COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Sep. 26, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Future Minimum Rental Payments

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of September 26, 2020 were as follows:


(in thousands)	Operating Leases(1)
2021 (remaining six months)	$	12,014
2022	21,022
2023	8,559
2024	6,845
2025	5,572
Thereafter	16,215
Total lease payments	$	70,227
Less: Imputed interest(2)	(8,036)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	62,191

(1) The weighted average remaining lease term was 4.4 years as of September 26, 2020.

(2) The weighted average discount rate was 4.8% as of September 26, 2020.

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 26, 2020, the Company had outstanding off-balance sheet third-party manufacturing, component purchase, and other general and administrative commitments of $420.4 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. On July 13, 2020 the parties resolved the dispute and the matter was dismissed.

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 ("IPR") of one of the patents, which was then appealed to Federal Circuit Court and denied. Litigation in both matters in the United States and Canada, respectively, were stayed pending the results of that appeal. Polycom also filed an IPR of the second patent and the PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition. 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. The arbitration panel awarded an immaterial amount to FullView. FullView filed a First and Second Amended Complaint and Polycom filed a motion to dismiss. The Court granted Polycom's partial motion to dismiss without prejudice and invalidated one of the patents in suit. Litigation on the remaining patent 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 Court granted Polycom’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. Polycom filed petitions for Inter Partes Review of the asserted patents which were granted by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The District Court matter is stayed pending resolution of the IPRs. Oral argument was heard on the IPRs on October 20, 2020 with ruling expected on or around January 2021.

On November 15, 2019, Felice Bassuk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Plantronics, its CEO Joseph Burton, its CFO Charles Boynton and its former CFO Pamela Strayer alleging various securities law violations. Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on June 5, 2020 and the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed on August 7, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition on October 2, 2020 with Plantronics’ reply due on November 16, 2020. The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss currently is scheduled to occur on January 13, 2021.

On December 17, 2019, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint for Trade Secret Misappropriation against Plantronics, Inc. and certain individuals which amends a previously filed complaint against certain other individuals. The Company disputes the allegations. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend as to Defendants He, Chung and Williams, granted the Motion to Compel Arbitration for Defendant Williams and granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Puorro and Poly. Cisco filed an Amended Complaint and the Defendants have moved to dismiss or strike portions of the Amended Complaint. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss. The matter is ongoing.

On July 22, 2020, Koss Corporation sued Plantronics and Polycom in the Western District of Texas, Waco division alleging patent infringement with respect to four Koss patents. The Company answered the Complaint on October 1, 2020 disputing the claims. The matter is ongoing.

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 on-going 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.