Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Leases We lease our facilities under various non-cancelable operating leases, which expire on various dates through the year ending December 31, 2027. In August 2016, we entered into a lease agreement for our new corporate headquarters, expected to commence mid-2017. Rent expense is recognized using the straight-line method over the term of the lease. Rent expense, net of sublease income, was $4.1 million and $3.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 , respectively. The aggregate future non-cancelable minimum rental payments on our operating leases, as of March 31, 2017 , are as follows (in thousands): Years Ending December 31, Amount 2017 (remaining nine months) $ 11,822 2018 16,553 2019 12,915 2020 12,787 2021 10,992 2022 and thereafter 39,276 Total $ 104,345 Total future non-cancelable minimum rental payments have not been reduced by future minimum sublease rentals totaling $7.1 million . We are party to letters of credit totaling $3.2 million and $3.1 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , respectively, issued primarily in support of operating leases at several of our facilities. These letters of credit are collateralized by a line with our bank. No amounts have been drawn against these letters of credit. Contract Manufacturer Commitments Our independent contract manufacturers procure components and assemble 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. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , we had non-cancelable open orders of $12.7 million and $10.2 million , respectively. We are required to record a liability for firm, non-cancelable and unconditional purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers for quantities in excess of our future demand forecasts. As of March 31, 2017 , we have not accrued any significant costs for such non-cancelable commitments. Purchase Obligations As of March 31, 2017 , we had approximately $22.5 million of non-cancelable firm purchase commitments primarily for purchases of software and services. In those situations in which we have received delivery of the goods or services as of March 31, 2017 under purchase orders outstanding as of the same date, such amounts are reflected in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as accounts payable or accrued liabilities, and are excluded from the $22.5 million . Litigation 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. On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers, and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering. On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The actions were consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court overruled defendants' demurrers. On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class, which the court granted in part and denied in part on July 11, 2016. On January 6, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court denied on April 1, 2016. On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On September 8, 2016, the court of appeal denied the petition. On September 16, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California. On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review. On December 8, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. On February 6, 2017, the parties submitted to the Superior Court a stipulation of settlement. The terms of the settlement include a release and dismissal of all claims against all defendants without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. On February 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Superior Court granted. The settlement, which is immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements, is subject to stockholder notice, court approval, and other customary conditions. On January 28, 2015, certain of the Company’s officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative derivative action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. On April 21, 2015, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in both actions. The actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 15, 2015, purporting to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On July 15, 2015, defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated complaint. On December 4, 2015, the court sustained, with leave to amend, defendants’ demurrers on the basis that plaintiffs had failed adequately to allege derivative standing. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2016. On June 8, 2016, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint, which the court sustained on August 29, 2016, dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 27, 2016. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable. In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, by one of the plaintiffs in the aforementioned putative derivative action against the Company, seeking production of certain books and records pursuant to Delaware and California law. On May 16, 2016, the court sustained the Company's demurrer to the petition, without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 27, 2016. The appeal was dismissed on April 14, 2017. We are also subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation, including intellectual property litigation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes, and are not predictable with assurance. 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. We do not currently believe that it is reasonably possible that additional losses in connection with litigation arising in the ordinary course of business would be material. Indemnification Under the indemnification provisions of our standard sales related contracts, we agree to defend our customers against third-party claims asserting infringement of certain intellectual property rights, which may include patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets, and to pay judgments entered on such claims. Our exposure under these indemnification provisions is generally limited to the total amount paid by our customer under the agreement. However, certain agreements include indemnification provisions that could potentially expose us to losses in excess of the amount received under the agreement. In addition, we indemnify our officers, directors, and certain key employees for actions taken while they are or were serving in good faith in such capacities. Through March 31, 2017 , there have been no claims under any indemnification provisions. |