UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark one)

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

For the quarterly period ended July 1, 2006

or

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

For the transition period from              to

Commission file number: 000-50307

FormFactor, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

7005 Southfront Road, Livermore, California 94551

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(925) 290-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act 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 ý  No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001, outstanding as of July 31, 2006 was 46,038,695 shares.

FORMFACTOR, INC.

FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JULY 1, 2006

INDEX

2

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

FORMFACTOR, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

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

3

FORMFACTOR, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

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

4

FORMFACTOR, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

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

5

FORMFACTOR, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

Note 1 — Basis of Presentation

Basis of presentation. The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of FormFactor, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and pursuant to the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”). Accordingly, the interim financial statements do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for annual financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair statement have been included. Operating results for the three and six months ended July 1, 2006 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 30, 2006, or for any other period. The balance sheet at December 31, 2005 has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements at that date but does not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. These financial statements and notes should be read with the financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2005 included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC.

Reclassifications. Certain prior period balances have been reclassified to conform to the current financial statement presentation. These reclassifications had no impact on previously reported results of operations or stockholders’ equity.

Note 2 — Significant Accounting Policies

The Company’s significant accounting policies are disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 filed with the SEC. The Company’s significant accounting policies reflect the adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS 123 (R)”); and have otherwise not materially changed during the three and six months ended July 1, 2006.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company implemented SFAS 123 (R) as a new critical accounting policy with regard to equity based compensation. Beginning January 1, 2006, the Company began accounting for stock options and shares issued under its employee stock purchase plan (“ESPP”) under SFAS 123 (R), which requires the recognition of the fair value of equity based compensation. The fair value of stock options and ESPP shares was estimated using a Black-Scholes option valuation model. This model requires the Company to make subjective assumptions in implementing SFAS 123 (R), including expected stock price volatility, estimated life and estimated forfeitures of each award. The fair value of equity-based awards is amortized over the vesting period of the award, and the Company has elected to use the straight-line method. The Company makes quarterly assessments of the adequacy of the tax credit pool to determine if there are any deficiencies which require recognition in the condensed consolidated income statements. Prior to the implementation of SFAS 123 (R), the Company accounted for stock options and ESPP shares under the provisions of Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” and made pro forma footnote disclosures as required by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure,” which amended SFAS 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” Pro forma net income and pro forma net income per share disclosed in the footnotes to the condensed consolidated financial statements were estimated using a Black-Scholes option valuation model. Under APB Opinion No. 25, SFAS 123 and SFAS 123 (R), the fair value of restricted stock units was calculated based upon the fair market value of the Company’s common stock at the date of grant.

The Company has elected to adopt the alternative transition method provided under the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Staff Position No. FAS 123 (R)- 3 “Transition Election Related to Accounting for Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment Awards.” The alternative transition method includes simplified methods to establish the beginning balance of the additional paid-in capital pool (“APIC pool”) related to the tax effects of employee stock-based compensation, and to determine the subsequent impact on the APIC pool and consolidated statements of cash flows of the tax effects of employee stock-based compensation awards that are outstanding upon adoption of SFAS 123 (R).

Note 3 — Follow-On Public Offering

On March 15, 2006, the Company completed a follow-on offering of 5,000,000 shares of its common stock. The sales of shares of common stock by the Company resulted in aggregate gross proceeds of $190.1 million,

6

$8.1 million of which the Company applied to underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses. As a result, the Company received $182.0 million of the net offering proceeds.

Note 4 — Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (principally standard cost which approximates actual cost on a first-in, first-out basis) or market value. The Company provides inventory provisions based on excess and obsolete inventories determined primarily by future demand forecasts. The provision is measured as the difference between the cost of the inventory and market based upon assumptions about future demand and charged to the provision for inventory, which is a component of cost of revenues. At the point of the loss recognition, a new, lower cost basis for that inventory is established, and subsequent changes in facts and circumstances do not result in the restoration or increase in that newly established cost basis.

Inventories consisted of the following:

Note 5 — Warranty

The Company offers warranties on certain products and records a liability for the estimated future costs associated with customer claims, which is based upon historical experience and the Company’s estimate of the level of future costs. Warranty costs are reflected in the income statement as a cost of revenues. A reconciliation of the changes in the Company’s warranty liability (included in accrued liabilities) for the three and six months ended July 1, 2006 follows:

Note 6 — Stock-Based Compensation

Effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R), using the modified prospective transition method. SFAS 123 (R) requires companies to recognize the cost of employee services received in exchange for awards of equity instruments based upon the grant-date fair value of those awards. Using the modified prospective transition method, the Company began recognizing compensation expense for equity-based awards granted after December 31, 2005 plus unvested awards granted prior to December 31, 2005. Stock-based compensation expense for unvested awards granted prior to December 31, 2005 is amortized based on the measurement of fair value under SFAS 123, while awards granted after December 31, 2005 are measured under the guidance of SFAS 123 (R). Under this method of implementation no restatement of prior periods has been made. The cumulative effect related to the implementation of this new accounting principle as of January 1, 2006 was not material.

7

The application of SFAS No. 123 (R) had the following effects on reported amounts for the three and six months ended July 1, 2006:

(1)   Stock-based compensation expense of $299,000 and $731,000 for the three and six months ended July 1, 2006, respectively, related primarily to pre-initial public offering “cheap stock” would have been recorded under the provisions of APB No. 25.

(2)   Stock-based compensation expense of $92,000 and $184,000 for the three and six months ended July 1, 2006, respectively, related to restricted stock units would have been recorded under the provisions of APB No. 25.

Prior to January 1, 2006, the Company measured compensation expense for its employee equity-based compensation plans using the intrinsic value method under APB 25 and related interpretations. In connection with the grant of stock options to employees in fiscal 2001, fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2003 through the Company’s initial public offering, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense under the provisions of APB 25 as these options were considered compensatory because the fair value of the Company’s stock determined for financial reporting purposes was greater than the fair value determined at the date of the grant. As of December 31, 2005, the Company had an aggregate of $1.5 million of stock-based compensation remaining to be amortized related to these options under the intrinsic valuation method.

In addition, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense related to the issuance of restricted stock. As of December 31, 2005, the Company had an aggregate of $1.0 million of unamortized stock-based compensation related to restricted stock.

Stock Options

The exercise price of each stock option equals the market price of the Company’s stock on the date of grant. Most options are scheduled to vest over four years and expire in either seven or ten years from the grant date. The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. In addition, the Company estimates forfeitures when recognizing compensation expense, and will adjust its estimate of forfeitures over the requisite service period based on the extent to which actual forfeitures differ, or are expected to differ, from such estimates. Changes in estimated forfeitures will be recognized as a change in estimate in the period of change and will also impact the amount of compensation expense to be recognized in future periods.

8

The following weighted average assumptions were used in the estimated grant-date fair value calculations for stock options:

The computation of the expected volatility assumption used in the Black-Scholes calculations for new grants is based on a combination of historical and implied volatilities. Specifically, the Company estimates the implied volatility of its common stock at the date of grant based on the implied volatility of publicly traded options on its common stock, with a term of one year or greater. The risk-free interest rates are based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of the grant for periods corresponding with the expected life of the option. When establishing the expected life assumption, the Company applied the simplified method approach as outlined in Staff Accounting Bulleting No. 107. The simplified method is based on the vesting period and the contractual term for each grant, or for each vesting-tranche for awards with graded vesting. The mid-point between the vesting date and the expiration date is used as the expected term under this method.

During the three and six months ended July 1, 2006, the Company granted approximately 1,654,427 and 1,889,127 stock options with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $30.9 and $34.6 million, respectively. During the three and six months ended July 1, 2006, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense related to stock options of $4.2 and $8.5 million, respectively. As of July 1, 2006, the unamortized stock-based compensation balance related to stock options was $45.6 million after estimated forfeitures which will be recognized over an estimated weighted average amortization period of 2.3 years. Approximately $0.6 million of stock-based compensation was capitalized in inventory as of July 1, 2006.

Equity Incentive Plans

The Company has four incentive plans: 1996 Stock Option Plan, Incentive Option Plan and Management Incentive Option Plan (collectively, the “Plans”) and 2002 Equity Incentive Plan. In April of fiscal 2002, the Board of Directors adopted the 2002 Equity Incentive Plan (“2002 Plan”), which became effective upon the effective date of the initial public offering of the Company’s common stock. Since the effectiveness of the 2002 Plan, the Company does not grant any options under the Plans.

Activity under the Plans and the 2002 Plan is set forth below:

9

The options outstanding and exercisable at July 1, 2006 were in the following exercise price ranges:

The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pre-tax intrinsic value based on the Company’s closing stock price of $44.63 on June 30, 2006, which would have been received by the option holders had all option holders exercised their options as of that date. The total number of in-the-money options vested and exercisable as of July 1, 2006 was 2,483,528.

The weighted average grant-date fair value of options granted during the three and six months ended July 1, 2006 was $18.70 and $18.34, respectively. Cash received from stock option exercises was $2.9 million and $7.1 million during the three and six months ended July 1, 2006, respectively. In connection with these exercises, the gross tax benefits realized by the Company for the three and six months ended July 1, 2006 was $0.6 million and $1.2 million, respectively.

The Company settles employee stock option exercises with newly issued common shares.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

The Company’s employee stock purchase plan provides that eligible employees may contribute up to 15% of their eligible earnings toward the semi-annual purchase of FormFactor’s common stock. Under the ESPP, employees may purchase the Company’s common stock through payroll deductions at a price equal to 85 percent of the lower of the fair market value at the beginning of the applicable offering period or at the end of each applicable purchase period. Offering periods are generally two years in length. 95,012 shares were issued under the ESPP during the six months ended July 1, 2006. Compensation expense is calculated using the fair value of the employees’ purchase rights under the Black-Scholes model. As of July 1, 2006, the Company had $0.9 million of total unrecognized deferred stock-based compensation, net of estimated forfeitures related to ESPP grants, which will be recognized over the weighted average period of 0.6 years.

10

Restricted Stock Units

Restricted stock units are converted into shares of the Company’s common stock upon vesting on a one-for-one basis. The vesting of restricted stock units is subject to the employee’s continuing service to the Company. The cost of these awards is determined using the fair value of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant, and compensation cost is recognized over the vesting period. Restricted stock units generally vest over four years.

Activity of the restricted stock units under the Company’s equity compensation plans during the six months ended July 1, 2006 is set forth below:

As of July 1, 2006, the Company had $0.8 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation costs, net of estimated forfeitures, related to restricted stock unit grants, which will be recognized over the weighted average period of 1.6 years. As of July 1, 2006, the Company expects 37,324 restricted stock units to vest.

11

Prior to fiscal 2006, the Company applied the disclosure-only provisions of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”, as amended. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share for the three and six months ended June 25, 2005 if the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS 123 had been applied to options granted under the Company’s equity-based employee compensation plans. For purposes of this pro forma disclosure, the estimated value of the options is recognized over the options’ vesting periods.

For purposes of the weighted-average estimated fair value calculations, the fair value of each stock option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions:

Note 7 — Net Income per Share

Basic net income per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted net income per share is computed giving effect to all potential dilutive common stock, including stock options, warrants, restricted stock units and common stock subject to repurchase.

12

A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic and diluted net income per share follows:

The following outstanding options to purchase common stock and restricted stock units were excluded from the computation of diluted net income per share as they had an antidilutive effect (in thousands):

13

Note 8 — Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental Matters

The Company is subject to U.S. federal, state and local, foreign governmental laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the clean-up of contaminated sites and the maintenance of a safe workplace. The Company believes that it complies with all material environmental laws and regulations that apply to the Company.

While the Company believes that it is in compliance with all material environmental laws and regulations that apply to the Company, the Company has received, and in the future, the Company may receive, environmental violation notices, and if received, final resolution of the violations identified by these notices could impact the Company’s operations. New laws and regulations could have application to, and impact the Company’s operations. The discovery of previously unknown contamination at the Company’s or others’ sites or the imposition of new cleanup requirements could adversely impact the Company’s operations, which would have a negative effect on the Company’s operating results and cash flows.

Leases and Purchase Obligations

The Company leases its facilities in Livermore, California, with the exception of one property at its old manufacturing facility in Livermore, which was purchased for a non-material amount. In addition to the base rental, the Company is responsible for certain taxes, insurance and maintenance costs. Each of these facilities includes research and development, administration, sales and marketing, and operations functions. Internationally, the Company leases offices in Germany, Italy, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, which include sales and marketing, research and development, administration and operations functions depending on the location.

The Company leases its facilities under operating lease agreements that expire at various dates through 2012. Future minimum payments under noncancelable operating leases and purchase obligations as of July 1, 2006 are as follows:

Inventory and related purchase obligations represent purchase commitments for silicon wafers and other materials. Gross asset retirement obligations represent expected cash payments, adjusted for inflation, related to asset retirement obligations.

Legal Matters

From time to time, the Company may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, the Company was not involved in any material legal proceedings, other than patent litigation as set forth below.

On February 24, 2004, the Company filed in the Seoul Southern District Court, located in Seoul, South Korea, two separate complaints against Phicom Corporation, a Korean corporation, alleging infringement of a total of four Korean patents issued to the Company. One complaint alleges that Phicom is infringing the Company’s Korean Patent Nos. 252,457, entitled “Method of

14

Fabricating Interconnections Using Cantilever Elements and Sacrificial Substrates,” and 324,064, entitled “Contact Tip Structures for Microelectronic Interconnection Elements and Methods of Making Same”. The other complaint alleges Phicom is infringing the Company’s Korean Patent Nos. 278,342, entitled “Method of Altering the Orientation of Probe Elements in a Probe Card Assembly,” and 399,210, entitled “Probe Card Assembly”. Both complaints seek injunctive relief. The court actions are part of the Company’s ongoing efforts to protect the intellectual property embodied in its proprietary technology, including its MicroSpring interconnect technology.

On or about March 19, 2004, Phicom filed in the Korean Intellectual Property Office, or KIPO, invalidity actions challenging the validity of some or all of the claims of each of the four Company patents at issue in the Seoul infringement actions. KIPO dismissed Phicom’s challenges against all four of the patents-at-issue. Phicom appealed the dismissals of the challenges to the Korean Patent Court.

On or about October 27, 2005, the Korean Patent Court issued rulings holding invalid certain claims of two of the Company’s Korean patents. The two Korean patents affected by the decisions are Nos. 278,342, entitled “Method of Altering the Orientation of Probe Elements in a Probe Card Assembly,” and 399,210, entitled “Probe Card Assembly”. The Company is appealing these decisions to the Korean Supreme Court. The Company is also continuing its enforcement action against Phicom under these patents in the Seoul Southern District Court, including alleging infringement of certain claims from the patents that were not addressed by the Korean Patent Court decisions.

On or about February 9, 2006, the Korean Patent Court invalidated ten claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 324,064, entitled “Contact Tip Structures for Microelectronic Interconnection Elements and Methods of Making Same,” but did not address some sixty-one other claims of the 324,064 patent that were not before the Patent Court. The Company is appealing the decision on its Korean Patent No. 324,064 to the Korean Supreme Court. On or about June 15, 2006, the Korean Patent Court issued a decision upholding the validity of all of the claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 252,457, entitled “Method of Fabricating Interconnections Using Cantilever Elements and Sacrificial Substrates.” Phicom has appealed this ruling on the 252,457 patent to the Korean Supreme Court. The Company is also continuing its enforcement action against Phicom under both the 252,457 and 324,064 Korean patents in the Seoul Southern District Court, including certain claims from the 324,064 patent that were not addressed by the Korean Patent Court decision.

On August 7, 2006 the Company filed in the Seoul Central District Court, located in Seoul, South Korea, two actions against Phicom alleging infringement of certain claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 252,457, entitled “Method of Fabricating Interconnections Using Cantilever Elements and Sacrificial Substrates.” The actions include an “injuction” action, which seeks preliminary injuctive relief, and a “merits” action. Phicom has not yet filed with the Court a response to the actions.

The proceedings in Korea should not affect the Company’s corresponding U.S. and other international patents.

On March 4, 2005, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Phicom charging that it is willfully infringing four U.S. patents that cover key aspects of the Company’s wafer probe cards. The complaint in this action alleges that Phicom has incorporated the Company’s proprietary technology into its products and seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The U.S. patents identified in the complaint are U.S. Patent No. 5,974,662, entitled “Method of Planarizing Tips of Probe Elements of a Probe Card Assembly”, U.S. Patent No. 6,246,247, entitled “Probe Card Assembly and Kit, and Methods of Using Same”, U.S. Patent No. 6,624,648, entitled “Probe Card Assembly” and U.S. Patent No. 5,994,152, entitled “Fabricating Interconnects and Tips Using Sacrificial Substrates”. Three of the patents at issue in the U.S. are substantially identical to those at issue in the Company’s litigation with Phicom in Korea. On or about August 2, 2005, Phicom answered the complaint by denying infringement, alleging defenses and asserting counterclaims seeking adjudications on the validity and enforceability of the Company’s patents and whether Phicom is infringing those patents. Phicom’s motion with the Oregon District Court seeking that the lawsuit be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California was denied without prejudice by the District Court. On or about February 7, 2006, the District Court issued a scheduling order as jointly proposed by the parties that culminates in a pretrial conference in or about August 2007, followed by a two to four week trial at a date to be set by the Court. As of the date of this Form 10-Q, discovery has begun and the parties have exchanged written preliminary contentions regarding infringement and validity.

The Company has incurred and could in the future incur material legal expenses in connection with these legal proceedings.

One or more third parties have initiated challenges in foreign patent offices against other of the Company’s patents. For example, on or about October 6, 2004, Micronics Japan Co., Ltd. filed an invalidation proceeding with KIPO relating to the Company’s Korean Patent No. 312,872. After briefing, KIPO dismissed the challenge and upheld the validity of all of the claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 312,872. The matter was appealed by Micronics to the Korean Patent Court, which has yet to render a decision. MJC also filed a new proceeding in KIPO challenging the validity of the 312,872 patent. On or about April 22, 2005, an invalidation action was filed by Micronics with KIPO against the Company’s Korean Patent No. 467,997. KIPO has yet to rule on this invalidation action. By way of further example, challenges against four of the Company’s Taiwan patents, Taiwan Patent

15

Nos. 83,716, 189,155, 198,158 and 121,535, have been filed in the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, or TIPO. TIPO has not issued rulings in any of the validity challenge proceedings. While the Company believes that it does not have a material monetary damages exposure in these various invalidity proceedings, it is possible the Company will incur material attorneys’ fees in defending its intellectual property at issue in these challenges.

Indemnification Obligations

The Company from time to time in the ordinary course of its business enters into contractual arrangements with third parties that include indemnification obligations. Under these contractual arrangements, the Company has agreed to defend, indemnify and hold the third party harmless from and against certain losses. These arrangements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made, the type of the claim and the total amount that the Company can be required to pay in connection with the indemnification obligation. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and certain of its officers, and the Company’s bylaws contain indemnification obligations in favor of the Company’s directors, officers and agents. It is not possible to determine or reasonably estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments under these indemnification obligations due to the varying terms of such obligations, the history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular contractual arrangement and in each potential future claim for indemnification. The Company has not had any requests for indemnification under these arrangements. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification arrangements on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet as of July 1, 2006.

Note 9 — Asset Retirement Obligation

The Company accounts for the retirement of tangible long-lived assets and the associated asset retirement costs in accordance with SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations”. SFAS No. 143 requires that the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation be recognized in the period in which it is incurred if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. In accordance with SFAS No. 143, the fair value of the liability is added to the carrying amount of the associated asset and this additional carrying amount is amortized over the life of the asset. The Company’s asset retirement obligation is associated with its commitment to return property subject to operating leases in Jubei City Hsinchu, Taiwan, Tokyo and Yokohama, Japan to original condition upon lease termination. The Company estimated that as of July 1, 2006, gross expected future cash flows of approximately $1.0 million would be required to fulfill these obligations. The Company has recorded the respective asset retirement obligations and a corresponding increase in leasehold improvements. This amount represents the present value of expected future cash flows associated with returning the leased property to original condition. The leasehold improvements are being amortized to depreciation and amortization expense over the term of the lease.

Note 10 — Stockholders’ Equity

Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) includes foreign currency translation adjustments and unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities, the impact of which has been excluded from net income and reflected as components of stockholders’ equity.

16

Components of comprehensive income were as follows:

Components of accumulated other comprehensive loss were as follows:

Note 11 — Derivative Financial Instruments

The Company purchases forward exchange contracts to hedge certain existing foreign currency denominated accounts receivable. These hedges do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” The Company recognizes gains or losses from the fluctuation in foreign exchange rates and the valuation of these hedge contracts in other expense. The Company does not use derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. As of July 1, 2006, the Company had one outstanding foreign exchange forward contract to sell 1,795,000,000 Japanese Yen for $15,722,168 with a contract rate of 114.17 Japanese Yen per U.S. Dollar.

Note 12 — Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB Interpretation No. (FIN) 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – An Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,” which prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. FIN 48 will be effective beginning the first quarter of fiscal 2007. The Company has not yet evaluated the impact of implementation on its consolidated financial statements.

In July 2006, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 06-3, “How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to Governmental Authorities Should be Presented in the Income Statement (That is, Gross versus Net Presentation).” The adoption of EITF No. 06-3 did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company’s accounting policy has been to present above mentioned taxes on a net basis, excluded from revenues.

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

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This quarterly report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, which are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. The forward-looking statements include statements concerning, among other things, our business strategy, including anticipated trends and developments in and management plans for our business and the markets in which we operate, financial results, operating results, revenues, gross margin, operating expenses, products, projected costs and capital expenditures, research and development programs, sales and marketing initiatives, and competition. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “intend” and “continue,” the negative or plural of these words and other comparable terminology.

The forward-looking statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and our projections about future events. All forward-looking statements included in this quarterly report are based upon information available to us as of the filing date of this quarterly report. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update any of these statements for any reason. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these statements. These factors include the matters discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 and elsewhere in this quarterly report. You should carefully consider the numerous risks and uncertainties described under such sections.

17

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes contained in this quarterly report. Unless expressly stated or the context otherwise requires, the terms “we,” “our,” “us” and “FormFactor” refer to FormFactor, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Overview

We design, develop, manufacture, sell and support precision, high performance advanced semiconductor wafer probe cards. Semiconductor manufacturers use our wafer probe cards to perform wafer probe test on the whole semiconductor wafer, prior to singulation, in the front end of the semiconductor manufacturing process. After the fabrication of a semiconductor wafer, the chips on the wafer are subject to wafer probe test. During wafer probe test, a wafer probe card is mounted in a prober, which is in turn connected to a semiconductor tester, and the wafer probe card is used as an interface to connect electronically with and test individual chips on a wafer. At the core of our product offering are our proprietary technologies, including our MicroSpring interconnect technology and design processes. Our MicroSpring interconnect technology includes a resilient contact element manufactured at our production facilities in Livermore, California. We operate in a single industry segment and have derived our revenues primarily from the sale of wafer probe cards incorporating our MicroSpring interconnect technology.

We work closely with our customers to design, develop and manufacture custom wafer probe cards. Each wafer probe card is a custom product that is specific to the chip and wafer designs of the customer. Our customers, in turn, operate in the highly cyclical semiconductor industry and are subject to fluctuations in the demand for their products. Because of the nature of our customers, and our business, our revenue growth is driven in significant part by the number of new semiconductor designs that our customers develop, the technology transitions involved in these designs and our customers’ production volumes. In the past, this has resulted in our being subject to demand fluctuations that have resulted in significant variations of revenues, expenses and results of operations in the periods presented. We expect these fluctuations, and the resulting variations in our financial results, to continue in future periods.

Revenues.  We derive substantially all of our revenues from product sales of wafer probe cards. Wafer probe card sales, including service and non-recurring engineering revenue associated with wafer probe card sales, accounted for virtually all of our revenues in the first half of fiscal 2006 and 2005. Revenues from licensing of our design and manufacturing technologies have historically been insignificant. Increases in revenues have resulted from increased demand for our existing products, the introduction of new, more complex products and the penetration of new markets. Revenues from our customers are subject to both quarterly, annual and other fluctuations due to design cycles, technology adoption rates and cyclicality of the different end markets into which our customers’ products are sold.

Cost of Revenues.   Cost of revenues consists primarily of manufacturing materials, payroll and manufacturing-related overhead. In addition, cost of revenues also includes costs related to the start up of our new manufacturing facility. Our manufacturing operations rely upon a limited number of suppliers to provide key components and materials for our products, some of which are a sole source. We order materials and supplies based on backlog and forecasted customer orders. Tooling and setup costs related to changing manufacturing lots at our suppliers are also included in the cost of revenues. We expense all warranty costs and inventory provisions or write-offs of inventory as cost of revenues.

We design, manufacture and sell a fully custom product for wafer probe test to semiconductor manufacturers, which operate in an industry subject to significant cyclicality and demand fluctuations. Our wafer probe cards are complex products that are custom to a specific chip design and must be delivered on relatively short lead-times as compared to our overall manufacturing process. As our advanced wafer probe cards are manufactured in low volumes and must be delivered on relatively short lead-times, it is not uncommon for us to acquire production materials and start certain production activities based on estimated production yields and forecasted demand prior to or in excess of actual demand for our wafer probe cards. We record inventory write downs for estimated obsolete and non-saleable inventories equal to the difference between the cost of inventories and the estimated market value based upon assumptions about future demand and market conditions. If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional inventory reserve would be required. Once established, the original cost of our inventory less the related inventory reserve represents the new cost basis of such products. Reversal of these reserves is recognized only when the related inventory has been scrapped or sold.

Research and Development.   Research and development expenses include expenses related to product development, engineering and material costs. Almost all research and development costs are expensed as incurred. We plan to continue to invest a significant amount in research and development activities to develop new technologies for current and new markets and new applications in the future.

Selling, General and Administrative.   Selling, general and administrative expenses include expenses related to sales, marketing, and administrative personnel, internal and outside sales representatives’ commissions, market research and consulting, and other sales,

18

marketing, and administrative activities. These expenses also include costs for enforcing our patent rights and regulatory compliance costs. We expect that selling expenses will increase as revenues increase, and we expect that general and administrative expenses will increase in absolute dollars to support future revenue growth.

Use of Estimates. Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amount of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to uncollectible receivables, inventories, marketable securities, intangible assets, income taxes, warranty obligations, excess component and order cancellation costs, contingencies and litigation, and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical stock-based compensation experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.

Stock-based Compensation. Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted the provisions of SFAS 123 (R), which require us to measure all employee stock-based compensation awards using a fair value method and record such expense in our consolidated financial statements. In connection with our implementation of SFAS 123 (R), we have included in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations certain non-GAAP measures, which are not in accordance with, or an alternative for, generally accepted accounting principles and may be different from non-GAAP measures used by other companies. We believe that our financial presentation in this section, which includes non-GAAP measures and the corresponding GAAP measures, gives our stockholders and other interested persons the benefit of a consistent basis for assessing our financial results for the three and six months ended July 1, 2006 relative to our historical GAAP financials. Prior historical periods included only stock-based compensation charges related to pre-initial public offering “cheap stock” and restricted stock units accounted for under the provisions of APB 25. Our management also uses certain non-GAAP measures when assessing business trends and performance, forecasting and planning future operations, and evaluating our financial performance when compared to prior periods. These non-GAAP measures should be considered along with our GAAP measures.

Results of Operations

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