| 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 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 inventory purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers relate to arrangements to secure supply and 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. The following table summarizes our inventory purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers by period (in millions): April 27, July 29, Less than 1 year $ 4,581 $ 5,270 1 to 3 years 1,368 1,783 3 to 5 years 55 200 Total $ 6,004 $ 7,253 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 April 27, 2024 and July 29, 2023, the liability for these purchase commitments was $550 million and $529 million, respectively, and was included in other current liabilities. (b) Other Commitments We have certain funding commitments, primarily related to our privately held investments. The funding commitments were $0.2 billion and $0.3 billion as of April 27, 2024 and July 29, 2023, respectively. (c) Product Warranties The following table summarizes the activity related to the product warranty liability (in millions): Nine Months Ended April 27, April 29, Balance at beginning of period $ 329 $ 333 Provisions for warranties issued 316 285 Adjustments for pre-existing warranties 20 15 Settlements (302) (321) Balance at end of period $ 363 $ 312 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 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, with payment terms generally 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 $6.1 billion and $8.3 billion for the third quarter of fiscal 2024 and 2023, respectively, and $20.9 billion and $23.4 billion for the first nine months of fiscal 2024 and 2023, respectively. The balance of the channel partner financing subject to guarantees was $1.1 billion and $1.7 billion as of April 27, 2024 and July 29, 2023, respectively. Financing Guarantee Summary The aggregate amounts of channel partner financing guarantees outstanding at April 27, 2024 and July 29, 2023, 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): April 27, July 29, Maximum potential future payments $ 126 $ 159 Deferred revenue (25) (34) Total $ 101 $ 125 (e) Indemnifications In the normal course of business, we have indemnification obligations to 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 or circumstances within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount for claims made under the indemnification obligations due to uncertainties in the litigation process, coordination with and contributions by other parties and the defendants in these types of cases, and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular case and agreement. Historically, indemnity payments made by us have not had a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. 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. (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. The asserted claims by Brazilian federal tax authorities 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 asserted claims by Brazilian state and federal tax authorities aggregate to $157 million for the alleged evasion of import and other taxes, $902 million for interest, and $357 million for various penalties, all determined using an exchange rate as of April 27, 2024. We have completed a thorough review of the matters and believe the 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. 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, alleging that several of our products and services infringe eleven Centripetal U.S. patents. After two bench trials and various administrative actions and appeals, we have been found either to not have infringed any of the patents or the patents have been invalidated. There is an appeal of one of the invalidity decisions and we expect a further appeal by Centripetal. Between April 2020 and February 2022, Centripetal also filed complaints in the District Court of Dusseldorf in Germany (“German Court”), asserting a total of five patents and one utility model. Centripetal sought damages and injunctive relief in all cases. In various proceedings in 2021, 2022, and 2023, we have been found to have not infringed three patents, one patent was invalidated, the utility model was invalidated, and the infringement action on the final patent is stayed due to a pending invalidity action, which has a hearing set for June 6, 2024. Centripetal’s appeals of two of the non-infringement findings remain pending and, on March 27, 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected Centripetal’s appeal of the third non-infringement finding. On July 10, 2023, Centripetal filed a complaint in the Paris Judiciary Court asserting the French counterpart of a European Patent. Centripetal seeks damages and injunctive relief in the case. Centripetal previously asserted the German counterpart of the same European Patent in Germany and the German Court rejected Centripetal’s complaint finding no infringement. We have filed our response and defenses to the complaint and, on May 24, 2024, we expect the Paris Judiciary Court to decide our motion to dismiss and, if denied, it will set the schedule for the remainder of the proceedings. Due to uncertainty surrounding patent litigation processes in the U.S. and Europe, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of the litigations at this time. If we do not prevail in these litigations, we believe that any damages ultimately assessed would not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Ramot On June 12, 2019 and on February 26, 2021, Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. (“Ramot”) asserted patent infringement claims against Cisco and Acacia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“E.D. Tex.”) and in the District of Delaware (“D. Del.”), respectively. Ramot is seeking damages, including enhanced damages, and a royalty on future sales. Ramot alleges that certain optical transceiver modules and line cards infringe three patents. We challenged the validity of the patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the pending District Court cases have been stayed. On September 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022, Cisco and Acacia filed two declaratory judgment actions of noninfringement against Ramot in D. Del on other Ramot patents and those proceedings are ongoing. While we believe that we have strong non-infringement and invalidity arguments in these litigations, and that Ramot’s damages theories in such cases are not supported by prevailing law, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of these litigations at this time due to uncertainties in the litigation processes. If we do not prevail in court in these litigations, we believe any damages ultimately assessed would not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Egenera On August 8, 2016, Egenera, Inc. (“Egenera”) asserted infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Cisco’s Unified Computing System Manager infringes three patents. Egenera sought damages, including enhanced damages, and an injunction. Two of the asserted patents were dismissed, leaving Egenera’s infringement claim based on one asserted patent. On March 25, 2022, the PTO preliminarily found all of the asserted claims of the remaining patent unpatentable in ex parte reexamination proceedings. On August 15, 2022, after a jury trial for the remaining patent, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cisco. The District Court denied Egenera’s post-trial motions, and Egenera filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit on January 13, 2023, the appeal is fully briefed and we are awaiting a hearing date from the Federal Circuit. Viasat On November 6, 2019, Viasat, Inc. (“Viasat”) filed suit against Acacia in the California Superior Court for San Diego County (“SDSC”), alleging contract and trade secret claims for certain Acacia products sold from January 1, 2019 forward. On June 9, 2020, Viasat filed another suit in SDSC alleging contract and trade secret claims for sales of additional Acacia products. Both matters have been formally dismissed and resolved during fiscal 2024 through a settlement for an amount that did not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. |
