COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of September 30, 2016 are as follows (in thousands):



Years ending December 31,
2016 (remaining three months)	$	3,320
2017	12,641
2018	11,952
2019	10,318
2020	7,598
Thereafter	10,551
Total	$	56,380

Warranties

The Company accrues for estimated warranty costs at the time of product shipment. Management periodically reviews the estimated fair value of its warranty liability and records adjustments based on the terms of warranties provided to customers, historical and anticipated warranty claims experience, and estimates of the timing and cost of warranty claims. Activity for the Company’s warranty accrual, which is included in accrued liabilities, is summarized below (in thousands):



	Three months ended						Nine months ended
	September 30, 2016			October 2, 2015			September 30, 2016			October 2, 2015
Balance at beginning of period	$	5,095		$	4,167		$	3,913		$	4,242
Balance assumed from TVN acquisition	—			—			1,012			—
Accrual for current period warranties	1,552			1,182			4,527			4,308
Changes in liability related to pre-existing warranties	(99		)	—			(173		)	(93		)
Warranty costs incurred	(1,469		)	(1,448		)	(4,200		)	(4,556		)
Balance at end of period	$	5,079		$	3,901		$	5,079		$	3,901

Purchase Obligations

The Company relies on a limited number of contract manufacturers and suppliers to provide manufacturing services for a substantial majority of its products. Obligations to purchase inventory and other commitments are generally expected to be fulfilled within one year. The Company had approximately $21.7 million of non-cancelable commitment to purchase inventories and other commitments as of September 30, 2016.

Standby Letters of Credit and Guarantees

The Company’s financial guarantees consisted of standby letters of credit and bank guarantees. As of September 30, 2016, the Company had $0.7 million of standby letters of credit outstanding primarily related to its credit card facility in Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, performance bond and state requirements imposed on employers. In addition, the Company had $1.9 million of bank guarantees outstanding as of September 30, 2016, of which $1.3 million was related to a building lease for the TVN French Subsidiary, $0.4 million was related to the building leases in Israel, and the remaining amount was mostly related to performance bonds issued to customers of the TVN French Subsidiary.

Indemnification

Harmonic is obligated to indemnify its officers and the members of its Board of Directors (the “Board”) pursuant to its bylaws and contractual indemnity agreements. Harmonic also indemnifies some of its suppliers and most of its customers for specified intellectual property matters pursuant to certain contractual arrangements, subject to certain limitations. The scope of these indemnities varies, but, in some instances, includes indemnification for damages and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees). There have been no amounts accrued in respect of these indemnification provisions through September 30, 2016.

Contingencies

The TVN acquisition was subject to post-closing adjustments capped at (i) the difference between €76 million (approximately $83.3 million as converted from euros into U.S. dollars using an agreed upon average exchange rate) and $75 million, with respect to an adjustment based on TVN’s 2015 revenue, and (ii) up to $5 million with respect to an adjustment based on TVN’s 2015 backlog that ships during the first half of 2016. The Company paid $3.5 million upon the finalization of the revenue and working capital adjustments in the second quarter of 2016 and $2.5 million upon the finalization of the backlog adjustment in the third quarter of 2016. As of September 30, 2016, there were no amounts of TVN contingent consideration which remained outstanding.

Legal proceedings

From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits as well as subject to various legal proceedings, claims, threats of litigation, and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third-party patents and other intellectual property rights, commercial, employment, and other matters. The Company assesses potential liabilities in connection with each lawsuit and threatened lawsuits and accrues an estimated loss for these loss contingencies if both of the following conditions are met: information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While certain matters to which the Company is a party specify the damages claimed, such claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated.

In October 2011, Avid Technology, Inc. (“Avid”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company’s Media Grid product infringes two patents held by Avid. A jury trial on this complaint commenced on January 23, 2014 and, on February 4, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company, rejecting Avid’s infringement allegations in their entirety. On May 23, 2014, Avid filed a post-trial motion asking the court to set aside the jury’s verdict, and the judge issued an order on December 17, 2014, denying the motion. On January 5, 2015, Avid filed an appeal with respect to the jury’s verdict with the Federal Circuit, which was docketed on January 9, 2015, as Case No. 2015-1246. Avid filed its opening brief with respect to this appeal on March 24, 2015, the Company filed its response brief on May 7, 2015, and Avid filed its reply brief on June 16, 2015. Oral arguments were held on December 11, 2015. On January 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the verdict of noninfringement and remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial on infringement. On February 26, 2016, Harmonic filed a request for rehearing and rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit. On March 31, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied the request for rehearing and rehearing en banc and a mandate issued on April 8, 2016. A status conference was held with the District Court on April 14, 2016. The court conducted a supplemental claim construction hearing on May 27, 2016 and issued a claim construction order on June 29, 2016. There are currently no deadlines.

In June 2012, Avid served a subsequent complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company’s Spectrum product infringes one patent held by Avid. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In September 2013, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) authorized an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1-16 of the patent asserted in this second complaint. A hearing before the PTAB was conducted on May 20, 2014. On July 10, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision finding claims 1-10 invalid and claims 11-16 not invalid. The Company filed an appeal with respect to the PTAB’s decision on claims 11-16 on September 11, 2014. The appeal was docketed with the Federal Circuit on October 22, 2014, as Case No. 2015-1072, and the Company filed its opening brief with respect to this appeal on January 29, 2015. Avid and PTAB each filed a response brief on April 27, 2015, and the Company filed a reply brief on May 28, 2015. Oral arguments were held on October 8, 2015. The Federal Circuit issued an order on March 1, 2016, affirming the PTAB’s decision and a mandate issued on April 7, 2016. On July 25, 2016, the court issued a scheduling order for the case and set the trial date for November 6, 2017.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore is unable to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible losses resulting from them. An unfavorable outcome on any litigation matter could require that the Company pay substantial damages, or, in connection with any intellectual property infringement claims, could require that the Company pay ongoing royalty payments or could prevent the Company from selling certain of its products. As a result, a settlement of, or an unfavorable outcome on, any of the matters referenced above or other litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results, financial condition and cash flows.