Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark one)

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)

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 o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of the Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o  No o

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. (Check one):

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

As of April 24, 2009, 49,342,529 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, were outstanding.

Table of Contents

FORMFACTOR, INC.

FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 28, 2009

INDEX

2

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

FORMFACTOR, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

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

3

Table of Contents

FORMFACTOR, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

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

4

Table of Contents

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

Table of Contents

FORMFACTOR, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

Note 1 — Basis of Presentation

Basis of presentation. The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated interim 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 and pursuant to the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Company’s 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 to fairly present the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows have been included. Operating results for the three months ended March 28, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 26, 2009, or for any other period. The balance sheet at December 27, 2008 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 consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 27, 2008 included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 27, 2009.

Fiscal Year. The Company operates on a 52/53 week fiscal year, whereby the year ends on the last Saturday of December. Fiscal 2009 will end on December 26, 2009, and will consist of 52 weeks.

Reclassifications.  Certain prior period balances have been reclassified to conform to the current financial statement presentation.

Note 2 —Recent Accounting Pronouncements and Other Reporting Considerations

In April 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FASB Staff position (“FSP”) No. 157-4 “Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly” to emphasize the use of an observable market transaction even when that transaction may not have been orderly or the market for that transaction may not have been active. FSP 157-4 gives guidance on (i) determining when volume and level of activity of an asset or liability has significantly decreased, (ii) identifying circumstances in which the transaction is not orderly and (iii) understanding the fair value implications of both (i) and (ii). This FSP does not require disclosures for earlier periods presented for comparative purposes at initial adoption. In periods after initial adoption, this FSP requires comparative disclosures only for periods ending after initial adoption. This FSP is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The Company’s adoption of this FSP in the second quarter of fiscal 2009 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, “Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments” to amend the other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities to make the guidance more operational and to improve the presentation and disclosure of other-than-temporary impairments in financial statements. This FSP does not amend existing recognition and measurement guidance related to other-than-temporary impairments of equity securities. This FSP does not require disclosures for earlier periods presented for comparative purposes at initial adoption. In periods after initial adoption, this FSP requires comparative disclosures only for periods ending after initial adoption. The provisions of this FSP are effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. Earlier adoption for periods ending before March 15, 2009, is not permitted. The Company’s adoption of this FSP in the second quarter of fiscal 2009 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, “Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments” to require disclosures about fair value of financial instruments for interim reporting periods of publicly traded companies as well as in annual financial statements. This FSP also amends the Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 28, “Interim Financial Reporting,” (“APB No. 28”) to require those disclosures in summarized financial information at interim reporting periods. This FSP does not require disclosures for earlier periods presented for comparative purposes at initial adoption. In periods after initial adoption, this FSP requires comparative disclosures only for periods ending after initial adoption. This FSP is effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The Company does not expect the changes associated with adoption of this FSP will have a material effect on the reporting of its financial results.

6

Table of Contents

The Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) No. 08-1, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables,” modifies the objective-and-reliable-evidence-of-fair-value threshold in EITF Issue No. 00-21, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables.” The modification would allow the use of an estimated selling price for undelivered elements for purposes of separating elements included in multiple-element arrangements and allocating arrangement consideration when neither vendor-specific objective evidence nor acceptable third-party evidence of the selling price are available. In addition, this modification would eliminate the residual method for allocation of arrangement consideration.  If this standard is enacted, it could alter the timing of how the Company records revenue for future arrangements. As the standard is not final, the Company cannot currently predict what the impact of these changes could be on its consolidated financial statements.

In March 2009, FASB unanimously voted for the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (the “Codification”) to be effective beginning on July 1, 2009. Other than resolving certain minor inconsistencies in current United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), the Codification is not supposed to change GAAP, but is intended to make it easier to find and research GAAP applicable to particular transactions or specific accounting issues. The Codification is a new structure which takes accounting pronouncements and organizes them by approximately ninety accounting topics. Once approved, the Codification will be the single source of authoritative U.S. GAAP. All guidance included in the Codification will be considered authoritative at that time, even guidance that comes from what is currently deemed to be a non-authoritative section of a standard. Once the Codification becomes effective, all non-grandfathered, non-SEC accounting literature not included in the Codification will become non-authoritative.

Note 3 — Restructuring Charges

The Company accounts for restructuring and separation costs in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 146, “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities” (“SFAS No. 146”).  The Company recorded restructuring charges of $7.7 million and $5.3 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2009 and 2008, respectively. The restructuring plan implemented in the first quarter of 2009 is discussed in detail below. For a complete discussion of all restructuring actions that were implemented prior to fiscal 2009, please refer to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on February 27, 2009.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company implemented a global reorganization and cost reduction plan (the “Q1 2009 Restructuring Plan”) designed to lower the company’s cash breakeven level in order to enable the company to sustain itself financially in the current market environment. The Q1 2009 Restructuring Plan extended the global cost reduction plans implemented during fiscal 2008 and included workforce reductions of 178 employees spread across all functions of the organization. The Q1 2009 Restructuring Plan also included other actions such as the elimination of 24 contractor positions as well as non-replacement of certain voluntary employee terminations. In accordance with SFAS 146, the Company recorded $7.7 million in charges for this restructuring plan in the first quarter of fiscal 2009, of which $7.3 million related to severance and related benefits and $0.4 million related to write-down of certain assets taken out of service. The Company expects to incur approximately $0.3 million in connection with this restructuring plan in the second quarter of fiscal 2009. The activity in the restructuring accrual for the three months ended March 28, 2009 was as follows (in thousands):

In the first quarter of fiscal 2008, the Company implemented a global cost reduction plan that included reducing its global workforce. The worldwide reduction in workforce involved approximately 14% of the headcount prior to the reduction. The majority of the activities comprising the cost reduction plan were completed by the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2008 and consisted primarily of global workforce reductions and property and equipment impairments. The Company recorded a charge of $5.3 million related to this plan during fiscal 2008. These initiatives are anticipated to result in additional cost reductions in the near term as a result of a more effective management structure. The Company believes this will allow the business to run more efficiently without sacrificing the Company’s ability to serve its customers.

7

Table of Contents

Restructuring charges are reflected separately as “Restructuring” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The remaining accrual as of March 28, 2009 relates primarily to severance benefits which will be paid within the next 12 months. As such, the restructuring accrual is recorded as a current liability within Accrued Liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Note 4 — Fair Value

The Company adopted SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS 157”) as of the beginning of its fiscal 2008 year.  In February 2008, FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157,” which provides a one year deferral of the effective date of SFAS 157 for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed in the financial statements at fair value at least annually. The Company adopted SFAS 157 as it relates to nonrecurring fair value measurement requirements for non-financial assets and liabilities as of the beginning of its 2009 fiscal year. The adoption of SFAS 157 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

SFAS No. 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. The standard describes a fair value hierarchy based on three levels of inputs, the first two of which are considered observable and the last unobservable, that may be used to measure fair value:

·                  Level 1 - Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

·                  Level 2 - Inputs, other than the quoted prices in active markets, that are observable either directly or indirectly.

·                  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.

Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The Company measures and reports certain assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis, including money market funds, U. S. government securities, municipal bonds, agency securities and foreign currency derivatives. In accordance with SFAS 157, the following table represents the Company’s fair value hierarchy for its financial assets (cash equivalents and marketable securities) measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of March 28, 2009 (in thousands):

The Level 1 assets consist of the Company’s money market fund deposits. The Level 2 assets consist of the Company’s available-for-sale debt investment portfolio. The Company’s investments are priced by pricing vendors who provided observable inputs for their pricing without applying significant judgments. Broker’s pricing is used mainly when a quoted price is not available, the investment is not priced by the Company’s pricing vendors or when a broker price is more reflective of fair values in the market in which the investment trades. The Company’s broker-priced investments are labeled as Level 2 investments because brokers price these investments based on similar assets without applying significant judgments. In addition, all of the Company’s broker-priced investments have a sufficient level of trading volume to demonstrate that the fair values used are appropriate for these investments.

8

Table of Contents

Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis

The following table presents the Company’s asset that was measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis during the three months ended March 28, 2009 (in thousands):

The Level 3 asset consisted of a building held for sale in Livermore, California. The Company used unobservable inputs to value the building held for sale reflecting the Company’s assumptions that market participants would use in pricing this asset due to the absence of recent comparable market transactions and inherent lack of liquidity.

The Company’s fair value processes include controls that are designed to ensure appropriate fair values are recorded. Such controls include model validation, review of key model inputs, and analysis of period-over-period fluctuations and independent recalculation of prices.

Note 5 — Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

A majority of the Company’s trade receivables are derived from sales to large multinational semiconductor manufacturers throughout the world. In order to monitor potential credit losses, the Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition. An allowance for doubtful accounts is maintained for probable credit losses based upon the Company’s assessment of the expected collectibility of all accounts receivable. The allowance for doubtful accounts is reviewed on a quarterly basis to assess the adequacy of the allowance. The Company takes into consideration (1) any circumstances of which the Company is aware of a customer’s inability to meet its financial obligations; and (2) its judgments as to prevailing economic conditions in the industry and their impact on its customers. If circumstances change, and the financial condition of its customers are adversely affected and they are unable to meet their financial obligations to the Company, the Company may need to take additional allowances, which would result in an increase in the Company’s net loss.

The Company recorded a provision for doubtful debts of $5.2 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2009 primarily due to the heightened risk of non-payment of accounts receivable by certain customers facing financial difficulty. The allowance for doubtful accounts consisted of the following activity for the three months ended March 28, 2009 (in thousands):

Note 6 — 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. Provision for estimated excess and obsolete inventories are made based on management’s analysis of inventory levels and future sales forecasts. Once the value is adjusted, the original cost of the Company’s inventory less the related inventory write-down represents the new cost basis of such products. Reversal of these write-downs is recognized only when the related inventory has been scrapped or sold.

The Company designs, manufactures and sells a fully custom product into a market that has been subject to cyclicality and significant demand fluctuations. Probe cards are complex products, custom to a specific chip design and must be delivered on short lead-times. Probe cards are manufactured in low volumes; therefore, material purchases are often subject

9

Table of Contents

to minimum purchase order quantities in excess of the actual demand. It is not uncommon for the Company 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 the Company’s wafer probe cards. These factors make inventory valuation adjustments part of the Company’s normal recurring cost of revenue. Aggregate inventory write downs were $5.1 million, and $5.5 million for the quarters ended March 28, 2009, and March 29, 2008, respectively. The Company retains a portion of the excess inventory until the customer’s design is discontinued. The inventory may be used to satisfy customer warranty obligations.

When the Company’s products have been delivered, but the revenue associated with that product is deferred because the related revenue recognition criteria have not been met, the Company defers the related inventory costs. The deferred inventory costs do not exceed the deferred revenue amounts.

Inventories consisted of the following (in thousands):

Note 7 — Warranty

The Company offers warranties on its products, other than certain evaluation and early adopter products that are not offered with warranty, and records a liability for the estimated future costs associated with customer warranty claims, which is based upon historical experience and the Company’s estimate of the level of future costs. Warranty costs are reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations as a cost of revenues.

A reconciliation of the changes in the Company’s warranty liability (included in accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets) is as follows (in thousands):

10

Table of Contents

Note 8 — Property and Equipment

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

In fiscal 2007, as part of its global manufacturing plan, the Company entered into a land lease offer agreement to establish a manufacturing facility in Singapore. During fiscal 2008, the Company decided not to proceed with the construction of the new manufacturing facility at this proposed site in Singapore. Accordingly in the first quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company entered into a contract for the early termination of the land lease offer agreement in Singapore and received $6.7 million in exchange for surrendering to the lessor the lease offer and related land.

Note 9 — Comprehensive loss

Comprehensive 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.

Components of comprehensive loss were as follows (in thousands):

Components of accumulated other comprehensive income were as follows (in thousands):

Note 10 — Stockholders’ Equity

Stock Option Plans

The Company has four equity incentive plans: 1996 Stock Option Plan, Incentive Option Plan and Management Incentive Option Plan (collectively, the “Prior Plans”), and 2002 Equity Incentive Plan (“2002 Plan”), which became effective in June 2002. Upon the effectiveness of the 2002 Plan, the Company ceased granting any equity awards under the Prior Plans, although forfeited Prior Plan shares are transferred to the 2002 Plan.

11

Table of Contents

Stock option activity under the Prior Plans and the 2002 Plan during the three months ended March 28, 2009 is set forth below:

The weighted average grant-date fair value of options granted during the quarter ended March 28, 2009 was $0.1 million. The intrinsic value of option exercises during the quarter ended March 28, 2009 was $0.3 million. Cash received from stock option exercises was $0.4 million. In connection with these exercises, the gross tax benefit realized by the Company was approximately $15,000.

Restricted Stock Units

Activity of the restricted stock units under the 2002 Plan during the three months ended March 28, 2009 is set forth below:

Note 11 — Stock-Based Compensation

The Company applies 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.

12

Table of Contents

The table below shows the stock-based compensation charges included in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations (in thousands):

Stock Options

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

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

During the three months ended March 28, 2009 and March 29, 2008, 154,145 shares and 150,410 shares, respectively, were issued under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”). The following assumptions were used in the estimated fair value calculations for the employees’ purchase rights:

13

Table of Contents

Unrecognized Compensation Costs

At March 28, 2009, the unrecognized stock-based compensation, adjusted for estimated forfeitures, was as follows (in thousands):

Note 12 — Net Loss per Share

Basic net (loss) per share is computed by dividing net (loss) by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted net (loss) per share is computed giving effect to all potential dilutive common stock, including stock options, restricted stock units and common stock subject to repurchase. Diluted loss per share for the first quarter of fiscal 2009 as well as the first quarter of fiscal 2008 was based only on the weighted-average number of shares outstanding during that period as the inclusion of any common stock equivalents would have been anti-dilutive.

A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic and diluted net (loss) per share follows (in thousands):

14

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the weighted-average of all potentially dilutive securities excluded from the computation in the table above because their effect would have been antidilutive:

Note 13 — Income Taxes

The Company’s effective income tax rate was a benefit of 26% for the first quarter fiscal of 2009 versus a benefit of 31% in the corresponding quarter of fiscal 2008.  The fiscal 2009 benefit was lower primarily due to a non-recurring, non-cash reduction in the Company’s long term deferred tax assets as of a result of a California tax law change revising the income apportionment computation beginning in 2011.  These long term deferred tax assets had been established under prior law when the Company’s expected California tax rate was to be higher.  This California tax law change will reduce the Company’s California taxes in the future, thus these long term deferred tax assets have been written down to reflect this change.

The Company computed its effective income tax rate for the current quarter based on its year-to-date results rather than on full year estimate of the effective income tax rate.  The Company believes, at this time, the effective tax rate for the quarter is the most reliable estimate of its annual effective income tax rate because the Company’s projected fiscal year 2009 income tax rate is unusually volatile due to significant uncertainty in its annual revenue.  Accordingly, the effective income tax rate for the current quarter reflects only its estimated tax benefits based on the actual results for the three months ended March 28, 2009.  The final effective income tax rate for fiscal year 2009 will likely be different than the tax rate in effect for the three months ended March 28, 2009 and could be considerably higher or lower, depending largely on the Company’s operating results before taxes and the geographic mix of income for the year.

The Company believes that the tax benefits arising from its U.S. loss is more likely than not realizable and accordingly no valuation allowance has been provided against these deferred tax assets.  Realization of these and other deferred tax assets is dependent on the Company’s ability to generate sufficient future taxable income.  If the Company determines that it may not be able to realize all or some portion of its deferred tax assets in the future, it will record a valuation allowance against such assets that could result in additional income tax provisions.  The Company also expects to incur a pretax loss in Singapore for which no tax benefit is being recognized, which will reduce the expected consolidated benefit below the U.S. statutory rate.

Under FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes-an Interpretation of FAS 109”, the Company classifies interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as part of income tax expense. The Company recognized interest expense of $120,000 and $115,000 for the three months ended March 28, 2009 and March 29, 2008, respectively. As of March 28, 2009, the Company had approximately $463,000 of interest and zero penalties related to uncertain tax positions.

The amount of income taxes the Company pays is subject to ongoing audits by federal, state and non-U.S. tax authorities which might result in proposed assessments. The Company’s estimate for the potential outcome for any uncertain tax issue is judgmental in nature. However, the Company believes that it has adequately provided for any reasonably foreseeable outcome related to those matters. The Company’s future results may include favorable or unfavorable adjustments to its estimated tax liabilities in the period the assessments are made or resolved or when statutes of limitation on potential assessments expire. As of March 28, 2009, changes to the Company’s uncertain tax positions in the next 12 months, that are reasonably possible, are not expected to have a significant impact on its financial position or results of operations.

The Company and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, various U.S. states and non-U.S. jurisdictions. The Company is no longer subject to U.S. federal, state and local, or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years prior to 2001. The Company is currently under examination by the State of California Franchise Tax Board for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

15

Table of Contents

Note 14 — Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental Matters

The Company is subject to U.S. federal, state and local, and 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 in all material respects with the environmental laws and regulations that apply to it, including those of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the City of Livermore Water Resources Division and the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. No provision has been made for loss from environmental remediation liabilities associated with the Company’s Livermore facility because the Company believes that it is not probable that a liability has been incurred as of March 28, 2009.

While the Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with the environmental laws and regulations that apply to it, in the future, the Company may receive environmental violation notices, and if received, final resolution of the violations identified by these notices could harm the Company’s operations, which may adversely impact its operating results and cash flows. New laws and regulations, stricter enforcement of existing laws and regulations, the discovery of previously unknown contamination at Company or others’ sites or the imposition of new cleanup requirements could also harm the Company’s operations, thereby adversely impacting its operating results and cash flows.

Legal Matters

From time to time, the Company may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. For the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2009, the Company was not involved in any material legal proceedings, other than the proceedings summarized below. In the future the Company may become a party to additional legal proceedings, including proceedings designed to protect its intellectual property rights that require the Company to spend significant resources.

Patent Litigation

The Company initiated patent infringement litigation in the United States against Phicom Corporation, a Korea corporation, and its U.S. subsidiary, both collectively “Phicom”, and against Micronics Japan Co., Ltd., a Japan corporation, and its U.S. subsidiary, both collectively “Micronics Japan.” In 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—U.S. Patent Nos. 5,974,662, entitled “Method of Planarizing Tips of Probe Elements of a Probe Card Assembly,” 6,246,247, entitled “Probe Card Assembly and Kit, and Methods of Using Same,” 6,624,648, entitled “Probe Card Assembly” and 5,994,152, entitled “Fabricating Interconnects and Tips Using Sacrificial Substrates.” In 2006, the Company also filed an amended complaint in the same Oregon district court adding two additional patents to the litigation—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,073,254, entitled “Method for Mounting a Plurality of Spring Contact Elements” and 6,615,485, entitled “Probe Card Assembly and Kit, And Methods of Making Same.” Phicom answered the complaint and the amended complaint by denying infringement, alleging defenses and asserting counterclaims seeking adjudications on the validity, infringement and enforceability of the Company’s patents. Also in 2006, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Micronics Japan charging that it is willfully infringing four U.S. patents that cover key aspects of the Company’s wafer probe cards—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,246,247, entitled “Probe Card Assembly and Kit, and Methods of Using Same,” 6,509,751, entitled “Planarizer for a Semiconductor Contactor,” 6,624,648, entitled “Probe Card Assembly” and 7,073,254, entitled “Method for Mounting a Plurality of Spring Contact Elements.” Micronics Japan answered the complaint by denying infringement, alleging defenses and asserting counterclaims seeking adjudications on the validity, infringement and enforceability of the Company’s patents. The complaints in these actions seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages. These two district court actions have been stayed pending resolution of the complaint that the Company filed with the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC, which is described below.

On or about November 13, 2007, the Company filed a complaint with the ITC seeking institution of a formal investigation by the ITC into the activities of Micronics Japan and Phicom. The requested investigation as filed encompassed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,994,152, entitled “Fabricating Interconnects and Tips Using Sacrificial Substrates,” 6,509,751, entitled “Planarizer for a Semiconductor Contactor,” 6,615,485, entitled “Probe Card Assembly and Kit, And Methods of Making Same,” 6,624,648, entitled “Probe Card Assembly,” 7,168,162, entitled “Method of Manufacturing a Probe Card” and 7,225,538, entitled “Resilient Contact Structures Formed and Then Attached to a Substrate,” and alleges that infringement by each of Micronics Japan and Phicom of certain of the identified patents constitute unfair acts in violation of 19 U.S.C. Section 1337. The ITC complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the

16

Table of Contents

United States of certain probe card assemblies, components thereof, and certain tested DRAM and NAND flash memory devices and products containing such devices that infringe patents owned by the Company, and requests a permanent exclusion order banning importation into the United States of infringing products and certain downstream products. The asserted patents currently in the investigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,994,152, 6,509,751, 6,615,485, and 7,225,538.

On or about December 13, 2007, the ITC provided public notice that it voted to institute an investigation of certain probe card assemblies, components thereof and certain tested DRAM and NAND flash memory devices and products containing such devices. The products at issue in this investigation are probe card assemblies, which are used to test semiconductor devices that have been fabricated on silicon wafers, memory chips that have been so tested, and products containing such chips.

The investigation (337-TA-621) was originally referred to the Honorable Theodore R. Essex, an ITC administrative law judge, and in July 2008 was reassigned to the Honorable Charles E. Bullock, an ITC administrative law judge, who will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of Section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the ITC. On or about January 23, 2009, the administrative law judge, after a September 2008 hearing, issued a claim construction ruling interpreting and defining terms of certain of the claims of the patents-in-suit. On or about January 28, 2009, the Company voluntarily withdrew its allegations to the extent that they encompassed its U.S. Patent No. 7,168,162, and on or about February 13, 2009, the administrative law judge issued an initial determination holding invalid the asserted claims of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 6,624,648, after finding as part of the claim construction ruling that one of the terms in the asserted claims of that patent is indefinite. The Company appealed that initial determination of invalidity to the ITC panel on or about February 18, 2009.  The ITC panel agreed to review the initial determination and a decision is expected within 30-60 days of the date of filing this Form 10-Q.

The ITC scheduled hearing relating to the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,994,152, 6,509,751, 6,615,485, and 7,225,538 was conducted from February 23, 2009 through March 6, 2009.  The administrative law judge will likely issue an initial determination on or before June 19, 2009.  The target date for the ITC’s final determination is October 19, 2009.  ITC remedial orders in Section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance, subject to Presidential review.

In addition to the United States litigations, the Company also initiated actions in Seoul, South Korea against Phicom. In 2004 the Company filed two actions in Seoul Southern District Court, located in Seoul, South Korea, against Phicom alleging infringement of the Company’s Korean Patent Nos. 252,457, entitled “Method of Fabricating Interconnections Using Cantilever Elements and Sacrificial Substrates,” 324,064, entitled “Contact Tip Structures for Microelectronic Interconnection Elements and Methods of Making Same,” 278,342, entitled “Method of Altering the Orientation of Probe Elements in a Probe Card Assembly” and 399,210, entitled “Probe Card Assembly;” as well as two actions the Company filed in 2006 in Seoul Central District Court against Phicom alleging infringement of certain claims of its Korean Patent No. 252,457 and seeking injunctive relief. These actions are all pending, on appeal to the High Court in Seoul as (i) on April 18, 2008, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a ruling that dismissed the Company’s complaint as it related to Korean Patent Nos. 252,457 and 324,064, finding certain claims of Patent Nos. 252,457 and 324,064 were invalid, and that one of the claims of each of the patents was not infringed by Phicom, (ii) in July 2008, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the Company’s complaint related to Korean Patent No. 252,457, and (iii) on November 27, 2008, the Seoul Southern District Court dismissed the Company’s complaint related to Korean Patent Nos. 278,342 and 399,210.  The Company did not appeal the judgment on the injunctive relief request related to Korean Patent No. 252,457 filed in the Seoul Central District.

In response to the Company’s initiation of the infringement actions in Korea, 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 Company’s four patents at issue in the Seoul Southern District Court infringement actions. KIPO dismissed Phicom’s challenges against all four of the patents-at-issue. Phicom appealed the dismissals of the challenges to the Korea Patent Court. In 2005 the Korea Patent Court issued rulings holding invalid certain claims of the Company’s Korean Patent Nos. 278,342 and 399,210. In 2006, the Korea Patent Court issued a ruling holding invalid certain claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 324,064, and also issued a ruling upholding the validity of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 252,457. The Company appealed the Patent Court invalidity rulings to the Korea Supreme Court. Phicom appealed the Patent Court ruling on Korean Patent No. 252,457 to the Korea Supreme Court. In September 2007, the Korea Supreme Court affirmed the Patent Court rulings holding invalid certain claims of the Company’s Korean Patent Nos. 278,342 and 399,210. In April 2008, the Korea Supreme Court affirmed the Patent Court ruling holding invalid certain claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 324,064. In June 2008, the Korea Supreme Court reversed the Patent Court ruling and finding invalid certain claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 252,457 and remanding the case for further trial to the Patent Court.

Additionally, one or more third parties have initiated challenges in the U.S. and foreign patent offices against certain of the above and other of the Company’s patents. These actions include re-examination proceedings filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office against certain of the Company’s U.S. Patents that are at issue in the ITC investigation, proceedings in Korea against two of the Company’s Korean patents, and proceedings filed in Taiwan against four of the Company’s Taiwan patents.

17

Table of Contents

No provision has been made for patent-related litigation because the Company believes that it is not probable that a liability had been incurred as of March 28, 2009. The Company will incur material attorneys’ fees in prosecuting and defending the various identified actions.

Securities Litigation

On October 31, 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported stockholder class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which the Company and certain of its then officers, including one former officer who was a director at the time of filing, are named as defendants under the caption “Danny McCasland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman.” Subsequently, plaintiffs filed two other purported stockholder class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under the captions “Yuk Ling Lui, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman,” and “Victor Albertazzi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman.” The three actions have been consolidated. The plaintiffs filed these actions following the Company’s restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2007. In April 2008, the designated lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs claimed violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the defendants knowingly issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results prior to the restatements. On July 25, 2008, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On August 22, 2008 the designated lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint also alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs again claim that defendants knowingly issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results prior to the restatement, as well as regarding the development of the Harmony product line. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on October 6, 2008, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 6, 2009. The court took the matter under submission and indicated a ruling would be forthcoming. The Company expects that the court will rule on the current motion to dismiss within the next several weeks.

No provision has been made for the securities litigation because the Company believes that it is not probable that a liability had been incurred as of March 28, 2009.

Stockholder Derivative Litigation

On November 19, 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported stockholder derivative action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda in which the Company is named as a nominal defendant and certain of its then directors and officers are named as defendants under the caption “John King, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant FormFactor, Inc. v. Dr. Igor Y. Khandros, Dr. Homa Bahrami, Dr. Thomas J. Campbell, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Lothar Maier, James A. Prestridge, Harvey A. Wagner, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman, and FormFactor, Inc.” Subsequently, another plaintiff filed a second purported stockholder class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda under the caption “Joseph Priestley, Derivatively on Behalf of FormFactor, Inc. v. Igor Y. Khandros, Mario Ruscev, James A. Prestridge, Thomas J. Campbell, Harvey A. Wagner, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Homa Bahrami, Lothar Maier, William H. Davidow and Joseph R. Bronson, and FormFactor, Inc.” The plaintiffs filed these two later actions following the Company’s restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated applicable law by issuing, and permitting the Company to issue, materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results prior to the restatements. The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The two derivative actions have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended complaint is to be filed 30 days after the United States District Court in the stockholder class action enters a final ruling.

No provision has been made for the stockholder derivative litigation because the Company believes that it is not probable that a liability had been incurred as of March 28, 2009.

Commercial Litigation

On February 20, 2009, the Company filed a complaint for breach of contract, common counts, account stated and injunctive relief against Spansion, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Spansion”), in the state superior court

18

Table of Contents

located in Santa Clara County, California. The complaint alleges that Spansion, in breach of Spansion’s obligations under a purchase agreement entered into by the Company and Spansion, has failed to pay the Company for probe cards that the Company designed, developed and manufactured pursuant to several purchase orders placed by Spansion with the Company pursuant to the agreement. The complaint states that as of February 13, 2009, Spansion owed the Company $8,094,533 for probe cards delivered by the Company and not paid for by Spansion. In the complaint, the Company is seeking (i) payment of at least $8,094,533, (ii) a temporary protective order and an injunction enjoining Spansion from assigning or in any way divesting itself of any monies that the Company believes Spansion received from a certain third party entity, (iii) a prejudgment writ of attachment in favor of the Company over Spansion’s corporate assets and property, (iv) costs and (v) attorney’s fees.  Prior to making any appearance or filing any answer in the action, Spansion filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, which served to stay the Company’s complaint against Spansion.  The Company has deferred $1.4 million of revenue related to shipments to Spansion and has reserved the remaining $6.7 million of the outstanding receivable from Spansion as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2009.

The Company believes that the factual allegations and circumstances underlying the legal proceedings in this Note 14 filed against the Company are without merit. The Company also believes that it does not have a material monetary damages exposure in these legal proceedings that would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity or results of operations; however, these legal proceedings have been costly and it is possible the Company will incur significant, and possibly material, attorneys’ fees, which may not be covered by its insurance policies. These legal proceedings may also divert the Company’s management’s time and attention away from business operations, which could prove to be disruptive to the Company’s business operations. In addition, an unfavorable outcome or settlement of these proceedings, particularly if it is not covered by or exceeds the Company’s insurance coverage, could individually or in the aggregate adversely impact the Company’s financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

Indemnification Arrangements

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/or hold the third party harmless from and against certain liabilities. These arrangements include indemnities in favor of customers in the event that the Company’s wafer probe cards infringe a third party’s intellectual property and the Company’s lessors in connection with facility leasehold liabilities that the Company may cause. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and certain of its officers, and its bylaws contain indemnification obligations in favor of its directors, officers and agents. These indemnity arrangements may limit the type of the claim, the total amount that the Company can be required to pay in connection with the indemnification obligation and the time within which an indemnification claim can be made. The duration of the indemnification obligation may vary, and for most arrangements, survives the agreement term and is indefinite. 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, the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular contractual arrangement and in each potential future claim for indemnification, and the contingency of any potential liabilities upon the occurrence of events that are not reasonably determinable. The Company has not had any requests for indemnification under these arrangements. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification arrangements on its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 28, 2009.

The Company believes that substantially all of its indemnities and commitments provide for limitations on the maximum potential future payments it could be obligated to make. However, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum amount of liability related to its indemnities and commitments because such liabilities are contingent upon the occurrence of events which are not reasonably determinable. The Company’s management believes that any liability for these indemnities and commitments would not be material to its accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Note 15 — Derivative Financial Instruments

SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, requires companies to recognize all derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the statement of financial position. Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the changes to the disclosure requirements for derivative and hedging activities of SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities — an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133. SFAS No. 161 requires the Company to provide enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why the Company uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect the Company’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows.

19

Table of Contents

The Company operates and sells its products in various global markets. As a result, the Company is exposed to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. The Company utilizes foreign currency forward contracts to hedge against future movements in foreign exchange rates that affect certain existing foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities. The Company does not use derivative financial instruments for speculative or trading purposes. The Company’s derivative instruments, which are generally settled in the same quarter, are not designated as hedging instruments under SFAS No.133, and therefore gains and losses are recognized in Other income (expense), net.

As of March 28, 2009, there were three outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts to sell Japanese Yen, Korean Won and Taiwan Dollars. The following table provides information about the Company’s foreign currency forward contracts outstanding as of March 28, 2009 (in thousands):

The contracts were entered into on March 27, 2009 and matured on April 24, 2009. Accordingly, there were no amounts reported in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 28, 2009 related to these contracts. Additionally, no gains or losses relating to the outstanding derivative contracts were recorded in the three months ending March 28, 2009.

The location and amount of gains and losses related to non-designated derivative instruments that matured in the three months ended March 28, 2009 in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations are as follows (in thousands):

Note 16 — Subsequent Event

The Company entered into a Separation Agreement and Mutual Release effective May 1, 2009 (the “Separation Agreement”) with its founder and former Executive Chairman Dr. Igor Khandros, who retired from the company and the board of directors. Under the terms of the Separation Agreement, the Company accelerated vesting of options to acquire 75,000 shares and permitted certain vested stock options to be exercisable until the earlier of (i) May 1, 2014 or (ii) the original expiration date of the applicable stock option. The Company and Dr. Khandros also entered into a consulting agreement effective as of May 1, 2009 under which Dr. Khandros will continue to serve as a key advisor to the company for a term of one-year for a quarterly consulting fee of $75,000.

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.

20

Table of Contents

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 27, 2008, and in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report. You should carefully consider the numerous risks and uncertainties described under these sections.

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 card products and solutions. Semiconductor manufacturers use our wafer probe cards to perform wafer sort and test on the semiconductor die, or chips, or the whole semiconductor wafer, which is prior to singulation of the wafer into individual separate chips. We work closely with our customers on product design, as each wafer probe card is a custom product that is specific to the chip and wafer designs of the customer. We operate in a single industry segment and have derived substantially all of our revenues from the sale of wafer probe cards incorporating our proprietary technology, including our MicroSpring® interconnect technology.

The oversupply of memory devices coupled with the overall global economic downturn and uncertainty in fiscal 2008 had a significant impact on global semiconductor device manufacturing. As the first quarter of fiscal 2009 progressed, we saw our markets becoming increasingly affected by the continuing global macroeconomic downturn which resulted in a significant decrease in demand and a challenging environment for our advanced wafer probe cards. Revenues for the first quarter of fiscal 2009 were $27.4 million, reflecting a decline of 58.3% from the first quarter of fiscal 2008. This revenue decline was in each of the product markets we address—Dynamic Random Access Memory, or DRAM, NAND and NOR Flash memory and System on a Chip, or SoC, and was primarily due to a number of factors including the relative supply and demand of various semiconductor devices and end products incorporating those devices, semiconductor manufacturers’ efforts to curtail spending and conserve cash by taking capacity offline, reducing production, delaying the transition to new technology nodes and postponing the implementation of tooling cycles.

We incurred a net loss of $37.9 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2009 as compared to net loss of $18.0 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2008, primarily due to lower revenues, the inclusion of $7.7 million of restructuring charges, and $5.2 million in provision for bad debts due to the heightened risk of non-payment of certain accounts receivable. Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2008 included $5.3 million in restructuring charges. In the first quarter of fiscal 2009, we initiated a global reorganization and cost reduction plan designed to lower our cash breakeven level in order to enable us to sustain ourselves financially in the current market environment. As part of the plan, we reduced our workforce by approximately 22%. We also implemented certain non-severance measures that we expect to result in future cost savings. In addition, we are restructuring our operations through our global regionalization strategy by, for example, placing more decision-making in regions close to our semiconductor customers to enhance customer relationships, strengthening our local design, application and service capabilities to improve customer responsiveness, changing our manufacturing structure for shorter cycle time and improved product delivery capabilities, and realigning our research and development efforts.

Our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities totaled approximately $518.7 million as of March 28, 2009 as compared to $522.9 million at December 27, 2008. While there are no specific significant transactions or arrangements that are likely to materially affect liquidity, economic uncertainty and weak credit markets are driving our customers to delay their procurement as well as payment decisions which could adversely delay and affect our cash collections. We believe that we will be able to satisfy our working capital requirements for the next twelve months with the liquidity provided by our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. If we are unsuccessful in improving our operating efficiency, reducing our cash outlays or increasing our available cash through financing, our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will further decline in the second quarter of fiscal 2009.

We believe it is likely that the global economic and semiconductor industry downturns will persist; however, we cannot predict their severity or duration. Given the overall weakness of the United States economy and the global macroeconomy, and the current downturn in the semiconductor industry and its effects on demand for our products, we are unable to precisely forecast when or if revenues and profitability will return to previous levels.

21

Table of Contents

Revenues.  We derive substantially all of our revenues from product sales of wafer probe cards. Revenues from our customers are subject to fluctuations due to factors including, but not limited to, design cycles, technology adoption rates, competitive pressure to reduce prices, cyclicality of the different end markets into which our customers’ products are sold and market conditions in the semiconductor industry. Historically, 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. We expect that revenues from the sale of wafer probe cards will continue to account for substantially all of our revenues for the foreseeable future.

Cost of Revenues. Cost of revenues consists primarily of manufacturing materials, payroll and manufacturing-related overhead. 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 into the semiconductor test market, which is subject to significant variability 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 an adjustment to our inventory valuation 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.

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 in research and development activities to improve and enhance existing technologies and to develop new technologies for current and new markets and for new applications.

Selling, General and Administrative.    Selling, general and administrative expenses include expenses related to sales, marketing, and administrative personnel, provision for doubtful accounts, internal and outside sales representatives’ commissions, market research and consulting, and other sales, marketing, and administrative activities. These expenses also include costs for protecting and enforcing our patent rights and regulatory compliance costs.

Restructuring Charges. Restructuring charges include expenses related to employee termination severance pay and benefits, and property and equipment impairment charges incurred as part of our global cost reduction plans.

Use of Estimates. Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Estimates may change as new information is obtained. Significant items that are subject to such estimates include the fair value of revenue elements, fair value of marketable securities, allowance for doubtful accounts, reserves for product warranty, valuation of obsolete and slow moving inventory, valuation and recognition of stock-based compensation, provision for income taxes and related deferred tax assets, valuation and tax liabilities and accruals for other liabilities.

22

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

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