Commitments And Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company leases office space, cars and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through December 2026 . Rent expense in the years ended, December 31, 2015 , 2014 , and 2013 was $9.8 million , $10.8 million and $9.9 million , respectively. The terms of some of the Company’s office leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period, and has accrued for rent expense incurred but not paid. Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases are as follows (in thousands): Year Ending December 31, 2016 $ 8,429 2017 5,761 2018 5,598 2019 5,342 2020 5,404 Thereafter 23,209 Total minimum lease payments $ 53,743 Employment Agreements The Company has signed various employment agreements with key executives pursuant to which, if their employment is terminated without cause, such employees are entitled to receive their base salary (and commission or bonus, as applicable) for 52 weeks (for the Chief Executive Officer), 39 weeks (for the Senior Vice President of Worldwide Operations and Support) and up to 26 weeks (for other key executives). Such employees will also continue to have stock options vest for up to a one -year period following such termination without cause. If a termination without cause or resignation for good reason occurs within one year of a change in control, such employees are entitled to full acceleration (for the Chief Executive Officer) and up to two years acceleration (for other key executives) of any unvested portion of his or her equity awards. The Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of December 31, 2015 . Purchase Obligations The Company has entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. At December 31, 2015 , the Company had approximately $133 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. The Company establishes a loss liability for all products it does not expect to sell for which it has committed purchases from suppliers. Such losses have not been material to date. From time to time the Company’s suppliers procure unique complex components on the Company's behalf. If these components do not meet specified technical criteria or are defective, the Company should not be obligated to purchase the materials. However, disputes may arise as a result and significant resources may be spent resolving such disputes. Warranty obligations Changes in the Company's warranty liability, which is included as a component of “Other accrued liabilities” in the consolidated balance sheets, are as follows (in thousands): Year Ended December 31, 2015 2014 2013 Balance at the beginning of the year $ 44,888 $ 48,754 $ 46,659 Provision for warranty obligations made during the year 80,085 62,709 69,755 Settlements made during the year (68,267 ) (66,575 ) (67,660 ) Balance at the end of year $ 56,706 $ 44,888 $ 48,754 Guarantees and Indemnifications The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a Director and Officer Insurance Policy that limits its exposure and enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the fair value of each indemnification agreement is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of December 31, 2015 . In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual any time after execution of the agreement. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of December 31, 2015 . Litigation and Other Legal Matters The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, the Company accrues for the amount, or if a range, the Company accrues the low end of the range, only if there is not a better estimate than any other amount within the range, as a component of legal expense within litigation reserves, net. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate the Company had previously accrued. In relation to such matters, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position within the next twelve months, or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses. Ericsson v. NETGEAR, Inc. On September 14, 2010, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively “Ericsson”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company and defendants D-Link Corporation, D-Link Systems, Inc., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas alleging that the defendants infringe certain Ericsson patents. The Company has been accused of infringing eight U.S. patents: 5,790,516 (the “‘516 Patent”); 6,330,435 (the “‘435 Patent”); 6,424,625 (the “‘625 Patent”); 6,519,223 (the “‘223 Patent”); 6,772,215 (the “‘215 Patent”); 5,987,019 (the “‘019 Patent”); 6,466,568 (the “‘568 Patent”); and 5,771,468 (the “'468 Patent"). Ericsson generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the Ericsson patents through the defendants' IEEE 802.11-compliant products. In addition, Ericsson alleged that the Company infringed the claimed methods and apparatuses of the '468 Patent through the Company's PCMCIA routers. The Company filed its answer to the Ericsson complaint on December 17, 2010 where it asserted the affirmative defenses of noninfringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. On June 8, 2011, Ericsson filed an amended complaint that added Dell, Toshiba and Belkin as defendants. At the status conference held on June 9, 2011, the Court set a Markman (claim construction) hearing for June 28, 2012 and trial for June 3, 2013. On June 21, 2012, Ericsson dismissed the '468 Patent (“Multi-purpose base station”) with prejudice and gave the Company a covenant not to sue as to products in the marketplace now or in the past. On June 22, 2012, Intel filed its Complaint in Intervention, meaning that Intel became an official defendant in the Ericsson case. During the exchange of the expert reports, Ericsson dropped the '516 Patent (the OFDM “pulse shaping” patent). In addition, Ericsson dropped the '223 Patent (packet discard patent) against all the defendants' products, except for those products that use Intel chips. Thus, Ericsson has now dropped the '468 Patent (wireless base station), the '516 Patent (OFDM pulse shaping), and the '223 Patent (packet discard patent) for all non-Intel products. A jury trial in the Ericsson case occurred in the Eastern District of Texas from June 3 through June 13, 2013. After hearing the evidence, the jury found no infringement of the '435 and '223 Patents, and the jury found infringement of claim 1 of the '625 Patent, claims 1 and 5 of the '568 Patent, and claims 1 and 2 of the '215 Patent. The jury also found that there was no willful infringement by any defendant. Additionally, the jury found no invalidity of the asserted claims of the '435 and '625 Patents. The jury assessed the following damages against the defendants: D-Link: $435,000 ; NETGEAR: $3,555,000 ; Acer/Gateway: $1,170,000 ; Dell: $1,920,000 ; Toshiba: $2,445,000 ; Belkin: $600,000 . The damages awards equated to 15 cent s per unit for each accused 802.11 device sold by each defendant ( 5 cent per patent). On December 16, 2013, the Company and defendants submitted their appeal brief to the Federal Circuit. Ericsson filed its response brief on February 20, 2014, and the defendants filed their reply brief before on March 24, 2014. The oral arguments before the Federal Circuit took place on June 5, 2014. On December 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion and order in the Company’s Ericsson appeal. The Federal Circuit vacated the entirety of the $3.6 million jury verdict against the Company and the ongoing 15 cent per unit royalty verdict, and also vacated the entirety of the verdict against the other defendants and their ongoing royalties, finding that the District Court hadn’t properly instructed the jury on royalty rates and Ericsson’s licensing promises. The Federal Circuit held that the lower court had failed to adequately instruct the jury about Ericsson’s actual commitments to license the infringed patents on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (“RAND”) terms. Further, the Federal Circuit stated that the lower court had neglected to inform the jury that a royalty for a patented technology must be removed from the value of the entire standard, and that a RAND royalty rate should be based on the invention’s value, rather than any added value from standardization. The jury’s damages awards were therefore completely vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. While the Federal Circuit found the district court had inadequate jury instructions, it held that there was enough evidence for the jury to find infringement of two claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,466,568 and two claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,772,215, but reversed the lower court’s decision not to grant a noninfringement judgment as a matter of law regarding the third patent, U.S. Patent Number 6,424,625, finding that no reasonable jury could find that the ‘625 Patent was infringed by the defendants. In September of 2013, Broadcom filed petitions in the USPTO at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of Ericsson’s three patents that the jury found were infringed by the Company and other defendants. On March 6, 2015, the PTAB invalidated all the claims of these three patents that were asserted against the Company and other defendants at trial -- claim 1 of the '625 Patent, claims 1 and 5 of the '568 Patent, and claims 1 and 2 of the '215 Patent -- ruling these claims were anticipated or obvious in light of prior art. The PTAB also rejected two motions to amend by Ericsson, which sought to substitute certain proposed claims in the '625 and '568 patents, should they be found unpatentable by the PTAB. This PTAB decision comes on top of the Federal Circuit decision (a) vacating the jury verdict after finding that the district court had not properly instructed the jury on royalty rates and Ericsson’s licensing promises, and (b) ruling that no reasonable jury could have found the ‘625 Patent infringed. Ericsson appealed the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit and also requested that the PTAB reconsider its decision, but the PTAB denied Ericsson’s request for reconsideration. While Ericsson appeals the PTAB decision the present status of the case is that the Company does not infringe on any valid Ericsson patent, and accordingly the Company reversed the accruals related to this case in the first fiscal quarter of 2015. Agenzia Entrate Provincial Revenue Office 1 of Milan v. NETGEAR International, Inc. In November 2012, the Italian tax police began a comprehensive tax audit of NETGEAR International, Inc.’s Italian Branch. The scope of the audit initially was from 2004 through 2011 and was subsequently expanded to include 2012. The tax audit encompasses Corporate Income Tax (IRES), Regional Business Tax (IRAP) and Value-Added Tax (VAT). In December 2013, December 2014, August 2015, and December 2015 an assessment was issued by Inland Revenue Agency, Provincial Head Office No. 1 of Milan-Auditing Department (Milan Tax Office) for the 2004 tax year, the 2005 through 2007 tax years, the 2008 through 2010 tax years, and the 2011 through 2012 tax years, respectively. In May 2014, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan (Tax Court) a Request for Hearing in Open Court and Request for Suspension of the Tax Assessment for the 2004 year. The hearing was held and decision was issued on November 7, 2014. The Tax Court found in favor of the Company and nullified the assessment by the Inland Revenue Agency for 2004. The Inland Revenue Agency appealed the decision of the Tax Court on June 12, 2015. The Company filed its counter appeal with respect to the 2004 year during September 2015. With respect to 2005 through 2007, the Company filed its briefs with the Tax Court in mid-February. In June, 2015, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan (Tax Court) a Request for Hearing in Open Court and Request for Suspension of the Tax Assessment for the 2005 through 2007 tax years. The hearing for suspension was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. The hearing for the validity of the tax assessment was held in December 2015 and we are awaiting a decision from the court. With respect to 2008 through 2010, the Company filed its briefs with the Tax Court in October 2015. With respect to 2011 through 2012, the Company plans to file its briefs with the Tax Court to contest this assessment. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Via Vadis v. NETGEAR, Inc. On August 22, 2014, the Company was sued by Via Vadis, LLC and AC Technologies, S.A. (“Via Vadis”), in the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that the Company’s ReadyNAS and Stora products “with built-in BitTorrent software" allegedly infringe three related patents of Via Vadis (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,904,680, RE40, 521, and 8,656,125). Via Vadis filed similar complaints against Belkin, Buffalo, Blizzard, D-Link, and Amazon. By referring to “built-in BitTorrent software,” the Company believes that the complaint is referring to the BitTorrent Sync application, which was released by BitTorrent Inc. in spring of 2014. At a high-level, the application allows file synchronization across multiple devices by storing the underlying files on multiple local devices, rather than on a centralized server. The Company’s ReadyNAS products do not include BitTorrent software when sold. The BitTorrent application is provided as one of a multitude of potential download options, but the software itself is not included on the Company’s devices when shipped. Therefore, the only viable allegation at this point is an indirect infringement allegation. On November 10, 2014, the Company answered the complaint denying that it infringes the patents in suit and also asserting the affirmative defenses that the patents in suit are invalid and barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver, and/or estoppel. On February 5, 2015, the Court set the claim construction hearing for December 4, 2015 and allowed discovery for claim construction purposes to commence. On February 6, 2015, the Company filed its motion to transfer venue from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California with the Court; on February 13, 2015, Via Vadis filed its opposition to the Company’s motion to transfer; and on February 20, 2015, the Company filed its reply brief on its motion to transfer. In early April 2015, the Company received the plaintiff’s infringement contentions, and on June 12, 2015, the defendants served invalidity contentions. Discovery in the case was stayed until the Court issues its claim construction order. On July 30, 2015 the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. In addition, the Company learned that Amazon and Blizzard filed petitions for the inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) for the patents in suit. On October 30, 2015, the Company and Via Vadis filed a joint stipulation requesting that the Court vacate all deadlines and enter a stay of all proceedings in the case pending the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final non-appealable decision on the IPRs initiated by Amazon and Blizzard. On November 2, 2015 the Court granted the requested stay. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Wetro Lan v. NETGEAR, Inc. On January 30, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity called Wetro Lan LLC (“Wetro Lan”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Wetro Lan alleges direct infringement by the Company of United States Patent No. 6,795,918 (the “'918 Patent”) entitled “Service Level Computer Security” based on the Company’s manufacture and selling of the “NETGEAR WGR614v9 Wireless Router and similarly situated NETGEAR, Inc. Wireless Routers.” On April 13, 2015 the Company answered the complaint. The Company denied that it infringed the patent and asserted several affirmative defenses (counterclaims), including noninfringement, invalidity, limitation of damages, laches, waiver, estoppel, and other equitable defenses, and on May 4, 2015 Wetro Lan answered the Company’s counterclaims. On July 16, 2015, the Company filed with the Court a motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. On August 17, 2015, Wetro Lan filed with the Court its opposition to the Company’s motion to transfer venue, and on August 24, 2015 the Company filed its Reply in Support of Transfer as filed. In November 2015, Wetro Lan filed a notice requesting a scheduling conference from which deadlines in the case arise. On January 29, 2016, the Court issued an order consolidating twenty Wetro Lan cases, including the case against the Company for all pretrial issues, except for venue. In the lead case, Wetro Lan v. ADTRAN (No. 2:15-cv-00041), the Court has not yet issued any docket control order or set any scheduling conference. The Court also has not yet ruled on the Company’s transfer motion. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Frequency Systems LLC v NETGEAR, Inc. On May 8, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity named Frequency Systems LLC (“Frequency Systems”) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Frequency Systems alleges direct or indirect infringement by the Company of a single patent, U.S. Pat. No. 8,417,205 (the “'205 Patent”), entitled “Antenna selection scheme for multiple antennae.” Frequency Systems alleges infringement generically by the Company’s “wireless routers and access points product families” without specifying any models. Frequency Systems also simultaneously sued ADTRAN, TCL Communications, Amped Wireless, ASUS, Belkin, Buffalo, Cisco, D-Link, EnGenius Technologies, Extreme Networks, HP, HTC, Huawei, ATEN Technology, IOGear, Kyocera, LG, Linksys, Motorola Mobility, Novatel Wireless, Sharp, TP-Link, TRENDnet, Western Digital, ZTE, and ZyXEL. The Company answered the complaint on July 23, 2015 asserting various defenses, including noninfringement and invalidity of the patent in suit. Recently, it appears that Frequency Systems granted RPX Corporation a license. This is significant because the Company’s products that use WiFi chipsets of licensed companies (i.e. companies that are RPX members) likely will be licensed. The licensed RPX members include Broadcom and QualComm-Atheros. On September 24, 2015, Frequency Systems served preliminary infringement contentions. Frequency Systems alleges that the Company infringes claims 1, 2 and 4 of the '205 Patent by the sale of products that are compliant with the 802.11n wireless standard, and identifies the following Company models as exemplars: R8000, R7500, R7000, R6400, R6300, R6250, AC1450, R6220, R6200, R6100, R6050, WNDR4700, WNDR4720, WNDR4500, WNDR4300, WNDR3700, WNDR3400, WNR2500, JNR3210, WNR2020, R7900, R6700, D7800, D7000, D6400, D6200, DGND4000, DGND3700, C7000, C6300, C3700, MBR1515, MBR1515A, MVBR1517, MVBR1210C, WNDAP660, EX7000, EX6200, EX6150, EX6100, X3920, EX3700, WN2500RP, WN3000RP, EX2700, A6210, LG2200D, LG6100D, WNDAP620, WND930, WNDAP360, WNDAP350, WN203, WN802T, and D2200D. The Court held its initial scheduling conference on September 30, 2015. The Company’s invalidity contentions were submitted on November 25, 2015. Frequency Systems granted RPX Corporation members a license sometime in the fall of 2015. This was significant because the Company’s products that use WiFi chipsets of licensed companies (i.e. companies that are RPX members) became licensed to the ‘205 Patent, and essentially all of the Company’s WiFi chip providers are licensed to the ‘205 patent through their RPX membership. Accordingly, on November 23, 2015, Frequency Systems submitted an unopposed motion to dismiss its claims for relief against the Company without prejudice and with all attorneys’ fees, costs of Court, and expenses borne by the party incurring same. On December 14, 2015, the Court ordered that Frequency Systems’ claims for relief against the Company be dismissed without prejudice. There was no material financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Verifire Network Solutions v NETGEAR, Inc. On June 3, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity named Verifire Network Solutions, LLC. (“Verifire”) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Verifire alleges direct infringement by the Company of a single patent, US Patent No. 8,463,727 (the “'727 Patent”), entitled “Communication management system and communication management method,” and the complaint targets Netgear’s ProSAFE® business-class VPN Firewall and ProSECURE® UTM Firewall product families. Verifire recently has sued several other companies in the same Court on the same patent, including Fortinet, WatchGuard, Check Point, and Hewlett Packard. The Company received an extension to answer the complaint and filed its Answer to the on August 26, 2015. On September 22, 2015, Verifire produced its preliminary infringement contentions. Verifire asserted that claims 1 and 3 of the '727 Patent cover all network security equipment, including firewalls such as the ProSAFE and ProSECURE lines manufactured by the Company. Recently, many defendants settled, as RPX Corporation appears to have signed a settlement agreement with Verifire to settle out RPX members. The remaining defendants are: ADTRAN, Panda Distribution, Inc., and the Company. The Court held its initial scheduling conference on September 30, 2015. The Company’s invalidity contentions were submitted on November 25, 2015. The Company served its initial disclosures on October 21, 2015, and the Company’s invalidity contentions were served on November 25, 2015. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, on January 7, 2016, the Company and Verifire settled the lawsuit for a one-time payment from the Company to Verifire in return for a perpetual, worldwide, and fully-paid-up license from Verifire to the Company to all of Verifire’s currently-held patents. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice on January 26, 2016. The settlement did not have a material financial impact to the Company. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v NETGEAR, Inc. On July 1, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity named Chrimar Systems, Inc., doing business as CMS Technologies and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC (collectively, “CMS”), in the Eastern District of Texas for allegedly infringing four patents-U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (the “'012 Patent”), entitled “System and method for adapting a piece of terminal equipment”; 8,942,107 (the “'107 Patent”), entitled “Piece of ethernet terminal equipment”; 8,902,760 (the “'760 Patent”), entitled “Network system and optional tethers”; and 9,019,838 (the “'838 Patent”), entitled “Central piece of network equipment” (collectively “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit relate to using or embedding an electrical DC current or signal into an existing Ethernet communication link in order to transmit additional data about the devices on the communication link, and the specifications for the patents are identical. It appears that Chrimar has approximately 40 active cases in the Eastern District of Texas, as well as some cases in the Northern District of California on the patents-in-suit and the parent patent to the patents-in-suit. The Company received an extension until September 15, 2015 to answer the complaint. The Company answered the complaint with a Motion to Dismiss Chrimar’s indirect infringement claims. Chrimar subsequently filed a response to the Company’s motion to dismiss and Chrimar’s First Amended Complaint. Chrimar responded to the Motion to Dismiss by dropping its induced infringement claims and providing supplemental allegations in support of its contributory infringement claims with respect to the '760 Patent. For the '012, '107 and '838 Patents, Chrimar now only alleges direct infringement. Chrimar originally asserted direct and indirect infringement for all four patents-in-suit. Subsequently, on October 5, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Direct Infringement Claims Relating to the '760 Patent. Chrimar filed its response to this motion to dismiss on October 15, 2015, and the Company filed its Reply on October 26, 2015. Chrimar filed an Amended Complaint on December 23, 2015 to address the deficiencies in Chrimar’s complaint pointed out by the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Direct Infringement Claims Relating to the ‘760 Patent, and the Company filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint on January 10, 2016. On November 24, 2015, Chrimar served its infringement contentions on the Company, and Chrimar is generally attempting to assert that the patents in suit cover the Power over Ethernet standard (802.3af and 802.3at) used by certain of NETGEAR’s products. On December 3, 2015, the Company filed with the Court a motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California and their memorandum of law in support thereof. On December 23, 2015, Chrimar filed its response to the Company’s motion to transfer, and, on January 8, 2016, the Company filed its reply brief in support of its motion to transfer venue. On January 15, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Wi3, INC. v. NETGEAR, Inc. On November 12, 2015, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by a company called Wi3, INC. (“Wi3”) in the United States District Court, Western District of New York. The patent No. 6,108,331 (the “'331 Patent”) is entitled “Single Medium Wiring Scheme for Multiple Signal Distribution in Building and Access Port Therefor,” and was filed in 1998, and should expire in July 2018. The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement, and accuses NETGEAR’s MoCA Network Adapters and/or Network Extenders (including at least model MCA1001 v2) of infringing at least claims 26, 27, 29, and 30. The complaint alleges no pre-suit knowledge of the patent, but seeks enhanced damages. The patent has been asserted in three prior cases, and all three cases were resolved in the early stages. The Company has received an extension until March 11, 2016 to answer the Complaint. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. IP Indemnification Claims In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers (the “Indemnified Parties”) for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties that are asserted against the Indemnified Parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is generally unlimited. From time to time, the Company receives requests for indemnity and may choose to assume the defense of such litigation asserted against the Indemnified Parties. Environmental Regulation The European Union (“EU”) enacted the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, which makes producers of electrical goods, including home and commercial business networking products, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products. The deadline for the individual member states of the EU to transpose the directive into law in their respective countries was August 13, 2004 (such legislation, together with the directive, the “WEEE Legislation”). Producers participating in the market were financially responsible for implementing these responsibilities under the WEEE Legislation beginning in August 13, 2005. The Company adopted the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and environmental obligations in the third quarter of fiscal 2005 and has determined that its effect did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations and financial position. The WEEE Directive was recast on July 24, 2012, published on August 13, 2012, and was implemented by all member states on February 14, 2014. The Company has determined that its effect did not have material impact on its consolidated results of operations and financial positions due to this recasting. Similar WEEE Legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, China, India, Australia and Japan. The Company continues to monitor WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions as individual countries issue their implementation guidance. The Company believes it has met the applicable requirements of current WEEE Legislation and similar legislation in other jurisdictions, to the extent implementation requirements has been published. Additionally, the EU enacted the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (“RoHS Legislation”), the REACH Regulation, Packaging Directive and the Battery Directive. EU RoHS Legislation, along with similar legislation in China, requires manufacturers to ensure certain substances, including polybrominated biphenyls (“PBD”), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (“PBDE”), mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and lead (except for allowed exempted materials and applications), are below specified maximum concentration values in certain products put on the market after July 1, 2006. The RoHS Directive was recast on July 21, 2011 and went into force on January 3, 2013. The Company has determined that its effect did not have material impact on its consolidated result |