Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

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 is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions 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 July 26, 2008, 48,871,994 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 JUNE 28, 2008

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 for a fair statement have been included. Operating results for the three and six months ended June 28, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 27, 2008, or for any other period. The balance sheet at December 29, 2007 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 29, 2007 included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 27, 2008, and with the interim financial statements and notes included in the Company’s Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008.

Fiscal Year. The Company operates on a 52/53 week fiscal year, whereby the year ends on the Saturday nearest December 31. Fiscal year 2008 will end on December 27, 2008, and will consist of 52 weeks.

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 fiscal year ended December 29, 2007. As described in Note 4, the Company adopted certain provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” as of the first day of the first quarter of fiscal 2008.

Note 3 — Restructuring Charges

Fiscal 2008 Quarter 1 Cost Reduction Plan

On February 5, 2008, the Company announced a cost reduction plan that included reducing its global workforce. The worldwide reduction in workforce involved approximately 114 employees, or 14% of the headcount prior to the reduction.  The plan was designed to restructure the Company to better align with the market environment.  The majority of the activities comprising the quarter 1 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. During the three months ended March 29, 2008 the Company recorded a charge of $5.3 million related to the quarter 1 cost reduction plan. In addition, the Company and Jorge L. Titinger, its former Senior Vice President, Product Business Group, mutually agreed to eliminate Mr. Titinger’s position as part of

6

Table of Contents

the Company’s quarter 1 restructuring activities in light of market and business conditions. In connection with his departure, at March 29, 2008, the Company recorded charges of approximately $613,000, consisting primarily of a severance payment of $204,000 and approximately $287,000 in stock-based compensation resulting from the accelerated vesting of a portion of his unvested restricted stock units representing an aggregate of 18,680 shares. These charges were recorded as components of restructuring in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

During the three months ended June 28, 2008, the Company paid approximately $2.3 million related to accrued severance, benefits and other costs.  Additionally, the Company recognized a reduction of $345,000 as adjustments to costs previously accrued for the quarter 1 cost reduction plan.  These charges are recorded as components of restructuring in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Fiscal 2008 Quarter 2 Cost Reduction Plan

On April 8, 2008, the Company announced its commitment to implement a second global cost reduction plan that included reducing its global workforce by approximately 12%, with reductions primarily coming from the Company’s North America operations. The plan also included the consolidation of a facility in Livermore, California. The plan was designed to restructure the Company to better align with the market environment. A substantial portion of the activities comprising the quarter 2 cost reduction plan was completed by the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2008 with the remaining activities to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal 2008.

During the three months ended June 28, 2008, the Company recorded a charge of approximately $3.6 million related to the quarter 2 cost reduction plan which includes approximately $328,708 associated with the facility consolidation. The Company paid approximately $2.8 million related to accrued severance, benefits and other costs and $88,302 related to the facility consolidation. These charges are recorded as components of restructuring in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The following table summarizes the activities related to both cost reduction plans as of June 28, 2008 (in thousands):

The charges above have been reflected separately as restructuring in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The remaining accrual, as of June 28, 2008 relates to severance benefits and other costs associated with the facility consolidation which will be paid within the next twelve months. As such, the restructuring accrual is recorded as a current liability within accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

7

Table of Contents

Note 4 — Fair Value

Effective December 30, 2007, the Company adopted SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements.” 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 the provisions of SFAS 157 with respect to its financial assets and liabilities only. 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 Level 1 that are observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

·                  Level 3 - Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.

The Company measures and reports certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis, including money market funds, U. S. government securities, municipal bonds, U. S. government sponsored enterprise securities or 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 June 28, 2008:

Note 5 — 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. Adjustments for potential excess and obsolete inventory 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.

Inventories consisted of the following:

8

Table of Contents

Note 6 — 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) for the three and six months ended June 28, 2008 and June 30, 2007, respectively, follows:

Note 7 — Stock-Based Compensation

The Company recorded stock-based compensation for the three and six months ended June 28, 2008 and June 30, 2007 as follows:

Equity Incentive 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.

9

Table of Contents

Stock Options

The following weighted average assumptions were used in the estimated grant-date fair value calculations using the Black-Scholes option pricing model for stock options for the three and six months ended June 28, 2008 and June 30, 2007, respectively:

Stock option activity under the Prior Plans and the 2002 Plan during the six months ended June 28, 2008 is set forth below:

Restricted Stock Units

Restricted stock units are converted into shares of the Company’s common stock upon release 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 2002 Plan during the six months ended June 28, 2008 is set forth below:

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

The Company’s 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “ESPP”) provides that eligible employees may contribute up to 15% of their eligible earnings toward the semi-annual purchase of the Company’s common stock, subject to certain limitations. Under the ESPP,

10

Table of Contents

employees may purchase the Company’s common stock through payroll deductions at a price equal to 85% 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. Until February 1, 2007, each offering period was generally two years in length, consisting of four six month purchase periods. Effective from February 1, 2007, the offering periods under the ESPP are a 12 month fixed offering period commencing on February 1 of each calendar year and ending on January 31st of the subsequent calendar year, and a six month fixed offering period commencing on August1st of each calendar year and ending on January 31^st of the subsequent calendar year. The 12 month offering period consists of two six month purchase periods and the six month offering period consists of one six month purchase period. During the six months ended June 28, 2008 and June 30, 2007, 150,410 shares and 122,523 shares, respectively, were issued under the ESPP. As of June 28, 2008, the Company had $0.7 million of total unrecognized deferred stock-based compensation related to ESPP grants, which will be recognized over the weighted average period of 0.5 years. Compensation expense is calculated using the fair value of the employees’ purchase rights under the Black-Scholes model.

Note 8 — Net Income (Loss) per Share

Basic net income (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted net income (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.

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

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

11

Table of Contents

Note 9 — Income Taxes

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 $134,000 and $249,000 for the three and six months ended June 28, 2008 and June 30, 2007, respectively. As of June 28, 2008, the Company had approximately $1,079,000 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 estimates 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 June 28, 2008, 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 the Company’s 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 U. S. Internal Revenue Service for fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006 and the State of California Franchise Tax Board for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

The Company intends to file a carryback claim for its projected 2008 net operating loss. The expected tax benefits of this carryback claim are reported as Refundable Income Taxes in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Note 10 — 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. The Company received two notices of violation in fiscal 2007 and one notice of violation in the first quarter of fiscal 2008 from the City of Livermore regarding violation of certain applicable waste water discharge limits. For each notice received, the Company promptly investigated the violation, took appropriate steps to address the cause of the violation, and implemented corrective measures to prevent a recurrence. The Company implemented additional waste water treatment capability in consultation with the City of Livermore, and purchased additional waste water discharge capacity, which the Company required as a result of its increased manufacturing capacity, through the City of Livermore. 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 June 28, 2008.

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 additional 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 the 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 June 28, 2008, 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.

12

Table of Contents

Patent Litigation

The Company has 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 that adds 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 and enforceability of the Company’s patents and whether Phicom is infringing those 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 and enforceability of the Company’s patents and whether Micronics Japan is infringing those 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, which is described below.

On or about November 13, 2007, the Company filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC, seeking institution of a formal investigation by the ITC into the activities of Micronics Japan and Phicom. The requested investigation encompasses 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. In the ITC complaint, the Company alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the 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.

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 August 6, 2008, the Honorable Charles E. Bullock set the hearing date to January 7, 2009, and the initial determination due date to April 18, 2009. The target date for the ITC’S final determination is August 18, 2009. ITC remedial orders in Section 337 investigations 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, 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

13

Table of Contents

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, except that in April 2008, the Seoul Southern District Court dismissed the Company’s complaint as it related to Korean Patent Nos. 252,457 and 324,064, and in July 2008, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the Company’s complaint related to Korean Patent No. 252,457. The Company has appealed the dismissals to the Korea High Courts, and did not appeal the judgment on the denial of its injunctive relief request.

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 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 invalidated certain claims of the Company’s Korean Patent No. 252,457.

Additionally, one or more third parties have initiated challenges in the U.S. and foreign patent offices against 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, and proceedings in Korea against two of the Company’s Korean patents and proceedings filed in Taiwan against four of the Company’s Taiwan patents.

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 June 28, 2008. 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 current officers, including one officer who is a director, 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 claim 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. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.  On or about July 25, 2008, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and set a deadline of August 22, 2008 by which the designated lead plaintiffs could file an amended complaint.

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 June 28, 2008.

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 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,

14

Table of Contents

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 expected to be filed in mid September 2008.

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 June 28, 2008.

The Company believes that the factual allegations and circumstances underlying the legal proceedings in this Note 10 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 our 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 losses. These arrangements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made, the type of 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 Sheets as of June 28, 2008.

Note 11 — Stockholders’ Equity

Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) includes foreign currency translation adjustments and unrealized gains 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 income (loss) were as follows:

15

Table of Contents

Components of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) was as follows:

Note 12 — Derivative Financial Instruments

We use derivative instruments to manage our exposure to foreign currencies. As of June 28, 2008, we had three outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts to sell Japanese Yen, Korean Won and Taiwan Dollars. The following table provides information about our foreign currency forward contracts outstanding as of June 28, 2008:

The contracts were entered into on June 27, 2008 and matured on July 25, 2008. No gain or loss relating to the outstanding derivative contracts was recorded as of June 28, 2008.

Note 13 — Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2008, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 162, “The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.” The statement is intended to improve financial reporting by identifying a consistent hierarchy for selecting accounting principles to be used in preparing financial statements that are prepared in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles. The statement is effective 60 days following the SEC’s approval of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) amendments to AU Section 411, “The Meaning of Present Fairly in Conformity with GAAP,” and is not expected to have any impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133.” SFAS No. 161 amends and expands the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 133 with the intent to provide users of financial statements with an enhanced understanding of: (i) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments; (ii) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and its related interpretations and (iii) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows. This statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with early adoption encouraged. The Company is currently assessing the impact of the adoption of SFAS No. 161 on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities–Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115.” This statement permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value.  Entities shall report unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value option has been elected in earnings at each subsequent reporting date.  This statement is effective as of the beginning of an entity’s first fiscal year that begins after November 15, 2007.  The adoption of SFAS No. 159, effective January 1, 2008, did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows as the Company did not elect the fair value measurement option for any additional financial instruments or other items.

16

Table of Contents

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 29, 2007, 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 cards and wafer test solutions. Semiconductor manufacturers use our wafer probe cards to perform wafer sort and test on the semiconductor die, or chips, on the whole semiconductor wafer, prior to singulation of the wafer into individual chips. During wafer sort and 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.  Our wafer probe cards are used by our customers in the front end of the semiconductor manufacturing process, as are our parametric or in-line probe cards. 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. At the core of our product offering are our proprietary technologies, including our MicroSpring interconnect technology and design processes. Our

17

Table of Contents

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 substantially all of our revenues from the sale of wafer probe cards incorporating our MicroSpring interconnect technology.

Our customers operate in the highly cyclical semiconductor industry and are subject to significant 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. 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 six months of fiscal 2008 and 2007. Revenues from licensing of our design and manufacturing technologies have historically been insignificant. 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. Revenues from our customers are subject to 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, compensation 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 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 write-downs or write-offs 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 market conditions. If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional inventory write downs would be required. Once established, the original cost of our inventory less the related inventory valuation adjustments 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.

Research and Development.   Research and development expenses include expenses related to product development and design, 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, and to improve or advance existing technologies.

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, marketing, and administrative activities. These expenses also include costs for enforcing our patent rights and regulatory compliance costs.

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

18

Table of Contents

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.  Our estimates, which are based on historical experience and on various other assumptions believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, allow us to make judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.

Results of Operations

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