time to time, this industry has experienced significant downturns, often in connection with, or in anticipation of, declining economic conditions, maturing product and technology
cycles, and excess inventories. This cyclicality could cause our operating results to decline dramatically from one period to the next. Our business depends heavily upon the volume of production by our licensees, which, in turn, depends upon the
current and anticipated market demand for semiconductors and products that use semiconductors. Similarly, our product revenue relies at least in part upon the demand of the semiconductor equipment market. Semiconductor manufacturers and package
assembly companies generally sharply curtail their spending during industry downturns, such as in the current global economic downturn, and historically have lowered their spending more than the decline in their revenues. As a result, the impact of
the current global economic downturn on our businesses is exacerbated by the cyclicality of the semiconductor industry. If we are unable to control our expenses adequately in response to lower revenues from our licensees and service customers in the
current or any future economic downturn, our operating results may suffer and we may experience operating losses.

We are subject to laws
and regulations governing government contracts, and failure to address these laws and regulations or comply with government contracts could harm our business by a reduction in revenue associated with these customers.



58



---

##### Table of Contents

Even though we are no longer pursuing government or government agency business, we are still subject to
various statutes and regulations related to this business. The laws governing government contracts differ from the laws governing private contracts. For example, many government contracts contain pricing terms and conditions such as audit provisions
that may not be applicable to private contracts. Although we have performed our obligations under these government contracts, we are subject to audits relating to compliance with the regulations governing these government contracts. A failure to
comply with these regulations or an adverse audit finding might result in an adjustment to our revenue previously recorded, debarment from future government contracts, and possible civil and criminal penalties. In addition, the government may
acquire certain intellectual property rights in data produced or delivered under such contracts and inventions made under such contracts.

Future changes in financial accounting or existing taxation standards, rules, practices or interpretation may cause adverse unexpected revenue and
expense fluctuations which may impact our reported results of operations.

We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance
with U.S. GAAP. These principles are subject to interpretations by the SEC and various accounting bodies. In addition, we are subject to various taxation rules in many jurisdictions. The existing taxation rules are generally complex, voluminous and
often ambiguous. Changes to existing taxation rules such as the current Presidential Administrations proposals for reforming U.S. international tax rules, or changes to the financial accounting standards such as the proposed convergence to
international financial reporting standards, or any changes to the interpretations of these standards or rules may adversely affect our reported financial results or the way we conduct our business. Recent accounting pronouncements and their
estimated potential impact on our business are addressed in the Note 3Recent Accounting Pronouncements in the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

The international nature of our business exposes us to financial and regulatory risks that may have a negative impact on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flow, and we may have difficulty protecting our intellectual property in some foreign countries.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from licensees headquartered outside of the U.S. We have also expanded our operations outside of the U.S.
such as research and development facilities in Japan, Israel, Ireland and Romania to design, develop, test or market certain technologies. International operations are subject to a number of risks, including but not limited to the following:



| |  |  | Fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies as our revenues are denominated principally in U.S. dollars and a portion
of our costs are based in non U.S. dollars;
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Security concerns, including crime, political instability, terrorist activity, armed conflict and civil or military unrest;
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Changes in trade protection laws, policies and measures, and other regulatory requirements affecting trade and investment;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Regulatory requirements and prohibitions that differ between jurisdictions;
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Laws and business practices favoring local companies;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Withholding tax obligations on license revenues that we may not be able to offset fully against our U.S. tax obligations, including the further risk
that foreign tax authorities may re-characterize license fees or increase tax rates, which could result in increased tax withholdings and penalties;
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Differing employment practices, labor issues and business and cultural factors;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Less effective protection of intellectual property than is afforded to us in the U.S. or other developed countries; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Limited infrastructure and disruptions, such as large-scale outages or interruptions of service from utilities or telecommunications providers.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our intellectual property is also used in a large number of foreign countries. There are many countries in which we
currently have no issued patents. In addition, effective intellectual property enforcement may be unavailable or limited in some foreign countries. It may be difficult for us to protect our intellectual property from misuse or infringement by other
companies in these countries. We expect this to become a greater problem for us as our licensees increase their manufacturing in countries which provide less protection for intellectual property. Our inability to enforce our intellectual property
rights in some countries may harm our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Our business and operating
results may be harmed if we are unable to manage growth in our business or if we undertake any restructuring activities or disposition of any product lines.

We plan to continue the expansion of our operations, domestically and internationally, and may continue to do so through both internal growth and
acquisitions. This expansion may strain our systems and management, operational and financial controls and resources. In addition, we are likely to incur higher operating costs. To manage our growth effectively, we must continue to improve and
expand our management, systems and financial controls. We also need to continue to expand, train and manage our employee base. We cannot ensure that we will be able to



59



---

##### Table of Contents

timely and effectively meet demand and maintain the quality standards required by our existing and potential customers and licensees. If we are unable to effectively manage our growth or we are
unsuccessful in recruiting and retaining personnel, our business and operating results will be harmed.

From time to time, we may undertake to
restructure our business, including disposition of a business division, or disposition of a products line. There are several factors that could cause a restructuring or a disposition to have an adverse effect on our business, financial position,
results of operations or cash flows. These include potential disruption of our operations, the timing of development of our technology, the deliveries of products or services to our customers and other aspects of our business. In the case of a
disposition of a product line, there may be a risk of not identifying a purchaser, or, if identified, the purchase price may be less than the net asset book value for the product line. Employee morale and productivity could also suffer and we may
lose employees whom we want to keep. Any restructuring or disposition would require substantial management time and attention and may divert management from other important work. We may also incur other significant liabilities and costs including
employee severance costs, relocation expenses, and impairment of lease obligations and long-lived assets. Moreover, we could encounter delays in executing any restructuring plans, which could cause further disruption and additional unanticipated
expense.

Certain disputes regarding our intellectual property may require us to indemnify certain licensees, the cost of which could
adversely affect our business operations and financial condition.

While we generally do not indemnify our licensees, some of our license
agreements in imaging and optics provide limited indemnities for certain actions brought by third parties against our licensees, and some require us to provide technical support and information to a licensee that is involved in litigation for using
our technology. We expect to agree to provide similar indemnity or support obligations to future licensees. Our indemnity and support obligations could result in substantial expenses. In addition to the time and expense required for us to indemnify
or supply such support to our licensees, a licensees development, marketing and sales of licensed imaging and optics products could be severely disrupted or shut down as a result of litigation, which in turn could have a material adverse
affect on our business operations, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We could experience losses due to
product liability claims or may be subject to claims of intellectual property infringement, either of which could result in substantial costs to us.

We sell products and provide services that may subject us to product liability claims in the future. Although we carry liability insurance in amounts that
we believe are appropriate, product liability claims can be costly and any future product liability claim made against us may exceed the coverage limits of our insurance policies, be excluded from coverage under the terms of our policies or cause us
to record a self-insured loss. A product liability claim in excess of our insurance policies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if a product liability loss is covered by our
insurance policies, such policies contain substantial retentions and deductibles that we would be required to pay. Our existing insurance may not be renewed at a cost and level of coverage comparable to that presently in effect, or at all. The
payment of retentions or deductibles for a significant amount of claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

Third parties could assert patent or other intellectual property infringement claims against us based on the products and services that we sell. It may
be time consuming and costly to defend ourselves against any of these claims, regardless of their validity, and we may not prevail. Furthermore, parties making such claims may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief that could block
our ability to further develop or commercialize some or all of our products or services in the U.S. and abroad. In the event of a claim of infringement, we may be required to obtain one or more licenses from or pay royalties to third parties. We may
be unable to obtain any such licenses at a reasonable cost, if at all. Defense of any lawsuit or failure to obtain such license could harm our business.

If we lose any of our key personnel or are unable to attract, train and retain qualified personnel, we may not be able to execute our business
strategy effectively.

Our success depends, in large part, on the continued contributions of our key management, engineering, sales and
marketing, legal and finance personnel, many of whom are highly skilled and would be difficult to replace. None of our senior management, key technical personnel or key sales personnel are bound by written employment contracts to remain with us for
a specified period. In addition, we do not currently maintain key person life insurance covering our key personnel. The loss of any of our senior management or other key personnel could harm our ability to implement our business strategy and respond
to the rapidly changing market conditions in which we operate. Moreover, some of the individuals on our management team have been in their current positions for a relatively short period of time. Our future success will depend to a significant
extent on the ability of our management team to work together effectively.

Our success also depends on our ability to attract, train and
retain highly skilled managerial, engineering, sales, marketing, legal and finance personnel and on the abilities of new personnel to function effectively, both individually and as a group. Competition for qualified senior employees can be intense.
For example, we have experienced, and we expect to continue to experience, difficulty in hiring and retaining highly skilled engineers with appropriate qualifications to support our growth and expansion. Further, we must train our new personnel,
especially our technical support personnel, to respond to and support our licensees and customers. If we fail to do this, it could lead to dissatisfaction among our licensees or customers, which could slow our growth or result in a loss of business.

Our business operations could suffer in the event of information technology systems failures or security breaches.



60



---

##### Table of Contents

Despite system redundancy and the implementation of security measures within our internal and external
information technology and networking systems, our information technology systems may be subject to security breaches, damages from computer viruses, natural disasters, terrorism, and telecommunication failures. Any system failure or security breach
could cause interruptions in our operations in addition to the possibility of losing proprietary information and trade secrets. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in inappropriate disclosure of our confidential information,
we may incur liability or additional costs to remedy the damages caused by these disruptions or security breaches.

Decreased effectiveness
of share-based compensation could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain employees.

We have historically used stock options
and other forms of stock-based compensation as key components of our employee compensation program in order to align employees interests with the interests of our stockholders, encourage employee retention and provide competitive compensation
and benefit packages. Since the adoption of the authoritative guidance on share-based payment, we have recorded increased compensation costs associated with our stock-based compensation programs. Difficulties relating to obtaining stockholder
approval of equity compensation plans or changes to the plans could make it harder or more expensive for us to grant stock-based compensation to employees in the future. As a result, we may find it difficult to attract, retain and motivate
employees, and any such difficulty could materially adversely affect our business.

Failure to comply with environmental regulations could
harm our business.

We use hazardous substances in the manufacturing and testing of prototype products and in the development of our
technologies in our research and development laboratories. We are subject to a variety of local, state, federal and foreign governmental regulations relating to the storage, discharge, handling, emission, generation, manufacture and disposal of
toxic or other hazardous substances. Our past, present or future failure to comply with environmental regulations could result in the imposition of substantial fines on us, suspension of production, and alteration of our manufacturing processes or
cessation of operations. Compliance with such regulations could require us to acquire expensive remediation equipment or to incur other substantial expenses. Any failure by us to control the use, disposal, removal or storage of, or to adequately
restrict the discharge of, or assist in the cleanup of, hazardous or toxic substances, could subject us to significant liabilities, including joint and several liabilities under certain statutes. The imposition of such liabilities could
significantly harm our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We have business operations located globally in
places that are subject to natural disasters.

Our business operations depend on our ability to maintain and protect our facilities,
computer systems and personnel. Our locations may be subject to earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Should a hurricane, earthquake or other catastrophe, such a fire, flood, power loss, communication failure or similar event disable
our facilities, we do not have readily available alternative facilities from which we could conduct our business.

Some of our offices are
located in states or countries where the local governments may be in financial crisis which may interrupt our business operations and adversely impact our results of operations.

We operate our business globally in many jurisdictions worldwide. Our corporate headquarters are located in the state of California which is facing
significant budgetary challenges and the possibility of financial insolvency. As a result, the state has stopped certain improvement projects and disrupted certain services to its residents, and future state actions are uncertain. Our results of
operations could be adversely impacted if the state proposes additional taxation or other measures to increase its revenue through tax levies on corporations like us or on its residents, including some of our employees. In addition, we have
operations in the various countries worldwide, including Ireland, Romania and Hungary, where the countries may be facing financial distress. For example, the government of Hungary implemented many significant tax regulations that are unfavorable to
corporations and has notably increased its tax examination activities. If the governments of these states or countries where we have business operations cannot provide public services, impose additional tax regulations or levies, or increase their
tax examination activities, our business operations may be interrupted and our results of operations may be adversely impacted.

We have
made and may continue to make or to pursue acquisitions which could divert managements attention, cause ownership dilution to our stockholders, or be difficult to integrate, which may adversely affect our financial results.

We have made several acquisitions, and it is our current plan to continue to acquire companies and technologies that we believe are strategic to our
future business. Investigating businesses or technologies and integrating newly acquired businesses or technologies could put a strain on our resources, could be costly and time consuming, and might not be successful. Such activities could divert
our managements attention from other business concerns. In addition, we might lose key employees while integrating new organizations. Acquisitions could also result in customer dissatisfaction, performance problems with an acquired company or
technology, potentially dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of debt, the assumption or incurrence of contingent liabilities, possible impairment charges related to goodwill or other intangible assets or other unanticipated
events or circumstances, any of which could harm our business. Our plans to integrate and expand upon research and development programs and technologies initiated at each of our operating locations, including image sensor packaging, wafer-level
optics and camera technology from our operation in Charlotte, North Carolina, image enhancement technology for digital auto focus and optical zoom from our operation in Tel Aviv, Israel and in-camera image capture for digital photos from our
operations in Galway, Ireland, and microelectronics packaging and system integration from our operation in San Jose, California, may result in products or technologies that are not adopted by the market. The market may adopt competitive solutions to
our products or technologies. Consequently, we might not be successful in integrating any acquired businesses, products or technologies, and might not achieve anticipated revenues and cost benefits.



61



---

##### Table of Contents

There are numerous risks associated with our acquisitions of businesses and technologies.

We have made a number of acquisitions in the recent years. These acquisitions are subject to a number of risks, including but not limited to the
following:



| |  |  | These acquisitions could fail to produce anticipated benefits, or could have other adverse effects that we currently do not foresee. As a result, these
acquisitions could result in a reduction of net income per share as compared to the net income per share we would have achieved if these acquisitions had not occurred.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Following completion of these acquisitions, we may uncover additional liabilities or unforeseen expenses not discovered during our diligence process.
Any such additional liabilities or expenses could result in significant unanticipated costs not originally estimated, such as impairment charges of acquired assets and goodwill, and may harm our financial results.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The integration of technologies and personnel, if any, will be a time consuming and expensive process that may disrupt our operations if it is not
completed in a timely and efficient manner. If our integration efforts are not successful, our results of operations could be harmed, employee morale could decline, key employees could leave, and customer relations could be damaged. In addition, we
may not achieve anticipated synergies or other benefits from any of these acquisitions.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | We have incurred substantial direct transaction costs as a result of these acquisitions and anticipate incurring substantial additional costs to
support the integration of these businesses and technologies. The total cost of the integration may exceed our expectations.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Sales by the acquired businesses may be subject to different accounting treatment than our existing businesses, especially related to the recognition
of revenue. This may lead to potential deferral of revenue due to new multiple-element revenue arrangements.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | We are required to estimate and record fair values of contingent assets, liabilities, deferred tax assets and liabilities at the time of an
acquisition. Even though these estimates are based on managements best effort, the actual results may differ. Under the current accounting guidance, differences between actual results and managements estimate could cause our operating
results to fluctuate or could adversely affect our results of operations.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If our goodwill, amortizable intangible assets
(such as acquired patents), or equity investments become impaired we may be required to record a significant charge to earnings.

In
addition to internal development, we intend to broaden our intellectual property portfolio through strategic relationships and acquisitions. We believe this will enhance the competitiveness and size of our current businesses and diversify into
markets and technologies that complement our current businesses. These acquisitions could be in the form of asset purchases, equity investments, or business combinations. As a result, we may have intangible assets which are amortized over their
estimated useful lives, equity investments and goodwill. Under U.S. GAAP, we are required to review our amortizable intangible assets such as patent portfolio and equity investments for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate the
carrying value may not be recoverable. Goodwill is required to be tested for impairment at least annually. Factors that may be considered a change in circumstances indicating that the carrying value of our goodwill, amortizable intangible assets or
equity investments may not be recoverable include a decline in future cash flows, slower growth rates in our industry or slower than anticipated adoption of our products by our customers. We may be required to record a significant charge to earnings
in our financial statements during the period in which any impairment of our goodwill, amortizable intangible assets or equity investments is determined, resulting in an adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure may result in additional expenses.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, new SEC regulations and Nasdaq Stock
Market rules, have created uncertainty for companies. These laws, regulations and standards are often subject to varying interpretations. As a result, their application in practice may evolve as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing
bodies, which could result in higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. As a result of our efforts to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, we have increased and may continue to increase
general and administrative expenses and diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities.

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws or Delaware law might delay or prevent a change of control transaction and depress the
market price of our stock.

Various provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws might have the effect of making it more
difficult for a third party to acquire, or discouraging a third party from attempting to acquire, control of our company. These provisions could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common
stock. Certain of these provisions eliminate cumulative voting in the election of directors, authorize the board to issue blank check preferred stock, prohibit stockholder action by written consent, eliminate the right of stockholders to
call special meetings, limit the ability of stockholders to remove directors, and establish advance notice procedures for director nominations by stockholders and the submission of other proposals for consideration at stockholder meetings. We are
also subject to provisions of Delaware law which could delay or make more difficult a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. In particular, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law prohibits a Delaware
corporation from engaging in any business combination with any interested stockholder for a period of three years unless specific conditions are met. Any of these provisions could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in
control, including without limitation, discouraging a proxy contest or making more difficult the acquisition of a substantial block of our common stock.



62



---

##### Table of Contents

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities

Not applicable.

Item 4. Other Information

Not applicable.



63



---

##### Table of Contents

Item 5. Exhibits



|               |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit
Number |  | Exhibit Title                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|3.1            |  | Restated Certificate of Incorporation (filed as an exhibit to registrants Registration Statement on Form S-1 (SEC File No. 333-108518), effective November 12, 2003, and
incorporated herein by reference)                                
|               | 
|3.2            |  | Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended on December 17, 2008 (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on December 23, 2008, and
incorporated herein by reference)                                       
|               | 
|10.1+          |  | Amendment of the Consulting Agreement between Bruce M. McWilliams and Tessera, Inc. dated April 3, 2009, amended on March 31, 2010                                                                                                         
|               | 
|31.1           |  | Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934                                                                                                                             
|               | 
|31.2           |  | Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934                                                                                                                             
|               | 
|32.1           |  | Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



|+ | Indicates a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



64



---

##### Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



|                           |  |                                                     
|-------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 4, 2010        
|                          
|Tessera Technologies, Inc.
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/    Michael Anthofer                             
|                           |  |                                                     
|                           |  | Michael Anthofer                                    
|                           |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



65



---

##### Table of Contents

EXHIBIT INDEX



|               |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit
Number |  | Exhibit Title                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|               | 
|3.1            |  | Restated Certificate of Incorporation (filed as an exhibit to registrants Registration Statement on Form S-1 (SEC File No. 333-108518), effective November 12, 2003,
and incorporated herein by reference)                                
|               | 
|3.2            |  | Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended on December 17, 2008 (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on December 23, 2008, and
incorporated herein by reference)                                       
|               | 
|10.1+          |  | Amendment of the Consulting Agreement between Bruce M. McWilliams and Tessera, Inc. dated April 3, 2009, amended on March 31, 2010                                                                                                         
|               | 
|31.1           |  | Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934                                                                                                                             
|               | 
|31.2           |  | Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934                                                                                                                             
|               | 
|32.1           |  | Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



|+ | Indicates a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



66