Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies (a) Purchase Commitments with Contract Manufacturers and Suppliers We purchase components from a variety of suppliers and use several contract manufacturers to provide manufacturing services for our products. During the normal course of business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate component supply, we enter into agreements with contract manufacturers and suppliers that either allow them to procure inventory based upon criteria as defined by us or establish the parameters defining our requirements. A significant portion of our reported purchase commitments arising from these agreements consists of firm, noncancelable, and unconditional commitments. Certain of these purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers relate to arrangements to secure long-term pricing for certain product components for multi-year periods. In certain instances, these agreements allow us the option to cancel, reschedule, and adjust our requirements based on our business needs prior to firm orders being placed. As of January 25, 2020 and July 27, 2019 , we had total purchase commitments for inventory of $4.5 billion and $5.0 billion , respectively. We record a liability for firm, noncancelable, and unconditional purchase commitments for quantities in excess of our future demand forecasts consistent with the valuation of our excess and obsolete inventory. As of January 25, 2020 and July 27, 2019 , the liability for these purchase commitments was $126 million and $129 million , respectively, and was included in other current liabilities. (b) Other Commitments In connection with our acquisitions, we have agreed to pay certain additional amounts contingent upon the achievement of certain agreed-upon technology, development, product, or other milestones or upon the continued employment with Cisco of certain employees of the acquired entities. The following table summarizes the compensation expense related to acquisitions (in millions): Three Months Ended Six Months Ended January 25, 2020 January 26, 2019 January 25, 2020 January 26, 2019 Compensation expense related to acquisitions $ 50 $ 66 $ 111 $ 175 As of January 25, 2020 , we estimated that future cash compensation expense of up to $370 million may be required to be recognized pursuant to the applicable business combination agreements. We also have certain funding commitments, primarily related to our non-marketable equity and other investments, some of which are based on the achievement of certain agreed-upon milestones, and some of which are required to be funded on demand. The funding commitments were $291 million and $326 million as of January 25, 2020 and July 27, 2019 , respectively. (c) Product Warranties The following table summarizes the activity related to the product warranty liability (in millions): Six Months Ended January 25, January 26, Balance at beginning of period $ 342 $ 359 Provisions for warranties issued 283 297 Adjustments for pre-existing warranties (3 ) (5 ) Settlements (291 ) (300 ) Acquisitions and divestitures — (2 ) Balance at end of period $ 331 $ 349 We accrue for warranty costs as part of our cost of sales based on associated material product costs, labor costs for technical support staff, and associated overhead. Our products are generally covered by a warranty for periods ranging from 90 days to five years , and for some products we provide a limited lifetime warranty. (d) Financing and Other Guarantees In the ordinary course of business, we provide financing guarantees for various third-party financing arrangements extended to channel partners and end-user customers. Payments under these financing guarantee arrangements were not material for the periods presented. Channel Partner Financing Guarantees We facilitate arrangements for third-party financing extended to channel partners, consisting of revolving short-term financing, generally with payment terms ranging from 60 to 90 days . These financing arrangements facilitate the working capital requirements of the channel partners, and, in some cases, we guarantee a portion of these arrangements. The volume of channel partner financing was $6.6 billion and $7.3 billion for the second quarter of fiscal 2020 and 2019 , respectively, and was $14.2 billion and $14.5 billion for the first six months of fiscal 2020 and 2019 , respectively. The balance of the channel partner financing subject to guarantees was $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion as of January 25, 2020 and July 27, 2019 , respectively. End-User Financing Guarantees We also provide financing guarantees for third-party financing arrangements extended to end-user customers related to leases and loans, which typically have terms of up to three years . The volume of financing provided by third parties for leases and loans as to which we had provided guarantees was $1 million and $6 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2020 and 2019 , respectively, and was $6 million and $9 million for the first six months of fiscal 2020 and 2019 , respectively. Financing Guarantee Summary The aggregate amounts of financing guarantees outstanding at January 25, 2020 and July 27, 2019 , representing the total maximum potential future payments under financing arrangements with third parties along with the related deferred revenue, are summarized in the following table (in millions): January 25, July 27, Maximum potential future payments relating to financing guarantees: Channel partner $ 258 $ 197 End user 13 21 Total $ 271 $ 218 Deferred revenue associated with financing guarantees: Channel partner $ (69 ) $ (62 ) End user (13 ) (15 ) Total $ (82 ) $ (77 ) Maximum potential future payments relating to financing guarantees, net of associated deferred revenue $ 189 $ 141 (e) Indemnifications In the normal course of business, we indemnify other parties, including customers, lessors, and parties to other transactions with us, with respect to certain matters. We have agreed to indemnify against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants or out of intellectual property infringement or other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”), which acquired Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) in May 2016, is seeking indemnification from us for a final judgment obtained by Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (“Sprint”) against TWC in federal court in Kansas. Sprint sought monetary damages, alleging that TWC infringed certain Sprint patents by offering VoIP telephone services utilizing products provided by us generally in combination with those of other manufacturers. Following a trial on March 3, 2017 , a jury in Kansas found that TWC willfully infringed five Sprint patents and awarded Sprint $139.8 million in damages. The Court awarded Sprint pre and post judgment interest of approximately $10 million and denied TWC's post-trial motions and appeals. Charter reported that it paid the judgment in full. At this time, we are working with Charter to calculate the correct amount of indemnification. We do not believe that our indemnity obligations under our agreement will be material. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers and directors, and our Amended and Restated Bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to our agents. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to our limited history with prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by us under these agreements have not had a material effect on our operating results, financial position, or cash flows. (f) Legal Proceedings Brazil Brazilian authorities have investigated our Brazilian subsidiary and certain of its former employees, as well as a Brazilian importer of our products, and its affiliates and employees, relating to alleged evasion of import taxes and alleged improper transactions involving the subsidiary and the importer. Brazilian tax authorities have assessed claims against our Brazilian subsidiary based on a theory of joint liability with the Brazilian importer for import taxes, interest, and penalties. In addition to claims asserted by the Brazilian federal tax authorities in prior fiscal years, tax authorities from the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo have asserted similar claims on the same legal basis in prior fiscal years. During the second quarter of fiscal 2020, $0.8 billion of penalty and interest asserted by the Brazilian federal tax authorities against our Brazilian subsidiary on the theory of joint liability was dismissed on its merits. The asserted claims by Brazilian federal tax authorities that remain are for calendar years 2003 through 2007, and the asserted claims by the tax authorities from the state of Sao Paulo are for calendar years 2005 through 2007. The total remaining asserted claims by Brazilian state and federal tax authorities aggregate to $0.2 billion for the alleged evasion of import and other taxes, $0.9 billion for interest, and $0.5 billion for various penalties, all determined using an exchange rate as of January 25, 2020 . We have completed a thorough review of the matters and believe the remaining asserted claims against our Brazilian subsidiary are without merit, and we are defending the claims vigorously. While we believe there is no legal basis for the alleged liability, due to the complexities and uncertainty surrounding the judicial process in Brazil and the nature of the claims asserting joint liability with the importer, we are unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against our Brazilian subsidiary and are unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any. We do not expect a final judicial determination for several years. SRI International On September 4, 2013 , SRI International, Inc. (“SRI”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing our products and services in the area of network intrusion detection of infringing two U.S. patents. SRI sought monetary damages of at least a reasonable royalty and enhanced damages. The trial on these claims began on May 2, 2016 and, on May 12, 2016 , the jury returned a verdict finding willful infringement of the asserted patents. The jury awarded SRI damages of $23.7 million . On May 25, 2017 , the Court awarded SRI enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, entered judgment in the new amount of $57.0 million , and ordered an ongoing royalty of 3.5% through the expiration of the patents in 2018. We appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on various grounds, a panel of which, after various proceedings, on July 12, 2019, issued an opinion vacating the enhanced damages award; vacating and remanding in part the willful infringement finding; vacating and remanding the attorneys’ fees award for further proceedings; and affirming the district court's other findings. Cisco paid SRI $28.1 million , representing the portion of the judgment that the Federal Circuit affirmed, plus interest and royalties on post-verdict sales. This payment is subject to a refund if any portion of the affirmed judgment is reversed or vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 8, 2019, Cisco filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the judgment on the grounds that the asserted patents describe patent-ineligible subject matter. While the remanded proceedings may result in an additional loss, we do not expect it to be material. Centripetal On February 13, 2018 , Centripetal Networks, Inc. (“Centripetal”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking injunctive relief and damages, including enhanced damages for allegations of willful infringement. Centripetal alleges that several Cisco products and services (including Cisco’s Catalyst switches, ASR and ISR series routers, ASAs with FirePOWER services, and Stealthwatch products) infringe eleven Centripetal patents. Cisco thereafter petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to review the validity of nine of the asserted patents. The PTAB instituted inter partes review proceedings (“IPR Proceedings”) on six asserted patents and certain claims of another asserted patent. The PTAB has thus far issued Final Written Decisions for four patents in the instituted IPR Proceedings, and all claims of three patents have been found unpatentable and a portion of the claims of a fourth patent have been found unpatentable. The court set a trial for April 7, 2020 , on the claims in the five patents not subject to the IPR Proceedings, including claims in three for which the PTAB declined to institute Inter Partes Review. While we believe that we have strong non-infringement arguments and that the patents are invalid, as well as other defenses, if we do not prevail in the District Court, we believe that Centripetal will not be able to meet its burden required for injunctive relief and that any damages ultimately assessed would not be material. Due to uncertainty surrounding patent litigation processes, however, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate monetary outcome of this litigation at this time. Straight Path On September 24, 2014 , Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing our 9971 IP Phone, Unified Communications Manager working in conjunction with 9971 IP Phones, and Video Communication Server products of infringement. All of the asserted patents have expired and Straight Path was therefore limited to seeking monetary damages for the alleged past infringement. On November 13, 2017 , the Court granted our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, thereby dismissing Straight Path's claims against us and cancelling a trial which had been set for March 12, 2018 . Straight Path appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, and, on January 23, 2019 , the court summarily affirmed the finding of non-infringement. On August 23, 2019 , Straight Path filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Circuit’s rule allowing summary affirmance, which was denied on November 18, 2019 . Oyster Optics On November 24, 2016 , Oyster Optics, LLC (“Oyster”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Oyster alleges that certain Cisco ONS 15454 and NCS 2000 line cards infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,620,327 (“the ‘327 Patent”). Oyster seeks monetary damages. Oyster filed infringement claims based on the ‘327 Patent against other defendants, including ZTE, Nokia, NEC, Infinera, Huawei, Ciena, Alcatel-Lucent, and Fujitsu, and the court consolidated the cases alleging infringement of the ‘327 Patent. Oyster's cases against some of the defendants were resolved. The court vacated the November 4, 2018 trial date set for Oyster's claims against Cisco and one other remaining defendant, pending resolution of Oyster's appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling dismissing certain of Oyster's claims. Oyster appealed the summary judgment ruling on December 6, 2018 . While we believe that we have strong non-infringement arguments and that the patent is invalid, if Oyster prevails in its appeal of the summary judgment ruling, and if we do not prevail in the District Court in a subsequent trial, we believe damages ultimately assessed would not be material. Due to uncertainty surrounding patent litigation processes, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of this litigation at this time. However, we do not anticipate that any final outcome of the dispute would be material. |