Exhibit 1.02

KLA-Tencor Corporation

Conflict Minerals Report for the

Year Ended December 31, 2013

Introduction

This Conflict Minerals Report for KLA-Tencor Corporation (“Company,” “we,” or “our”) for the year ended December 31, 2013 is presented to comply with Rule 13p-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Rule”). The Rule was adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to implement reporting and disclosure requirements related to conflict minerals (as that term is defined below) as directed by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The Rule imposes certain reporting obligations on each U.S. publicly traded company whose manufactured products contain columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, wolframite (or their derivatives tantalum, tin and tungsten, respectively), or gold (collectively referred to as “conflict minerals,” regardless of their geographic origin and whether or not they fund armed conflict) that are necessary to the functionality or production of the company’s products. In summary, the Rule requires these U.S. publicly traded companies to conduct reasonable inquiry with respect to the sourcing of the conflict materials that they use in their products. When a company determines that these conflict minerals may have originated or did originate from the Democratic Republic of Congo or adjoining countries (collectively, the “Covered Countries”), and not from scrap or recycled sources, the Rule requires such companies to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of the conflict minerals, including efforts to determine whether trade in these minerals directly or indirectly finances or benefits armed groups in the Covered Countries, and to provide a Conflict Minerals Report.

KLA-Tencor is committed to complying with the Rule. Consistent with the SEC’s commentary on the Rule, KLA-Tencor has adopted the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas when determining the source and chain of custody of the necessary conflict minerals in KLA-Tencor products.

KLA-Tencor’s conflict minerals sourcing policy is publicly accessible on our corporate website. Please see Section D of our Supply Chain Product Regulatory Compliance page at www.kla-tencor.com/company/supply-chain-product-regulatory-compliance.html. The content of any website referred to in this Conflict Minerals Report is included for general information only and is not incorporated by reference in this Conflict Minerals Report or in KLA-Tencor’s Specialized Disclosure Report on Form SD.

Company Business and Products

KLA-Tencor Corporation is a leading supplier of process control and yield management solutions for the semiconductor and related nanoelectronics industries. Our broad portfolio of defect inspection and metrology products and related service, software and other offerings

1

primarily supports integrated circuit (“IC” or “chip”) manufacturers throughout the entire semiconductor fabrication process, from research and development to final volume production. We provide leading-edge equipment, software and support that enable IC manufacturers to identify, resolve and manage significant advanced technology manufacturing process challenges and obtain higher finished product yields at lower overall cost. In addition to serving the semiconductor industry, we also provide a range of technology solutions to a number of other high technology industries, including the light emitting diode and data storage industries, as well as general materials research. Metals included in the definition of “conflict minerals” are generally used throughout electronic components for reasons necessary to their functionality. Therefore, we believe that all KLA-Tencor products contain conflict minerals that are necessary to the products’ functionality.

Management Systems

KLA-Tencor has developed an internal conflict minerals team led by the Procurement organization and supported by a cross-departmental team consisting of representatives of a number of internal groups, including Corporate Product Regulatory Compliance, Internal Audit, Finance, Legal, Information Technology and Global Operations, as well as third-party service providers, a data management firm and external advisors. The team has met on a regular basis and provides frequent summaries of the program’s status to the senior management team. We have incorporated the supply chain regulatory compliance requirements into our standard template for supplier contracts so that suppliers comply with our policy on conflict minerals. The team has maintained records related to the program in accordance with our record retention guidelines. In addition, we have an established hotline and website for use by employees, as well as third parties such as suppliers and customers, to report actual or suspected wrongdoing or other grievances and to answer questions about business conduct, including reports or questions regarding our use of conflict minerals. The hotline and website are both operated by an independent third party, which provides tools to enable individuals to submit reports in a number of different languages and, where permitted by law, on an anonymous basis.

Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry

For the reporting period from January 1 to December 31, 2013, we conducted a reasonable country of origin inquiry on the conflict minerals that are necessary to the functionality or production of our products that we manufactured, or contracted to manufacture, during the year ended December 31, 2013.

We have worked with a third-party service provider and data management firm to contact the suppliers of components that potentially contain conflict minerals. We made reasonable efforts with these suppliers to determine the country of origin of the necessary conflict minerals used in the components they supplied for the products that we manufactured, or contracted to manufacture, during the reporting period. We have required suppliers to provide conflict minerals use and sourcing information in the form of the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition-Global e-Sustainability Initiative (“EICC-GeSI”) Reporting Template (the “Template”). Suppliers frequently provided responses with information for their company as a whole rather than the specific components that we purchase from them (referred to as the

2

“declaration scope” within the Template). In those instances, the exact mapping of a supplier’s sourcing statements to our specific components was less certain. For example, if a supplier that manufactured many different components had produced only one component that contained necessary conflict minerals that were not found to be conflict-free, this would tend to also be the supplier’s conclusion at their company level, even if the vast majority of their other products were otherwise conflict-free.

Pursuant to the Rule, we undertook due diligence measures on the source and chain of custody of the necessary conflict minerals in our products that we had reason to believe may have originated from the Covered Countries and may not have come from scrap or recycled sources.

Response Verification and Due Diligence

Our due diligence process consisted of several layers of review and analysis of the responses that were provided to us by our suppliers, as well as communication and follow-up with our suppliers based on the results of our review, in an effort to identify the source and chain of custody of the conflict minerals necessary to our products. We initially screened supplier survey responses for completeness, accuracy and internal consistency. Where suppliers provided information that was incomplete or seemed incorrect, we sought additional data from suppliers to clarify or correct the originally provided information. Following that process, we compared the data in our suppliers’ responses against our applicable internal component descriptions to confirm consistency between the various data sources. In situations where supplier data was inconsistent with our internal component information, we requested additional data from our suppliers to resolve any such inconsistencies. In the case of conflict minerals that may have originated in the Covered Countries, we reviewed the additional data contained in the applicable responses, including information about the national origin of the minerals or about the related smelters.

KLA-Tencor does not have a direct relationship with conflict minerals smelters or refiners. Our review, audit and confirmation procedures with respect to the classification and certification of smelters and refiners have fully accepted and relied upon the activities and conclusions of the EICC-GeSI Conflict-Free Smelter Program.

Facilities Used to Process Necessary Conflict Minerals

Appendix A presents a list of the entities, identified by our suppliers as the smelters or refiners that process the necessary conflict minerals in the suppliers’ products, that either (a) are compliant with the EICC-GeSI Conflict-Free Smelter (CFS) Program assessment protocols (Section 1 of Appendix A) or (b) have been verified by EICC-GeSI as smelters or refiners but have not yet completed the process of being designated as conflict-free per the CFS Program assessment protocols (Section 2 of Appendix A). Since most of the declarations we received from our suppliers were at a company level (and not a component-specific level), we do not know with certainty that each smelter listed on Appendix A actually processed minerals that were used in components we purchased. We also received responses from suppliers listing smelters or refiners that have not yet been verified as smelters or refiners by EICC-GeSI. Additionally, we received responses that indicated some conflict minerals were obtained from scrap or recycled sources.

3

Risk Mitigation/Improvement Plan

The activities described above were intended to help examine the risk that KLA-Tencor’s necessary conflict minerals benefited armed groups in the Covered Countries. KLA-Tencor intends to take the following steps to further enhance its due diligence in future years: (a) Investigate further details regarding mines utilized by smelters compliant with the CFS Program; (b) Improve our review of non-verified smelter and refiner names; (c) Work with suppliers to improve the accuracy and completeness of their responses; and (d) Drive for component-level responses (rather than company-level responses) from suppliers.

4

Appendix A

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6