Commitments, Contingencies and Leases

Leases

The Company currently leases its current headquarters, research and development facilities and office spaces for its various United States and international operations. Certain leases contain rent escalation clauses and renewal options. As part of the Company’s existing leased facilities, the Company has received lease incentives which take the form of a fixed allowance towards lease improvements on the respective facility. The Company used the allowance to make leasehold improvements which are being depreciated over the useful life of the assets or the lease term, whichever is shorter. The offsetting lease incentives liability is being amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease as an offset to rent expense.

Future annual minimum lease payments under all non-cancelable operating leases having initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year at June 30, 2014 were as follows (in thousands):



	Future Lease Payments
Fiscal 2015	$	9,093
Fiscal 2016	7,482
Fiscal 2017	6,974
Fiscal 2018	6,887
Fiscal 2019	6,918
Thereafter	20,755
Total minimum payments	$	58,109

Rent expense was approximately $10.2 million in fiscal 2014, $5.9 million in fiscal 2013, and $4.3 million in fiscal 2012.

Purchase Commitments

The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase approximately $64.7 million of such inventory during the first quarter of fiscal 2015.

Legal Proceedings

The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, except as noted below, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

Intellectual Property Litigation

Enterasys Networks

On June 21, 2005, Enterasys Networks ("Enterasys") filed suit against Extreme and Foundry Networks, Inc. (“Foundry”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 05-11298 DPW. The complaint alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,251,205; 5,390,173; 6,128,665; 6,147,995; 6,539,022; and 6,560,236, and sought: a) a judgment that the Company willfully infringes each of the patents; (b) a permanent injunction from infringement, inducement of infringement and contributory infringement of each of the six patents; (c) damages and a “reasonable royalty” to be determined at trial; (d) treble damages; (e) attorneys' fees, costs and interest; and (f) equitable relief at the Court's discretion. Petitions for reexamination were filed challenging five of the patents at issue to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and a stay of the case was entered. Following the reexamination proceedings, Enterasys withdrew its allegations of infringement as to two of the patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,539,022 and 6,560,236. The stay was lifted on May 21, 2010, and the Court held claim construction hearings in December 2010. Fact discovery was ongoing. No trial date was set.

On April 20, 2007, the Company filed suit against Enterasys in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 07-C-0229-C. The complaint alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,104,700, 6,678,248, and 6,859,438, and sought injunctive relief against Enterasys' continuing sale of infringing goods and monetary damages. Enterasys responded to the complaint on May 30, 2007, and also filed counterclaims alleging infringement of three U.S. patents owned by Enterasys. On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed Enterasys' counterclaims on one of its patents with prejudice. On May 5, 2008, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that it does not infringe Enterasys' two remaining patents and dismissing all of Enterasys' remaining counterclaims with prejudice. On May 30, 2008, a jury found that Enterasys infringed all three of the Company's patents and awarded the Company damages in the amount of $0.2 million. The Court also ruled in the Company's favor on Enterasys' challenge to the validity of the Company's patents. On October 29, 2008, the Court denied Enterasys' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, and granted Extreme Network's motion for a permanent injunction against Enterasys. The injunction order permanently enjoins Enterasys from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling in the U.S. and importing into the U.S. the Enterasys products accused of infringing Extreme Network's three patents. On March 16, 2009, the Court also denied Enterasys' motion for a new trial, but granted Enterasys' motion for a stay of the injunction pending appeal. On April 17, 2009, Enterasys filed its notice of appeal and on May 1, 2009, the Company filed its cross appeal. On September 30, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the jury verdict of infringement by Enterasys of the Company's patents and the Districts Court's summary judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys' '727 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys '181 patent, holding that the District Court Judge applied an incorrect claim construction and reversed the District Court's denial of the Company's request for attorneys' fees as premature.

On November 4, 2011, a jury returned a verdict of non-infringement by the Company of the '181 patent and found the patent to be valid. Both parties filed post-trial motions, including motions for a new trial, for judgment as a matter of law and for attorneys' fees, all of which the Court denied on July 11, 2012. Enterasys did not file a notice of appeal by the August 10, 2012 deadline. Consequently, the judgment of non-infringement in favor of the Company in the second trial is final. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, Enterasys paid the Company $0.6 million related to the judgment. During the quarter ended December 31, 2012, the Company received payments from Enterasys totaling approximately $0.4 million for the Court's award for damages, supplemental damages, pre and post judgment interests, costs from the first trial and second trial, plus the amount Enterasys agreed to release for damages held in escrow that accrued during the stay of the injunction post-trial and on appeal.

On March 29, 2013, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement required a dismissal with prejudice of the Wisconsin and Massachusetts litigation, as well as cross covenants not to sue and survival of settlement rights for any acquiring party of the parties. Joint motions to dismiss were granted on April 13, 2013, and April 15, 2013 respectively. All matters between the parties have now been resolved.

Chrimar Systems

On October 31, 2011, Chrimar Systems, Inc. DBA CMS Technologies, and Chrimar Holding Company filed suit against the Company, Cisco Systems, Inc., and Cisco Consumer Products LLC. Cisco-Linksys LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, 3Com Corporation and Avaya, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 11-1050 (the "Delaware action"). The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250. The Delaware action has been stayed pursuant to 28 USC Section 1659(a) pending final determination of the International Trade Commission action described below, based on the fact that the allegations in both cases relate to the same patent.

During the fourth quarter of the fiscal 2012, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with Chrimar Systems Inc. As part of the negotiations the Company determined that it is reasonably possible that a range of loss could be between $0.3 million and $1.4 million which was dependent on a number of factors including whether mutually acceptable settlement terms can be reached. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012 the Company capitalized $1.2 million related to such patents as intangibles based on a probable estimated value and recorded a charge of $0.3 million based on its best estimate of the probable loss. In addition, during the quarter ending March 31, 2013, venue for the Delaware action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Northern California.

On July 16, 2013, the parties entered into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement (“Agreement”). Pursuant to that Agreement, the Company paid $1.4 million on July 25, 2013 and Chrimar filed for dismissal of the Delaware Action with prejudice on July 29, 2013. All matters between the parties have now been resolved.

Reefedge Networks

On September 17, 2012, Reefedge Networks, LLC ("ReefEdge) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 12-1148. The complaint alleged wrongful use, making, selling, and/or offering to sell products that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,633.761; 6,975,864; and 7,197,308 and sought unspecified monetary damages and a permanent injunction for products originating from a single supplier to which the Company had submitted an indemnification request. An answer was filed on December 10, 2012. The Company was dismissed from the suit on May 6, 2013. All matters between the parties have now been resolved.

On September 17, 2012, ReefEdge also filed suit against Enterasys in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging certain of the company's products (wireless controllers and wireless access points), infringe three ReefEdge U.S. patents (6633761, 6975864, 7197308). ReefEdge sought injunctive relief as well as monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount sought. Extreme assumed this litigation as part of the acquisition of Enterasys. The parties reached a settlement in April 2014, which required the Company to pay an immaterial amount.

Relay IP Inc.

On May 3, 2013, Relay IP, Inc. filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action case number 13-775 (Extreme Case). Further on May 6, 2013 they also filed a similar suit against Enterasys in the same court, Civil Action case number 13-774. The complaint alleges infringement based on the Company's testing of its own equipment and inducing its customers to infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,331,637 and seeks unspecified monetary damages. An answer was filed on both cases in July, 2013. The suit is one of approximately 40 nearly simultaneous suits filed by Relay IP against numerous networking equipment manufacturers, suppliers, operators, and users including Cisco Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Juniper Networks, Avaya, Extreme and Enterasys. An answer was filed on both cases in July, 2013. This matter was dismissed against Extreme and Enterasys on all claims by an Order of the District Court on April 28, 2014. It is our understanding that the suit was dismissed due to a settlement by RPX with the Plaintiff on behalf of all RPX members named as Defendants in this action.

Net Navigation Systems, LLC.

On April 23, 2014, Net Navigation Systems, LLC (“Net Navigation”) filed a complaint against Extreme Networks, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. In the Complaint, the plaintiff asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,122 (“the ’122 Patent”), entitled “Selection of Data for Network Transmission,” which issued on September 23, 2003. Although somewhat vague, the Complaint identifies the following products as accused of infringing the ‘122 Patent: “Networking products capable of providing priority to different data flows based on bandwidth.” The Complaint also states that Extreme has infringed by “making, selling, and causing its customers to use networking products capable of providing priority to different data flows based on bandwidth, such as, without limitation, the Black Diamond X8 and the Black Diamond 8000 Series of switches and routers.” The Complaint also asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,145 (“the ’145 Patent”), entitled “Processing of Network Data by Parallel Processing Channels,” which issued on August 13, 2002. Again, although somewhat vague, the Complaint states that Extreme has infringed by “making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, including within this judicial district, networking products that use parallel processing channels, such as, without limitation, the Black Diamond X8 and the Black Diamond 8000 Series of switches and routers.” Net Navigation, a non-practicing entity, seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages, cost, expenses and attorney fees, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount. The Company denies the claims and is preparing to vigorously defend our technology. Given the preliminary nature of the claims, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular outcome.

Selene Communication Technologies, LLC.

On April 7, 2014, Selene Communication Technologies, LLC (“Selene”), filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Delaware against Extreme and Enterasys asserting a cause of action for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,143,444 (the “444 Patent”). Selene has also recently sued a number of other technology companies including Cisco for infringement of the 444 Patent. Selene, a non-practicing entity, seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount. The Company denies the claims and is preparing to vigorously defend our technology. Given the preliminary nature of the claims, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular outcome.

Commonwealth of Kentucky

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a. Unbridled Information Technologies (“Subcontractor”), violated Kentucky’s wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the “Act”) on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC (“IFS”), has filed a cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and has filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS and the Subcontractor. This litigation is in the early stages of discovery. Furthermore, the Company has made a claim for indemnification to Unify U.S. Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Enterprise Networks Holdings, Inc.) (“Seller”), which claim arises pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Seller and Extreme in connection with Extreme’s purchase of Enterasys (the “Purchase Agreement”). Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular outcome.

ICMS Tax Assessment Matters

The State of Sao Paolo (Brazil) denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain credits derived from the State of Espirito Santo under the terms of the FUNDAP scheme for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. Enterasys’ application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014 by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is approximately BR 3,443,914 (or approximately US$1.5 million), plus interest and penalties (that are currently estimated to be approximately US$9 million). Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit and the uncertainty of the legal environment in Brazil, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular final outcome. Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of this audit will not have material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, cash flows or overall trends in results of operations. The range of the potential total tax liability related to these matters is estimated to be from $0 million to $9 million, of which the Company believes $4.3 million is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the acquisition date of Enterasys as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition.

Indemnification Obligations

Subject to certain limitations, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees. These obligations arise under the terms of its certificate of incorporation, its bylaws, applicable contracts, and Delaware and California law. The obligation to indemnify, where applicable, generally means that the Company is required to pay or reimburse, and in certain circumstances the Company has paid or reimbursed, the individuals' reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of these claims. The cost to defend the Company and the named individuals could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the future. Recovery of such costs under its directors and officers insurance coverage is uncertain. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had no outstanding indemnification claims.