Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended |
Jan. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Leases |
We lease our facilities under various non-cancelable operating leases, which expire through the year ending July 31, 2023. |
The following table presents details of the aggregate future non-cancelable minimum rental payments on our operating leases as of January 31, 2014 (in thousands): |
|
| | | |
| Amount |
Fiscal years ending July 31: | |
Remaining 2014 | $ | 5,575 | |
|
2015 | 13,599 | |
|
2016 | 13,824 | |
|
2017 | 12,858 | |
|
2018 | 11,693 | |
|
2019 and thereafter | 52,300 | |
|
Committed gross lease payments | 109,849 | |
|
Less: proceeds from sublease rental | 10,700 | |
|
Net operating lease obligation | $ | 99,149 | |
|
Contract Manufacturer Commitments |
Our independent contract manufacturer procures components and assembles our products based on our forecasts. These forecasts are based on estimates of future demand for our products, which are in turn based on historical trends and an analysis from our sales and product marketing organizations, adjusted for overall market conditions. In order to reduce manufacturing lead times and plan for adequate supply, we may issue forecasts and orders for components and products that are non-cancelable. Obligations under contracts that we can cancel without a significant penalty are not included. As of January 31, 2014, we had $32,150,000 of open orders. |
Litigation |
In December 2011, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against infringement, treble damages, and attorney’s fees. On February 9, 2012, we filed a response to the complaint, which denied all claims and asserted that the claimant’s patents were invalid. On February 28, 2012, Juniper filed a motion to strike our defense of invalidity based on the legal doctrine of “assignor estoppel.” On March 23, 2012, we filed a brief in opposition to that motion. Juniper filed a brief in response on April 2, 2012. On August 2, 2012, the District Court issued an order granting Juniper’s motion as to one of the patents in suit (the ’634 patent) but denying Juniper’s motion as to the five other patents in suit. On September 4, 2012, Juniper filed a motion to amend its complaint to allege that our appliances infringe two additional U.S. patents but also to withdraw its allegations as to a previously-asserted patent. This amended complaint was officially filed on September 25, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. Juniper now alleges that our appliances infringe seven of its patents. On September 13, 2012, we filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requests for inter partes reexamination of five of the six patents asserted by Juniper in its original complaint. We did not file a request for reexamination on the withdrawn patent. On October 12, 2012, we filed an answer to Juniper’s amended complaint, which denied that we infringed Juniper’s patents and asserted that Juniper’s patents were invalid. On October 19 and December 3, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted our requests for reexamination for three patents, rejecting a number of the claims asserted in the litigation, and on November 15 and 26, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied our requests for reexamination as to two other patents. We have the opportunity to seek review of these denials within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Each party served its opening expert report on April 12, 2013, and rebuttal expert report on May 13, 2013, and supplemental expert reports on June 11, 2013. The parties filed opening and responsive briefs regarding claim construction, filed their opening summary judgment briefs on August 20, 2013, and filed opposition briefs and additional summary judgment motions on September 12, 2013. On June 20, 2013 and July 23, 2013, we filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office petitions for inter partes review for two other patents asserted by Juniper in the litigation. The Patent and Trademark Office granted both of those petitions and instituted trials to take place in August 2014 and September 2014. A hearing to resolve claim construction issues, as well as motions for summary judgment, was heard on November 15, 2013. |
The Court issued an order on February 6, 2014, in which the Court construed several disputed claim limitations, granted Juniper’s motion for summary judgment of assignor estoppel, denied Juniper’s motion for summary judgment of infringement, and granted in part and denied in part our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. A trial began on February 24, 2014, and we are vigorously defending ourselves from such claims. At this stage in the litigation we do not believe that a loss is probable and we are unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss. |
On September 30, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Juniper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Juniper’s products infringe three of our U.S. patents, and seeks monetary damages and a permanent injunction. On November 21, 2013, Juniper filed an answer and counterclaims in a separate action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In its counterclaims Juniper seeks a declaration that the asserted patents owned by us are not infringed and are invalid. Juniper’s counterclaims also assert that our products infringe three additional Juniper patents. |
In addition to the above matter, we are subject to legal proceedings, claims, and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including intellectual property litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. We accrue for contingencies when we believe that a loss is probable and that we can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. We have made an assessment of the probability of incurring any such losses and whether or not those losses are estimable. |
To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized may be incurred and the amount of such additional loss would be material, we will either disclose the estimated additional loss or state that such an estimate cannot be made. |