In accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies , we assess the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all our material litigation, claims, or assessments to determine whether a liability has been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we establish an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, we may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially.

Intellectual Property Litigation

Convolve, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al.  Between 1998 and 1999, Convolve, Inc., a small privately held technology consulting firm founded by an MIT Ph.D., engaged in discussions with Seagate Technology, Inc. with respect to the potential license of technology that Convolve claimed to own. During that period, the parties entered into non-disclosure agreements. We declined Convolve’s offer of a license in late 1999. On July 13, 2000, Convolve and MIT filed suit against Compaq Computer Corporation and us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and fraud relating to Convolve and MIT’s Input Shaping ^® and Convolve’s Quick and Quiet™ technology. The plaintiffs claim their technology is incorporated in our sound barrier technology, which was publicly announced on June 6, 2000. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, $800 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages. We answered the complaint on August 2, 2000 and filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment that two Convolve/MIT patents are invalid and not infringed and that we own any intellectual property based on the information that we disclosed to Convolve. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery and ordered plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets to defendants before discovery could begin. Convolve served a trade secrets disclosure on August 4, 2000, and we filed a motion challenging the disclosure statement. On May 3, 2001, the court appointed a special master to review the trade secret issues. The special master resigned on June 5, 2001, and the court appointed another special master on July 26, 2001. After a hearing on our motion challenging the trade secrets disclosure on September 21, 2001, the special master issued a report and recommendation to the court that the trade secret list was insufficient. Convolve revised the trade secret list, and the court entered an order on January 1, 2002, accepting the special master’s recommendation that this trade secret list was adequate. On November 6, 2001, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued US Patent No. 6,314,473 to Convolve. Convolve filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2002, alleging defendants’ infringement of this patent, and we answered and filed counterclaims on February 8, 2002. On July 26, 2002, we filed a

63

Table of Contents

Rule 11 motion challenging the adequacy of plaintiffs’ pre-filing investigation on the first two patents alleged in the complaint and seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims related to these patents and reimbursement of attorney’s fees. The court denied our motion on May 23, 2003. On May 6, 2003, the USPTO issued to Convolve U.S. Patent No. 6,560,658 B2, entitled “Data Storage Device with Quick and Quiet Modes.” Convolve indicated that it would seek leave of the court to add this patent to the lawsuit, but it never did so. This latest patent is a continuation of a patent currently in the lawsuit (U.S. Patent No. 6,314,473). We believe any claims that may relate to this continuation patent would be without merit, regardless of whether such claims were added to the ongoing litigation or asserted against us in a separate lawsuit. Judge John Martin, who was assigned this case, announced his retirement from the federal bench. The case was reassigned to Judge George B. Daniels. On October 14, 2003, the Special Master resigned from the case due to Convolve’s claim that he had a conflict of interest. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV was appointed to handle all discovery matters. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will dismiss claims regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,638,267 from the case. The claims construction hearing on U.S. Patent Nos. 4,916,635 and 6,314,473 was held on March 30 and 31, 2004. On August 11, 2005, the court entered an order construing the patent claims. Both Seagate and Compaq moved for reconsideration of its claim construction in light of intervening new law in the Federal Circuit’s then-recent decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., et al. , 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Convolve also moved for clarification. The court denied reconsideration without oral argument on December 7, 2005. The court later granted Convolve’s unopposed clarification motion. On March 29, 2006, the court granted Seagate’s summary judgment motion that Convolve’s fraud, tortious interference with contract, unfair competition, and breach of confidence claims are preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA). The court also held that while Convolve’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not preempted by the CUTSA, no tort damages are available. The court denied our motion for summary judgment on a trade secret issue, finding there is an issue of fact that must be decided. Finally, the court entered an order on July 14, 2006, that Convolve has no evidence to prove its claims regarding 10 alleged trade secrets, precluding Convolve from proceeding at trial on those claims, and precluding Convolve from alleging violations of the 10 alleged trade secrets by either defendant prior to December 7, 2005, the date of the hearing. At Seagate’s request, the USPTO determined that both patents in suit have substantial new issues of patentability and ordered reexamination of the patents. The court denied our motion to stay the case pending patent reexamination. In initial office actions, the USPTO Examiner rejected all claims of both patents as unpatentable. No trial date has been set. We believe the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend against them vigorously.

Shao Tong, et al. v. Seagate International (Wuxi) Co., Ltd.  In July 2002, we were sued in the People’s Court of Nanjing City, China, by an individual, Shao Tong, and a private Chinese company, Nanjing Yisike Network Safety Technique Co., Ltd. The complaint alleged that two of our personal storage disc drive products infringe Chinese patent number ZL94111461.9, which prevents the corruption of systems data stored on disc drives. The suit, which sought to stop us from manufacturing the two products and claimed immaterial monetary damages, was dismissed by the court on procedural grounds on November 29, 2002. On December 3, 2002, the plaintiffs served us with notice that they had refiled the lawsuit. The new complaint contains identical infringement claims against the same disc drive products, claims immaterial monetary damages and attorney’s fees and requests injunctive relief and a recall of the products from the Chinese market. Manufacture of the accused products ceased in May 2003. At a hearing on March 10, 2003, the court referred the matter to an independent technical advisory board for a report on the application of the patent claims to the two products. On June 10, 2003, we presented our non-infringement case to the technical panel. The panel issued a technical advisory report to the court finding no infringement. The court heard oral arguments on the technical advisory report in September 2003, issued an order that our products do not infringe the patent and rejected plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Jiangsu High Court, and we filed our opposition brief on January 21, 2004. The PRC Patent Reexamination Board declared patent ZL94111461.9 invalid on March 28, 2004. The Jiangsu High Court stayed the appeal on the infringement case pending a final judgment on patent invalidity. On June 22, 2004, Shao Tong filed a lawsuit in the Beijing Intermediate People’s Court against the PRC PRB challenging its patent invalidity decision. On November 29, 2004, the court affirmed the decision of patent invalidity. In December 2004, Shao Tong appealed the decision to the Beijing High People’s Court, the highest appellate court, and a hearing was held June 22, 2005. The court scheduled a rehearing

64

Table of Contents

on December 8, 2005, and subsequently reversed the lower court and PRB decisions due to a procedural error. The case was remanded to the PRB for further action to correct the procedural error. A new PRB panel was appointed and the procedural error was corrected. The invalidity case was reargued at a hearing on May 9, 2006. In 2006, we filed a second invalidity proceeding with the PRB. On June 14, 2007, the PRB issued an order holding the patent invalid based on the first invalidity request. The second invalidity request was stayed as a result of the ruling on the first request. Shao Tong again filed a lawsuit against the PRC PRB and the court affirmed the invalidity decision in December 2007. In January 2008, Shao Tong appealed this decision to the Beijing High People’s Court. We believe the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend against them vigorously.

Siemens, AG v. Seagate Technology.  On August 23, 2006, Siemens, AG, a German corporation, filed a complaint against Seagate Technology in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,838 (the ‘838 patent) entitled “Magnetoresistive Sensor Having at Least a Layer System and a Plurality of Measuring Contacts Disposed Thereon, and a Method of Producing the Sensor.” The suit alleges that Seagate drives incorporating Giant Magnetic Resistance (GMR) sensors infringe the ‘838 patent. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount, an accounting, preliminary and permanent injunctions, prejudgment interest, enhanced damages for alleged willful infringement, and attorney fees and costs. The lawsuit was served on Seagate on September 6, 2006. We served an answer to the complaint on November 27, 2006, denying all material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Siemens amended its complaint to add Tunnel Magnetic Resistance (TMR) sensors to the case. Trial is scheduled to begin November 11, 2008. We believe the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend against them vigorously.

StorMedia Texas LLC v. Comp USA, et al.  On January 22, 2007, a lawsuit was filed against 11 defendants, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,891 (the ‘891 patent), a media patent that is allegedly owned by StorMedia Texas LLC. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. All major hard disc drive companies are named, including Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology LLC, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Samsung, Toshiba, and Western Digital, as well as retailers Comp USA, J&R Electronics, and Tiger Direct. We served an answer to the complaint on April 13, 2007, denying all material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Trial is scheduled to begin March 4, 2009. A request for reexamination of the ‘891 patent was granted and all claims were rejected as unpatentable over the prior art in an initial office action dated March 17, 2008. We believe the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend against them vigorously.

Reiber, et al. v. Western Digital, et al . On September 15, 2007, Steven F. and Mary L. Reiber filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, requesting an investigation of Western Digital Corporation, Seagate Technology, Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Dell, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Reibers are inventors on three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,354,479 (the ‘479 patent), 6,651,864 (the ‘864 patent), and 6,935,548 (the ‘548 patent) that generally relate to dissipative bonding tips used to form electrical connections, and methods of using such tips in producing disk drives. The ITC complaint seeks to enjoin respondents from importing hard disk drives and certain products containing hard disk drives into the United States. Simultaneously, the Reibers filed a case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, alleging infringement of the same three patents against the same defendants and seeking damages. On April 17, 2008, we reached a settlement of both cases with the Reibers. The Reibers took discovery of Seagate’s hard disk drive products (HDDs), as well as the processes and equipment used to perform bonding functions in the manufacture of Seagate’s HDDs. Based on that discovery, the Reibers determined that Seagate’s HDDs, and the processes and equipment used in the manufacture of Seagate’s HDDs, do not infringe the patents that the Reibers asserted against Seagate and certain customers who bought Seagate’s HDDs. As a part of the Settlement Agreement, the Reibers have agreed not to assert the relevant patents in the future against Seagate, customers of Seagate, or vendors who supply either components that are incorporated into Seagate HDDs or equipment that is used in the manufacture of

65

Table of Contents

Seagate HDDs, to the extent that the processes and equipment used in the manufacture of Seagate HDDs or the components therein have the same relevant characteristics as those determined to be non-infringing in the pending litigation. Both parties have given each other full releases with respect to claims made in the instant litigation and other claims arising before the effective date of the Settlement Agreement. The release provided by the Reibers also extends to customers who have purchased Seagate HDDs, and to vendors who have supplied either components that were incorporated into Seagate’s HDDs or equipment that was used in the manufacture of Seagate’s HDDs. The cases will be dismissed with prejudice.

Environmental Matters

Our operations inside and outside the United States are subject to laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment, including those governing the discharge of pollutants into the air, soil and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and clean-up of contaminated sites. Contaminants have been detected at some of our current and former sites, principally in connection with historical operations. In addition, we have been named as a potentially responsible party at several superfund sites. Investigative activities have taken place at all sites of known contamination. One former site is under a Consent Order by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The extent of the contamination at this site has been investigated and defined and remediation is underway. We are indemnified by a third party for a portion of the costs it may incur in the clean up of contamination at most sites. In the opinion of management, the probability is remote that the losses arising from these environmental matters would be material to our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

We may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) has enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (“RoHS”), which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including hard drives, put on the market after July 1, 2006 as well as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (“WEEE”) directive, which makes producers of electrical goods, including disc drives, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, China and Japan. We will need to ensure that we comply with such laws and regulations as they are enacted, and that our component suppliers also timely comply with such laws and regulations. If we fail to timely comply with the legislation, our customers may refuse to purchase our products, which would have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Other Matters

We are involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to our business, and we may be involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, we believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

66

Table of Contents