Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Other Claims Similar to many companies in the software industry, we are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including at times actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, employment, benefits and securities matters. At each balance sheet date, we evaluate contingent liabilities associated with these matters in accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies.” If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a liability for the estimated loss. Significant judgments are required for the determination of probability and the range of the outcomes, and estimates are based only on the best information available at the time. Due to the inherent uncertainties involved in claims and legal proceedings and in estimating losses that may arise, actual outcomes may differ from our estimates. Contingencies deemed not probable or for which losses were not estimable in one period may become probable, or losses may become estimable in later periods, which may have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. As of March 31, 2024, accrued losses were not material to our condensed consolidated financial statements, and we do not expect any pending matter to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements. City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust Action On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc., et al. (the “Securities Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court’s selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 16, 2020 and February 4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On September 9, 2022, the defendants in the Securities Action moved to dismiss the action in its entirety. On March 25, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing certain of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions while allowing claims challenging certain other alleged misrepresentations and omissions to proceed. On April 15, 2024, the defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. We intend to defend the claims vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Derivative Actions On May 10 and 12, 2022, respectively, plaintiffs William Shafer and Peter Morse filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Cerence Inc. against defendants (and former officers) Sanjay Dwahan and Mark J. Gallenberger as well as board members Arun Sarin, Thomas Beaudoin, Marianne Budnik, Sanjay Jha, Kristi Ann Matus, Alfred Nietzel and current CEO and board member Stefan Ortmanns. These actions are premised on factual contentions substantially similar to those made in the Securities Action and contain substantially similar legal contentions. As such, on June 13, 2022, at the parties' request, the court consolidated these derivative actions into a single action and appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in that consolidated action. The court previously stayed the case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. On April 23, 2024, the parties submitted proposals for how the case should proceed. As of the date of this report, the court has yet to act on these competing proposals. Two shareholder derivative complaints making factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those raised in the consolidated federal derivative action have been also filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: one filed on October 19, 2022 by plaintiff Melinda Hipp against the defendants named in the consolidated action and board member Douglas Davis and one filed on August 17, 2023 by plaintiff Catherine Fleming against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action. On October 20, 2023, Ms. Hipp voluntarily dismissed her action with prejudice. Plaintiff Catherine Fleming is due to file an amended complaint on May 24, 2024, and the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss is due on July 23, 2024. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, derivative standing and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these derivative actions. A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena and Carlos Pena Action On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence’s Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence’s Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence has filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. Cerence's answer is due on April 16, 2024. The Federal Court has not yet resolved Cerence's pending motion to dismiss that case. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Guarantees and Other We include indemnification provisions in the contracts we enter with customers and business partners. Generally, these provisions require us to defend claims arising out of our products’ infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, breach of contractual obligations and/or unlawful or otherwise culpable conduct. The indemnity obligations generally cover damages, costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of such claims. In most, but not all cases, our total liability under such provisions is limited to either the value of the contract or a specified, agreed-upon amount. In some cases, our total liability under such provisions is unlimited. In many, but not all cases, the term of the indemnity provision is perpetual. While the maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under all the indemnification provisions is unlimited, we believe the estimated fair value of these provisions is minimal due to the low frequency with which these provisions have been triggered. We indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, which provides among other things, indemnification to directors and officers for expenses, judgments, fines, penalties and settlement amounts incurred by such persons in their capacity as a director or officer of the Company, regardless of whether the individual is serving in any such capacity at the time the liability or expense is incurred. Additionally, in connection with certain acquisitions, we agreed to indemnify the former officers and members of the boards of directors of those companies, on similar terms as described above, for a period of six years from the acquisition date. In certain cases, we purchase director and officer insurance policies related to these obligations, which fully cover the six-year period. To the extent that we do not purchase a director and officer insurance policy for the full period of any contractual indemnification, and such directors and officers do not have coverage under separate insurance policies, we would be required to pay for costs incurred, if any, as described above. As of March 31, 2024, we have a $0.9 million letter of credit that is used as a security deposit in connection with our leased Bellevue, Washington office space. In the event of default on the underlying lease, the landlord would be eligible to draw against the letter of credit. The letter of credit is subject to aggregate reductions, provided that we are not in default under the underlying lease. We also have letters of credit in connection with security deposits for other facility leases totaling $0.6 million in the aggregate. These letters of credit have various terms and expire during fiscal year 2024 and beyond, while some of the letters of credit may automatically renew based on the terms of the underlying agreements.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and Other Claims

Similar to many companies in the software industry, we are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including at times actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, employment, benefits and securities matters. At each balance sheet date, we evaluate contingent liabilities associated with these matters in accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies.” If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a liability for the estimated loss. Significant judgments are required for the determination of probability and the range of the outcomes, and estimates are based only on the best information available at the time. Due to the inherent uncertainties involved in claims and legal proceedings and in estimating losses that may arise, actual outcomes may differ from our estimates. Contingencies deemed not probable or for which losses were not estimable in one period may become probable, or losses may become estimable in later periods, which may have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. As of March 31, 2024, accrued losses were not material to our condensed consolidated financial statements, and we do not expect any pending matter to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust Action

On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc., et al. (the “Securities Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court’s selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 16, 2020 and February 4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On

September 9, 2022, the defendants in the Securities Action moved to dismiss the action in its entirety. On March 25, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing certain of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions while allowing claims challenging certain other alleged misrepresentations and omissions to proceed. On April 15, 2024, the defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. We intend to defend the claims vigorously.

Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Derivative Actions

On May 10 and 12, 2022, respectively, plaintiffs William Shafer and Peter Morse filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Cerence Inc. against defendants (and former officers) Sanjay Dwahan and Mark J. Gallenberger as well as board members Arun Sarin, Thomas Beaudoin, Marianne Budnik, Sanjay Jha, Kristi Ann Matus, Alfred Nietzel and current CEO and board member Stefan Ortmanns. These actions are premised on factual contentions substantially similar to those made in the Securities Action and contain substantially similar legal contentions. As such, on June 13, 2022, at the parties' request, the court consolidated these derivative actions into a single action and appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in that consolidated action. The court previously stayed the case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. On April 23, 2024, the parties submitted proposals for how the case should proceed. As of the date of this report, the court has yet to act on these competing proposals.

Two shareholder derivative complaints making factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those raised in the consolidated federal derivative action have been also filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: one filed on October 19, 2022 by plaintiff Melinda Hipp against the defendants named in the consolidated action and board member Douglas Davis and one filed on August 17, 2023 by plaintiff Catherine Fleming against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action. On October 20, 2023, Ms. Hipp voluntarily dismissed her action with prejudice. Plaintiff Catherine Fleming is due to file an amended complaint on May 24, 2024, and the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss is due on July 23, 2024.

Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, derivative standing and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these derivative actions.

A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena and Carlos Pena Action

On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence’s Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence’s Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence has filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. Cerence's answer is due on April 16, 2024. The Federal Court has not yet resolved Cerence's pending motion to dismiss that case. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Guarantees and Other

We include indemnification provisions in the contracts we enter with customers and business partners. Generally, these provisions require us to defend claims arising out of our products’ infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, breach of contractual obligations and/or unlawful or otherwise culpable conduct. The indemnity obligations generally cover damages, costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of such claims. In most, but not all cases, our total liability under such provisions is limited to either the value of the contract or a specified, agreed-upon amount. In some cases, our total liability under such provisions is unlimited. In many, but not all cases, the term of the indemnity provision is perpetual. While the maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under all the indemnification provisions is unlimited, we believe the estimated fair value of these provisions is minimal due to the low frequency with which these provisions have been triggered.

We indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, which provides among other things, indemnification to directors and officers for expenses, judgments, fines, penalties and settlement amounts incurred by such persons in their capacity as a director or officer of the Company, regardless of whether the individual is serving in any such capacity at the time the liability or expense is incurred. Additionally, in connection with certain acquisitions, we agreed to indemnify the former officers and members of the boards of directors of those companies, on similar terms as described above, for a period of six years from the acquisition date. In certain cases, we purchase director and officer insurance policies related to these obligations, which fully cover the six-year period. To the extent that we do not purchase a director and officer insurance policy for the full period of any contractual indemnification, and such directors and officers do not have coverage under separate insurance policies, we would be required to pay for costs incurred, if any, as described above.

As of March 31, 2024, we have a $0.9 million letter of credit that is used as a security deposit in connection with our leased Bellevue, Washington office space. In the event of default on the underlying lease, the landlord would be eligible to draw against the letter of credit. The letter of credit is subject to aggregate reductions, provided that we are not in default under the underlying lease. We also have letters of credit in connection with security deposits for other facility leases totaling $0.6 million in the aggregate. These letters of credit have various terms and expire during fiscal year 2024 and beyond, while some of the letters of credit may automatically renew based on the terms of the underlying agreements.