Contingencies | Contingencies Legal Matters Akamai ‘703 Litigation In June 2006, Akamai Technologies, Inc. and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that we were infringing multiple patents assigned to MIT and exclusively licensed by MIT to Akamai. In February 2008, a jury returned a verdict in this lawsuit, finding that we infringed four claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 (the ’703 patent) and awarded Akamai damages of approximately $45,500 , which included lost profits, reasonable royalties and price erosion damages for the period April 2005 through December 31, 2007. On April 24, 2009, the court granted our motion for judgment as a matter of law, thus overturning the jury’s verdict finding us liable for infringing the ‘703 patent. On August 13, 2015, after more than six years of appeals by both Akamai and us in the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion establishing a new standard for direct infringement in a divided actor scenario. The Federal Circuit then reinstated the 2008 jury verdict that we were liable for infringement of the '703 patent and denied any remaining legacy appeals. The case was remanded back to the District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the District Court) on December 23, 2015, to resolve questions of supplemental damages, applicable interest on the existing damages award and entry of final judgment, among other things. At that time, Akamai sought entry of final judgment on the original jury award, an accounting of post-suit damages, damages for willful infringement and pre-judgment interest, which Akamai estimated to be approximately $99,000 in the aggregate, and a permanent injunction against us. After a series of motions filed by the parties in District Court, Akamai agreed to waive its right to supplemental damages, which limited the maximum potential damages for us to approximately $62,790 plus future accruing interest (if any). We also petitioned review by the Supreme Court of the United States of the Federal Circuit’s decision to reinstate the jury verdict. Our request for review was denied on April 18, 2016. Our motion seeking to challenge the validity of the ‘703 patent based on intervening changes in law was denied on April 25, 2016 by the District Court. On July 1, 2016, the District Court entered final judgment in the case and reduced total damages payable by us to $50,956 , which is significantly less than the previously disclosed upper-end of range of loss of $62,790 . As a result, in July 2016, we have regained access to $11,834 of availability under our line of credit. On August 1, 2016, we entered into a settlement and license agreement with Akamai with respect to the ‘703 and certain other related patents. The agreement settles all asserted and unasserted claims with respect to the licensed patents. The terms of the agreement require us to pay $54,000 over twelve equal quarterly installments beginning on August 1, 2016. The settlement and license agreement requires Akamai to release us from the letter of credit promptly following its receipt of the initial license payment. In accordance with ASC 855, Subsequent Events, this is a recognized subsequent event. Accordingly, we have taken a charge in the quarter ended June 30, 2016 for the full, undiscounted amount of $54,000 , per our accounting policy. Legal and other expenses associated with this case have been significant. We include these litigation expenses in general and administrative expenses as incurred, as reported in the consolidated statement of operations. Akamai and XO Litigation On November 30, 2015, we filed a lawsuit against Akamai and XO Communications in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging the infringement of six of our patents covering a broad range of inventions that we believe are critical to the effective and efficient delivery of bytes by a content delivery network (the Akamai and XO Litigation). In April 2016, the District Court denied a request for transfer by Akamai and XO Communications and set the trial date in this case for January 3, 2017. Akamai also filed counterclaims on April 29, 2016, alleging the infringement of five of its patents. We filed an answer to Akamai’s counterclaims, denying each of the allegations of infringement on May 23, 2016. At this time, we do not believe a loss is probable nor reasonably possible, and as such, no provision for this lawsuit has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements. We intend to vigorously protect our intellectual property rights in this matter and vigorously defend against each of the counterclaims. 2016 Akamai Litigation On February 16, 2016, Akamai filed a complaint against us in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of three of its patents (the 2016 Akamai Litigation). In April 2016, Akamai amended its complaint by withdrawing one of the asserted patents. We filed our answer to the complaint, denying each of the allegations of infringement, and asserting two counterclaims alleging infringement of two of our patents. At this time, we do not believe a loss is probable nor reasonably possible, and as such, no provision for this lawsuit has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements. We intend to vigorously defend against Akamai’s claims and vigorously protect our intellectual property rights in this matter. Other Matters We are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe the outcome of any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Litigation relating to the content delivery services industry is not uncommon, and we are, and from time to time have been, subject to such litigation. No assurances can be given with respect to the extent or outcome of any such litigation in the future. Taxes We are subject to indirect taxation in various states and foreign jurisdictions. Laws and regulations that apply to communications and commerce conducted over the Internet are becoming more prevalent, both in the United States and internationally, and may impose additional burdens on us conducting business online or providing Internet-related services. Increased regulation could negatively affect our business directly, as well as the businesses of our customers, which could reduce their demand for our services. For example, tax authorities in various states and abroad may impose taxes on the Internet-related revenue we generate based on regulations currently being applied to similar but not directly comparable industries. There are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. In addition, domestic and international taxation laws are subject to change. In the future, we may come under audit, which could result in changes to our tax estimates. We believe we maintain adequate tax reserves to offset potential liabilities that may arise upon audit. Although we believe our tax estimates and associated reserves are reasonable, the final determination of tax audits and any related litigation could be materially different than the amounts established for tax contingencies. To the extent these estimates ultimately prove to be inaccurate, the associated reserves would be adjusted, resulting in the recording of a benefit or expense in the period in which a change in estimate or a final determination is made. |