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 occasionally receives lease incentives payments from the landlord which are used to make leasehold improvements on the respective facility. The Company depreciates the leasehold improvements over the useful life of the assets or the lease term, whichever is shorter. The lease incentives payments are deferred and 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, 2019, were as follows (in thousands):

For the fiscal year ending:	Future Lease Payments
2020	$	22,733
2021		21,174
2022		20,680
2023		17,828
2024		5,976
Thereafter		16,287
Total minimum payments	$	104,678

Rent expense was $13.3 million, $12.9 million and $9.4 million in fiscal years ended 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

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, 2019, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase $51.2 million of such inventory, which will be received and consumed during the first half of fiscal 2020. The Company expects to utilize its non-cancelable purchase commitments in the normal ongoing operations.

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.

On May 28, 2007, the Public Treasury Department of the State of Sao Paolo, Brazil (the “Tax Authority”) assessed the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary, Enterasys Networks do Brasil Ltda. (“Enterasys Brasil”), based on an alleged underpayment of taxes. The Tax Authority also charged interest and penalties with respect to the assessment (collectively, the “ICMS Tax Assessment”). The Tax Authority denied Enterasys Brasil the use of certain presumed tax credits granted by the State of Espirito Santo, Brazil under the terms of the FUNDAP program for the period from February 2003 to December 2004. The value of the disallowed presumed tax credits is BRL 3.4 million (USD $0.9 million), excluding interest and penalties. All currency conversions in this Legal Proceedings section are as of June 30, 2019.

Unable to resolve the matter at the administrative level, on October 1, 2014, Enterasys Brasil filed a lawsuit in the 11th Public Treasury Court of the Sao Paolo State Court of Justice (Judiciary District of Sao Paolo) to overturn or reduce the ICMS Tax Assessment. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys Brasil requested a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure could be filed and no guarantee would be required until the court issued its final ruling. On or about October 6, 2014, the court granted a preliminary injunction staying any execution on the assessment, but requiring that Enterasys Brasil deposit the assessed amount with the court. Enterasys Brasil appealed this ruling and, on or about January 28, 2015, the appellate court ruled that no cash deposit (or guarantee) was required. In a decision dated August 28, 2017, and published on October 3, 2017, the court validated the assessment and penalty imposed by the Tax Authority but ruled that the Tax Authority was charging an unlawfully high interest rate on the tax assessment and penalty amounts and ordered the interest rate reduced to the maximum Federal rate. The August 28, 2017, decision, were it to become final, would require Enterasys Brasil to pay a total of BRL 20.0 million (USD $5.2 million), which includes penalties, court costs, attorneys’ fees, and accrued interest as of June 30, 2019. The Company believes the ICMS Tax Assessment against Enterasys Brasil is without merit and has appealed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court ruled that no cash deposit (or guarantee) is required during the pendency of the appeal.

Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of the ICMS Tax Assessment litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall results of operations. However, due to the complexities and uncertainty surrounding the judicial process in Brazil and the nature of the claims asserted, there can be no assurance of a favorable outcome for Enterasys Brasil, which recorded an accrual of BRL 9.4 million (USD $2.5 million) as of the date the Company acquired Enterasys Networks.

The Company made a demand on April 11, 2014, for a defense from, and indemnification by, the former equity holder of Enterasys Networks, Inc. (“Seller”) in connection with the ICMS Tax Assessment. Seller agreed to assume the defense of the ICMS Tax Assessment on May 20, 2014. In addition, through the settlement of an indemnification-related lawsuit with the Seller on June 18, 2015, Seller agreed to continue to defend the Company with respect to the ICMS Tax Assessment and to indemnify the Company for losses related thereto subject to certain conditions. These conditions include the offsetting of foreign income tax benefits realized by the Company in connection with the acquisition of Enterasys. Based upon current projections of the foreign income tax benefits to be realized, and the potential liability in the event of an adverse final judgment in the ICMS Tax Assessment litigation, the Company does not presently anticipate that any amounts under the indemnification will be due from the Seller in connection with the ICMS Tax Assessment.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, punitive class action complaints alleging violations of securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and three of its former officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil). Subsequently, the cases were consolidated (In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:15-CY-04883-BLF). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding the Company’s financial condition, business operations and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock from September 12, 2013, through April 9, 2015. On June 28, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On November 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on April 27, 2017. On June 2, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, on July 10, 2017, defendants again moved to dismiss. In a March 21, 2018, Order (the “March 2018 Order”), the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion. The March 2018 Order narrowed the scope of the case, but allowed certain claims to proceed. The parties agreed to settle the litigation. On November 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, and on December 6, 2018, Extreme filed a statement of non-opposition. The preliminary hearing took place on March 7, 2019, and the court approved the settlement amount at the final hearing which took place on June 20, 2019.

On April 19, 2017, XR Communications, LLC (“XR”) (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the Central District of California (XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies v. Extreme Networks, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-2953-AG). The operative Second Amended Complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,062,296, 7,729,728, and 6,611,231 based on the Company’s manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation into the United States of certain access points and routers supporting multi-user, multiple-input, multiple-output technology. XR seeks unspecified damages, on-going royalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees (but no injunction). In orders dated April 10 and May 22, 2018, the Court stayed the case pending a resolution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by several defendants in other XR-related patent lawsuits challenging the validity of the asserted patents. The PTAB has now instituted IPR proceedings as to all three patents and all patent claims asserted in the litigation. Given the stay, the Court took off calendar all previously scheduled events (including a Markman hearing and potential trial date). During a status conference on February 11, 2019, the Court continued the stay and set a status conference for December 2, 2019. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Orckit IP, LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc., Extreme Networks Ireland Ltd., and Extreme Networks GmbH

On February 1, 2018, Orckit IP, LLC (“Orckit”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company and its Irish and German subsidiaries in the District Court in Dusseldorf, Germany. The lawsuit alleges direct and indirect infringement of the German portion of European Patent EP 1 958 364 B1 based on the offer, distribution, use, possession and/or importation into Germany of certain network switches equipped with the ExtremeXOS operating system. Orckit is seeking injunctive relief, accounting, and an unspecified declaration of liability for damages and costs of the lawsuit. On May 3, 2018, Extreme Networks GmbH filed a separate nullity action in the Federal Patent Court in Munich, seeking to invalidate the asserted patents, and on May 4, 2018, the defendants answered the infringement complaint, denying any infringement and seeking a stay of the action pending the conclusion of the nullity action. The District Court Düsseldorf scheduled a hearing in this case for January 28, 2020.

On April 23, 2019, Orckit filed and extension of the patent infringement complaint against the Company and its Irish and German subsidiaries in the District Court in Dusseldorf, Germany. With this extension, Orckit alleges infringement of the German portion of European Patent EP 3 068 077 B1 based on the offer, distribution, use, possession and/or importation into Germany of certain network switches. Orckit is seeking injunctive relief, accounting and sales information, and a declaration of liability for damages as well as costs of the lawsuit. No hearing has been scheduled yet in this case, which was split from the original action involving the first patent in suit.

The Company believes that all claims are without merit and defends them vigorously.

Global Innovation Aggregators, LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc.; Extreme Networks China Limited; Extreme Networks Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.; and Shenzhen Yingzhixiang Technology Co.

In January 2019, Global Innovation Aggregators, LLC (“GIA”) filed six patent infringement lawsuits against the Company and its Chinese and Hong Kong subsidiaries and Shenzhen Yingzhixiang Technology Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court in China. The six patents at issue are ZL200610168028.1, ZL200510120823.9, ZL200410057124.X, ZL200410070933.4, ZL200510103486.2, and ZL200610060686.9. Each patent was asserted in a separate law suit. The filing date for the first case is January 18, 2019, and the filing date for the rest of the cases is January 23, 2019. The trial for the first case is currently scheduled for January 15, 2020, and trials for the rest of the cases have not yet been scheduled. The products at issue include the Summit X440-G2 series, X450-G2 series, X460-G2 series, X620 series, X670-G2 series, X770 series, X870 series, X690 series, and X590 series. GIA is a U.S. entity established under the laws of Delaware with its principal office in Pasadena, California. Extreme disputes GIA’s claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Additionally, Extreme has filed invalidity challenges with the Chinese patent office to challenge the validity of each asserted patent. Oral invalidity hearings were held in July and August 2019. Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, Extreme cannot estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

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 applicable 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 certain legal matters. For example, the Company currently is paying or reimbursing legal expenses being incurred by certain current and former officers and directors in connection with the shareholder litigation described above. The Company also procures Directors and Officers insurance to help cover its defense and/or indemnification costs, although its ability to recover such costs through insurance is uncertain. While it is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount that could be owed under these indemnification agreements due to the Company’s limited history with prior indemnification claims, indemnification (including defense) costs could, in the future, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of June 30, 2019, the Company has the outstanding indemnification claims described above.