Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

The Company leases certain of its domestic and foreign facilities and certain office equipment under non-cancelable lease agreements. The lease agreements generally require the Company to pay property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repair costs. Rent expenses were $65.6 million, $64.4 million and $62.0 million in fiscal 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The Company charges operating lease payments to expense using the straight-line method. The Company subleases portions of its facilities and records sublease payments as a reduction of rent expense.

On October 15, 2011, the Company agreed to lease two office buildings to be constructed in Mountain View, California. Once construction is complete, the buildings together will provide approximately 341,000 square feet. The lease of such premises begins on March 1, 2015, and expires approximately 15 years thereafter and can be extended for an additional 19 years after such initial expiration. The Company may terminate the lease if the lessor fails to substantially complete construction of the buildings by March 1, 2015. The Company may elect for early occupancy if certain conditions are met.

Anticipated future minimum lease payments on all non-cancellable operating leases with a term in excess of one year, net of sublease income, as of October 31, 2014 are as follows:



	Minimum Lease Payments		Sublease Income		Net
	(in thousands)
Fiscal Year
2015	$	40,548	$	1,661	$	38,887
2016	40,862		1,584		39,278
2017	35,844		771		35,073
2018	30,032		626		29,406
2019	29,376		640		28,736
Thereafter	196,252		1,204		195,048
Total	$	372,914	$	6,486	$	366,428

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, which arise in the normal course of its business. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations. The Company reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount is estimable, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. The Company has determined that no disclosure of estimated loss is required for a claim against the Company because: (a) there is not a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized (if any) may be incurred with respect to such claim; (b) a reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated; or (c) such estimate is immaterial.

Mentor Patent Litigation

The Company is engaged in complex patent litigation with Mentor Graphics Corporation (Mentor) involving several actions in different forums. The Company acquired Emulation & Verification Engineering S.A. (EVE) on October 4, 2012. At the time of the acquisition, EVE and EVE-USA, Inc. (collectively, the EVE Parties) were defendants in three patent infringement lawsuits filed by Mentor. Mentor filed suit against the EVE Parties in federal district court in the District of Oregon on August 16, 2010 alleging that EVE’s ZeBu products infringed Mentor’s United States Patent No. 6,876,962. Mentor filed an additional suit in federal district court in the District of Oregon on August 17, 2012 alleging that EVE’s ZeBu products infringed Mentor’s United States Patent No. 6,947,882. Both cases sought compensatory damages, including lost profits and royalties, and a permanent injunction. Mentor also filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nihon EVE K.K. in Tokyo District Court in 2010 alleging that EVE’s ZeBu series of products infringes Mentor’s Japanese Patent No. P3,588,324. This case seeks compensatory damages, a permanent injunction and destruction of inventory.

On September 27, 2012, the Company and the EVE Parties filed an action for declaratory relief against Mentor in federal district court in the Northern District of California, seeking a determination that Mentor’s United States Patents Nos. 6,009,531; 5,649,176 and 6,240,376, which were the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Mentor against EVE in 2006 and settled in the same year, are invalid and not infringed by EVE’s products, and that Mentor is without right or authority to threaten or maintain suit against the plaintiffs on such patents. Mentor asserted patent infringement counterclaims in this action based on the same three patents and sought compensatory damages, including lost profits and royalties, and a permanent injunction. In April 2013, this action was transferred to the federal district court in Oregon and consolidated with the two Mentor lawsuits in that district (the Oregon Action).

The Oregon Action

In the Oregon Action, the Company and the EVE Parties further asserted patent infringement counterclaims against Mentor based on the Company’s United States Patents Nos. 6,132,109 and 7,069,526, seeking compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. On February 21, 2014, the court granted Mentor’s motion for partial summary judgment based on assignor estoppel, in which Mentor argued the Company was barred from challenging the validity of Mentor’s ‘376 patent. In July 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ‘531 and ‘176 patents, finding that Mentor was barred from asserting those patents under the doctrine of res judicata. The court also granted cross-motions for partial summary judgment brought by both parties, finding that Mentor’s ‘962 and ‘882 patents and the Company’s ‘109 and ‘526 patents were non-infringed and/or invalid. As a result of these rulings, the only patent remaining at issue in the Oregon Action is Mentor’s ‘376 patent.

The Oregon Action went to trial on the remaining Mentor patent, and a jury reached a verdict on October 10, 2014 finding that certain features of the ZeBu products infringed the ‘376 patent and assessing damages of approximately $36 million. Mentor has also filed a request for injunction based on the jury verdict. The Company is opposing Mentor’s request for injunction and intends to appeal from the verdict. The Company has accrued an immaterial amount as a loss contingency. The Company cannot estimate a range of losses, if any, exceeding the amount already accrued.

The California Action

On December 21, 2012, the Company filed an action for patent infringement against Mentor in federal district court in the Northern District of California, alleging that Mentor’s Veloce products infringe the Company’s United States Patents Nos. 5,748,488, 5,530,841, 5,680,318 and 6,836,420 (the California Action). This case seeks compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. The court stayed the action as to the ‘420 patent pending the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's inter partes review of that patent (discussed below), and it scheduled trial of the Company’s remaining claims for March 2, 2015.

PTO Proceedings

On September 26, 2012, the Company filed two inter partes review requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the PTO) challenging the validity of Mentor’s ‘376 and ‘882 patents. The PTO granted review of the ‘376 patent and denied review of the ‘882 patent. On February 19, 2014, the PTO issued its final decision in the review of the ‘376 patent, finding some of the challenged claims invalid and some of the challenged claims valid. On April 22, 2014, the Company appealed to the Federal Circuit from the PTO’s decision. Mentor filed a cross-appeal on May 2, 2014.

On December 21, 2013, Mentor filed an inter partes review request with the PTO challenging the validity of the Company’s ‘420 patent. On June 12, 2014, the PTO granted review of the ‘420 patent.