COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES From time to time, NetScout is subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate expense with respect to any current legal proceedings and claims, if determined adversely, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As previously disclosed, in March 2016, Packet Intelligence LLC (Packet Intelligence or Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against NetScout and two subsidiary entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas asserting infringement of five United States patents. Plaintiff's Complaint alleged that legacy Tektronix GeoProbe products, including the G10 and GeoBlade products, infringed these patents. NetScout filed an Answer denying Plaintiff's allegations and asserting that Plaintiff's patents were, among other things, invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In October 2017, a jury trial was held to address the parties' claims and counterclaims regarding infringement of three patents by the G10 and GeoBlade products, invalidity of these patents, and damages. On October 13, 2017, the jury rendered a verdict finding in favor of the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff was entitled to $3,500,000 for pre-suit damages and $2,250,000 for post-suit damages. The jury indicated that the awarded damages amounts were intended to reflect a running royalty. In September 2018, the Court entered judgment and "enhanced" the jury verdict in the amount of $2.8 million as a result of a jury finding. The judgment also awarded pre- and post-judgment interest, and a running royalty on the G10 and GeoBlade products until the expiration of the patents at issue, the last date being June 2022. Following the entry of final judgment, on June 12, 2019, NetScout filed its Notice of Appeal. On July 14, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision vacating the $3,500,000 pre-suit damages award, affirming the $2,250,000 post-suit damages award, and remanding to the district court to determine what, if any, enhancement should be awarded. On March 15, 2021, NetScout filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied, challenging, among other issues, the basis for enhanced damages and the patentability of the claimed technology. The case is currently on remand at the District Court for additional proceedings, including pending motions relating to whether enhanced damages should be awarded and the ongoing royalty rate. In addition, on September 8 and 9, 2021, in proceedings initiated by third parties that did not involve NetScout, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated all the patent claims that were also asserted against NetScout in this case. After the PTAB decisions were issued, NetScout moved to dismiss the case and enter judgment in its favor on the grounds that the PTAB decisions invalidating the asserted claims precluded Plaintiff from continuing to assert its patent infringement causes of action and from seeking damages from NetScout. Plaintiff has opposed the requested relief and has reported that appeals of the PTAB decisions with the Federal Circuit are already underway. In view of the current circumstances, NetScout has concluded that the risk of loss associated with the post-suit damages award remains "probable" in accounting terms, regardless of the options NetScout may pursue, and that the risk of loss associated with pre-suit damages is remote. Accounting rules require NetScout to provide an estimate for the range of potential liability. If the post-suit damages award survives the recent PTAB invalidation decisions, NetScout currently estimates that the range of liability would be the sum of post-suit damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest amounts and royalties owed on post-trial sales of the accused G10 and GeoBlade products. Any potential enhancement of any such surviving post-suit damages award is not reasonably estimable but is likely within the range of $0 to $2,800,000.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

From time to time, NetScout is subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate expense with respect to any current legal proceedings and claims, if determined adversely, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

As previously disclosed, in March 2016, Packet Intelligence LLC (Packet Intelligence or Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against NetScout and two subsidiary entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas asserting infringement of five United States patents. Plaintiff's Complaint alleged that legacy Tektronix GeoProbe products, including the

G10 and GeoBlade products, infringed these patents. NetScout filed an Answer denying Plaintiff's allegations and asserting that Plaintiff's patents were, among other things, invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In October 2017, a jury trial was held to address the parties' claims and counterclaims regarding infringement of three patents by the G10 and GeoBlade products, invalidity of these patents, and damages. On October 13, 2017, the jury rendered a verdict finding in favor of the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff was entitled to $3,500,000 for pre-suit damages and $2,250,000 for post-suit damages. The jury indicated that the awarded damages amounts were intended to reflect a running royalty. In September 2018, the Court entered judgment and "enhanced" the jury verdict in the amount of $2.8 million as a result of a jury finding. The judgment also awarded pre- and post-judgment interest, and a running royalty on the G10 and GeoBlade products until the expiration of the patents at issue, the last date being June 2022. Following the entry of final judgment, on June 12, 2019, NetScout filed its Notice of Appeal. On July 14, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision vacating the $3,500,000 pre-suit damages award, affirming the $2,250,000 post-suit damages award, and remanding to the district court to determine what, if any, enhancement should be awarded. On March 15, 2021, NetScout filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied, challenging, among other issues, the basis for enhanced damages and the patentability of the claimed technology. The case is currently on remand at the District Court for additional proceedings, including pending motions relating to whether enhanced damages should be awarded and the ongoing royalty rate. In addition, on September 8 and 9, 2021, in proceedings initiated by third parties that did not involve NetScout, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated all the patent claims that were also asserted against NetScout in this case. After the PTAB decisions were issued, NetScout moved to dismiss the case and enter judgment in its favor on the grounds that the PTAB decisions invalidating the asserted claims precluded Plaintiff from continuing to assert its patent infringement causes of action and from seeking damages from NetScout. Plaintiff has opposed the requested relief and has reported that appeals of the PTAB decisions with the Federal Circuit are already underway. In view of the current circumstances, NetScout has concluded that the risk of loss associated with the post-suit damages award remains "probable" in accounting terms, regardless of the options NetScout may pursue, and that the risk of loss associated with pre-suit damages is remote. Accounting rules require NetScout to provide an estimate for the range of potential liability. If the post-suit damages award survives the recent PTAB invalidation decisions, NetScout currently estimates that the range of liability would be the sum of post-suit damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest amounts and royalties owed on post-trial sales of the accused G10 and GeoBlade products. Any potential enhancement of any such surviving post-suit damages award is not reasonably estimable but is likely within the range of $0 to $2,800,000.