COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Future Minimum Rental Payments

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of September 30, 2019 were as follows:



(in thousands)	Operating Leases
2020 (remaining six months)	$	13,283
2021	23,690
2022	20,051
2023	6,878
2024	1,873
Thereafter	606
Total lease payments	$	66,381
Less: Imputed Interest⁽²⁾	(5,784		)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	60,597

⁽¹⁾The weighted average remaining lease term was 2.9 years as of September 30, 2019.

⁽²⁾ The weighted average discount rate was 4.8% as of September 30, 2019.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

The Company purchases materials and services from a variety of suppliers and manufacturers. During the normal course of business and to manage manufacturing operations and general and administrative activities, the Company may enter into firm, non-cancelable, and unconditional purchase obligations for which amounts are not recorded on the consolidated balance sheets. As of September 30, 2019, the Company had outstanding off-balance sheet third-party manufacturing, component purchase, and other general and administrative commitments of $341.5 million.

Other Guarantees and Obligations

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, purchasers of assets or subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company's breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by the Company, services to be provided by the Company, intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties or, with respect to the sale of assets of a subsidiary, matters related to the Company's conduct of business and tax matters prior to the sale. From time to time, the Company indemnifies customers against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various triggering events relating to the sale and use of its products and services.

In addition, the Company also provides indemnification to customers against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability, or environmental obligations. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors, officers and certain other personnel that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers of the Company or certain of its affiliated entities. The Company maintains director and officer liability insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from its obligation to indemnify its directors, officers and certain other personnel in certain circumstances. It is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these agreements due to the limited history of prior claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular claim. Such indemnification obligations might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, the Company has not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements and it has not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Claims and Litigation

On October 12, 2012, GN Netcom, Inc. (“GN”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“Court”), alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and tortious interference with business relations in connection with the Company’s distribution of corded and wireless headsets. The case was assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark. GN sought injunctive relief, total damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as unspecified legal and equitable relief. GN generally alleged that the Company’s alleged exclusive dealing arrangements with certain distributors stifled competition in the relevant market. In July 2016, the Court issued a sanctions order against Plantronics in the amount of approximately $4.9 million for allegations of spoliation of evidence. The case was tried to a jury in October 2017, resulting in a verdict in favor of the Company. GN filed a motion for new trial in November 2017, and that motion was denied by the Court in January 2018. The Company filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in November 2017, and that motion was denied by the Court in January 2018. The Company also filed a motion for certain recoverable costs, and the parties stipulated to an amount of approximately $0.2 million which GN paid the Company. On February 12, 2018, GN filed a notice of intent to appeal both the denial of the new trial motion and the Court’s July 2016 spoliation order. The appellate court heard argument on the matter on December 11, 2018 and its decision was rendered on July 10, 2019. The Court denied GN’s request for default judgment but granted a new trial to include certain excluded testimony of one witness. The trial date has now been set for May 28, 2020.

On September 13, 2018, Mr. Phil Shin filed on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California alleging violations of various federal and state consumer protection laws in addition to unfair competition and fraud claims in connection with the Company’s BackBeat FIT headphones. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in November 2018. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 14, 2018. The matter has now been resolved and the settlement is pending court approval. On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On June 17, 2019, the Court denied preliminary approval on the basis that the scope of the release was overly broad. On August 12, 2019, the settlement has received preliminary approval from the court. Final approval will occur in December 2019.

On January 23, 2018, FullView, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California against Polycom, Inc. alleging infringement of two patents and thereafter filed a similar complaint in connection with the same patents in Canada. Polycom thereafter filed an inter partes reexamination of one of the patents, which was then appealed to Federal Circuit Court. Oral argument occurred on March 6, 2019. Litigation in both matters in the United States and Canada, respectively, had been stayed pending the results of that appeal. Polycom also filed an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the second patent on January 31, 2019, which is now pending institution. FullView had also initiated arbitration proceedings under a terminated license agreement with Polycom alleging that Polycom had failed to pay certain royalties due under that agreement. An arbitration hearing occurred on December 10, 2018, and the arbitration panel awarded an immaterial amount to FullView. On April 29, 2019 the Federal Circuit rendered its opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) opinion regarding the inter partes reexamination. On May 8, 2019, Parties have filed a joint stipulated motion to extend the Case Management Conference to September 26, 2019 to request a stay the US litigation pending the IPR. On July 10, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR of the second patent. The Company requested reconsideration, but the PTAB rejected that request. The matter is ongoing.

On June 21, 2018, directPacket Research Inc. filed a complaint alleging patent infringement by Polycom in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division. The Company disputes the allegations. Polycom filed a motion to change venue which was denied in October, 2018. Polycom filed its Answer to the Complaint on October 18, 2018. On February 15, 2019, Polycom filed a Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to a Valid and Enforceable Forum Selection Clause to change venue to the Northern District of California. directPacket filed is Opposition on March 1, 2019 with Polycom filing its Reply on March 7, 2019. Discovery was ongoing. On April 29, 2019, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the Motion to Transfer Venue, which was filed on May 20, 2019. On July 3, 2019 the Court granted the Motion to Transfer Venue to Northern District of California. On October 4, 2019 the Court issued its case management order. Discovery is ongoing.

In March 21, 2019, Performance Design Products filed a complaint against the Company alleging trademark infringement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2019. PDP filed its opposition and a request for a preliminary injunction on May 10, 2019. The Company filed its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss on July 9, 2019 and its Opposition for Preliminary Injunction on July 12, 2019 with hearing set for August 2, 2019. The Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss on July 15, 2019 but allowing PDP to refile an Amended Complaint and Reply to Preliminary Injunction Motion by July 19, 2019 with a hearing on August 16, 2019. PDP filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2019. PDP did not refile a motion for preliminary injunction. On September 4, 2019, PDP dismissed its complaint without prejudice.

In addition to the specific matters discussed above, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of conducting business. Where applicable, in relation to the matters described above, the Company has accrued an amount that reflects the aggregate liability deemed probable and estimable, but this amount is not material to the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company is not able to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible loss, including in excess of any amount accrued, because of the preliminary nature of many of these proceedings, the difficulty in ascertaining the applicable facts relating to many of these proceedings, the variable treatment of claims made in many of these proceedings, and the difficulty of predicting the settlement value of many of these proceedings. However, based upon the Company's historical experience, the resolution of these proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company may incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these legal proceedings.