XML 53 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 02, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Lease Commitments
We occupy three office buildings in San Jose, California where our corporate headquarters are located. We reference these office buildings as the Almaden Tower and the East and West Towers.
The lease agreements for the East and West Towers and the Almaden Tower are effective through August 2014 and March 2017, respectively. We are the investors in the lease receivables related to these leases for the East and West Towers and the Almaden Tower in the amount of $126.8 million and $80.4 million, respectively, which is recorded as investment in lease receivables on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of March 2, 2012, the carrying value of the lease receivables related to the towers approximated fair value. Under the agreement for the East and West Towers and the agreement for the Almaden Tower, we have the option to purchase the buildings at any time during the lease term for approximately $143.2 million and $103.6 million, respectively. The residual value guarantees under the East and West Towers and the Almaden Tower obligations are $126.8 million and $89.4 million, respectively. If we purchase the properties, the investments in the lease receivables may be credited against the purchase price.
These two leases are both subject to standard covenants including certain financial ratios that are reported to the lessors quarterly. In August 2009, we were required to obtain a standby letter of credit for approximately $16.5 million which enabled us to secure a lower interest rate and reduce the number of covenants. As defined in the lease agreement, the standby letter of credit primarily represents the lease investment equity balance which is callable in the event of default. As of March 2, 2012, we were in compliance with all of the covenants. In the case of a default, the lessor may demand we purchase the buildings for an amount equal to the lease balance, or require that we remarket or relinquish the buildings. If we choose to remarket or are required to do so upon relinquishing the buildings, we are bound to arrange the sale of the buildings to an unrelated party and will be required to pay the lessor any shortfall between the net remarketing proceeds and the lease balance, up to the residual value guarantee amount less our investment in the lease receivables. Both leases qualify for operating lease accounting treatment and, as such, the buildings and the related obligations are not included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. 
In June 2010, we entered into a sale-leaseback agreement to sell equipment totaling $32.2 million and leaseback the same equipment over a period of 43 months. This transaction was classified as a capital lease obligation and recorded at fair value. See Note 13 for further discussion of our capital lease obligation.
Royalties
We have royalty commitments associated with the shipment and licensing of certain products. Royalty expense is generally based on a dollar amount per unit shipped or a percentage of the underlying revenue.
Indemnifications
In the normal course of business, we provide indemnifications of varying scope to customers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of our products and from time to time, we are subject to claims by our customers under these indemnification provisions. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on our future results of operations.
To the extent permitted under Delaware law, we have agreements whereby we indemnify our directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is or was serving at our request in such capacity. The indemnification period covers all pertinent events and occurrences during the director’s or officer’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, we have director and officer insurance coverage that limits our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage is minimal.
Legal Proceedings
In connection with disputes relating to the validity or alleged infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, including patent rights, we have been, are currently and may in the future be subject to claims, negotiations or complex, protracted litigation. Intellectual property disputes and litigation may be very costly and can be disruptive to our business operations by diverting the attention and energies of management and key technical personnel. Although we have successfully defended or resolved past litigation and disputes, we may not prevail in any ongoing or future litigation and disputes. Third-party intellectual property disputes could subject us to significant liabilities, require us to enter into royalty and licensing arrangements on unfavorable terms, prevent us from licensing certain of our products or offering certain of our services, subject us to injunctions restricting our sale of products or services, cause severe disruptions to our operations or the markets in which we compete, or require us to satisfy indemnification commitments with our customers including contractual provisions under various license arrangements and service agreements.
In October 2009, Eolas Technologies Incorporated filed a complaint against us and 23 other companies for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged, among other things, that a number of our Web pages and products infringe two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover “Distributed Hypermedia Method for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects within a Hypermedia Document” (U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906) and “Distributed Hypermedia Method and System for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects within a Hypermedia Document” (U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985) and sought injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Adobe disputed these claims and vigorously defended itself in this matter. On February 9, 2012, a jury found all asserted patent claims in the above-mentioned Eolas patents invalid. On February 27, 2012 Adobe was dismissed from the case. 
In January 2010, Tarkus Imaging, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Also named in the lawsuit were Canon U.S.A., Inc.; Nikon Americas, Inc.; and Nikon, Inc. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that certain functionality of the Adobe Camera Raw module infringes a patent owned by plaintiff. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. We dispute the plaintiff's claims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. We have filed a motion for summary judgment, which motion remains pending, and the case is currently scheduled to go to trial in June 2012. As of March 2, 2012, no amounts have been accrued as a loss is not considered probable or estimable.
In addition to intellectual property disputes, such as those discussed above and others, we are subject to legal proceedings, claims and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims relating to commercial, employment and other matters. Some of these disputes and legal proceedings may include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages. We make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. All legal costs associated with litigation are expensed as incurred. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, we believe that we have valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against us. It is possible, nevertheless, that our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such proceedings, claims or investigations.
In connection with our anti-piracy efforts, conducted both internally and through organizations such as the Business Software Alliance, from time to time we undertake litigation against alleged copyright infringers. Such lawsuits may lead to counter-claims alleging improper use of litigation or violation of other laws. We believe we have valid defenses with respect to such counter-claims; however, it is possible that our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations could be affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these counter-claims.