Commitments and Contingencies | 6. Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company leases its facilities under various noncancelable operating leases with fixed rental payments. Rent expense totaled $1.5 million and $1.3 million for the three months ended July 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $3.0 million and $2.5 million for the six months ended July 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Future minimum commitments under these operating leases as of July 31, 2015 were as follows (in thousands): Years ending January 31: 2016 (remaining six months) $ 3,456 2017 6,932 2018 6,864 2019 6,683 2020 6,598 Thereafter 12,354 $ 42,887 In July 2014, the Company entered into a new facility lease agreement for its North Carolina office. The 84-month lease commenced on August 1, 2014 and provides 47,986 square feet of space. Total rent, including common area maintenance expense and fixed operating expense, payable over the lease period is $5.0 million. As part of the lease agreement, the Company will receive an allowance of $1.4 million for tenant improvements. This allowance was included in the calculation of rent expense and related deferred rent balances. In December 2014, the Company amended the lease agreement for its North Carolina office giving the Company access to an additional 38,909 square feet of space on February 1, 2016 through the same term as the original facility lease. In April 2013, the Company entered into a facility lease agreement with a 96-month lease term that commenced on November 1, 2013 and provides 164,608 square feet of space in San Jose, California. Total rent, including operating expenses, payable over the lease period is $35.5 million. As part of the lease agreement, the Company received $4.9 million in tenant improvement allowance during the year ended January 31, 2014. This tenant improvement allowance was included in the calculation of rent expense and related deferred rent balances. As a condition of the lease agreement, the Company is required to maintain a letter of credit of $3.9 million, with the landlord named as the beneficiary. The Company has the option to extend the term of the lease for an additional period of 60 months. Contingencies From time to time, the Company is party to litigation and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, including actions with respect to employment claims and other matters. Although the results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable, the Company believes that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On October 29, 2013, NetApp, Inc. (“NetApp”), filed a lawsuit in United States District Court, Northern District of California, alleging violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition and related state law claims. The Company and three individuals, a sales engineer employee of an Australian affiliate, along with a sales representative and program manager of the Company, had been named as defendants. On January 10, 2014, NetApp filed a First Amended Complaint that added similar state law claims against three additional individuals as defendants. The First Amended Complaint alleged that the Australian defendant, a former employee of a NetApp reseller, accessed NetApp’s password-protected website allegedly restricted to NetApp partners, resellers, employees and customers, and downloaded confidential and proprietary information in violation of the CFAA. It further alleged that the other five individual defendants, who were formerly employed at NetApp, downloaded NetApp company documents and materials, including allegedly confidential and trade secret information and/or deleted NetApp documents and materials, prior to leaving NetApp. On May 16, 2014, NetApp filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara against the Company and five individuals who were dismissed from the federal lawsuit, alleging claims that were similar to those dismissed from the federal lawsuit. The state court complaint sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The parties entered into a written settlement agreement effective March 16, 2015, the terms of which are confidential. The settlement, which is not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements, resolved all remaining claims in the two pending litigations. Both matters involving NetApp have been dismissed with prejudice. On July 15, 2015, NetApp filed a motion to modify the settlement agreement to allow NetApp additional time to comply. The Company opposed that motion and at a hearing on August 25, 2015, the Court took the motion under submission. On August 3, 2015, NetApp filed a motion alleging the Company and codefendants had not fully complied with the terms of the confidential settlement agreement. The Company opposed that motion and at a hearing on September 2, 2015, the Court denied the motion in its entirety. Indemnification Some of the Company’s sales contracts require the Company to indemnify its 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. The Company’s exposure under these indemnification provisions is generally limited to the total amount paid by the customer under the contract. However, certain contracts include indemnification provisions that could potentially expose the Company to losses in excess of the amount received under the contract. In addition, the Company indemnifies its officers, directors, and certain key employees while they are serving in good faith in their respective capacities. To date, there have been no claims under any indemnification provisions. |