COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Jan. 01, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Future Minimum Lease Payments

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of January 1, 2022 were as follows:


(in thousands)	Operating Leases(1)
2022 (remaining three months)	$	6,443
2023	14,875
2024	13,419
2025	9,669
2026	8,100
Thereafter	17,244
Total lease payments	69,750
Less: Imputed interest(2)	(7,958)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	61,792

(1) The weighted average remaining lease term was 4.8 years as of January 1, 2022.

(2) The weighted average discount rate was 4.6% as of January 1, 2022.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

We use several contract manufacturers to manufacture raw materials, components, and subassemblies for our products through our supply and demand information that can cover periods up to 78 weeks. The contract manufacturers use this information to acquire components and build products. We also obtain individual components for our products from a wide variety of individual suppliers using a combination of purchase orders, supplier contracts, including annual minimum purchase obligations, and open orders based on projected demand information. As of January 1, 2022, we had outstanding off-balance sheet third-party manufacturing, component purchase, and other general and administrative commitments of $615.5 million, including off-balance sheet consigned inventories of $65.3 million. A substantial portion of the raw materials, components, and subassemblies used in our products are provided by our suppliers on a consignment basis. These consigned inventories are not recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheets until we take title to the raw materials, components, and subassemblies, which occurs when they are consumed in the production process. Prior to consumption in the production process, our suppliers bear the risk of loss and retain title to the consigned inventory. The agreements allow us to return parts in excess of maximum order quantities to the suppliers at the supplier’s expense. Returns for other reasons are negotiated with the suppliers on a case-by-case basis and to date have been immaterial. If our suppliers were to discontinue financing consigned inventory, it would require us to make cash outlays and we could incur expenses which, if material, could negatively affect our business and financial results. We expect to consume unconditional purchase obligations in the normal course of business, net of an immaterial purchase commitments reserve. In certain instances, these agreements allow us the option to cancel, reschedule, and adjust our requirements based on our business needs in partnering with our suppliers given the current environment.

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 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. 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 U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution of the IPR petition. FullView 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, Inc. 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 IPR of the asserted patents which were granted by the PTAB. The District Court matter was stayed pending resolution of the IPRs. After oral argument held in October 2020, on January 11, 2021, the PTAB issued final written decisions invalidating two of the asserted patents. The remaining claims of the third patent were unasserted against the Company. On February 12, 2021, directPacket filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the PTAB’s final written decision regarding the ’588 patent. On March 15, 2021, Polycom filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the PTAB’s final written decision regarding the ’978 patent. On December 13, 2021, the Court issued an affirmance of the decision regarding the invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘978 patent. On January 27, 2022, the Court vacated the PTAB’s finding that certain claims were invalid as obvious and remanded the case for further proceedings at the PTAB. Litigation is ongoing.

On November 15, 2019, Felice Bassuk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the Company, its former CEO, Joseph Burton, its CFO, Charles Boynton, and its former CFO, Pamela Strayer, alleging various securities law violations. The Company disputes the allegations. The Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel and renamed the action “In re Plantronics, Inc. Securities Litigation” on February 13, 2020. Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on June 5, 2020 and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 7, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 2, 2020 and the Company replied on November 16, 2020. The hearing scheduled for January 13, 2021 was vacated and on March 29, 2021, the Court issued its order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, but allowing the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On April 13, 2021, pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement, the Court issued its order granting a stipulation and scheduling order which provides the plaintiffs until June 15, 2021 (subsequently extended to June 22, 2021) to consider whether or not to file a second amended complaint, and if filed, allowing defendants until August 16, 2021 to file a motion to dismiss, with plaintiffs’ opposition to such motion due on or before September 30, 2021, and with

defendants’ reply to be filed on or before November 1, 2021. The Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on June 22, 2021 and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on September 7, 2021. The court is expected to rule based on the briefs without a hearing and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling.

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 and the Court granted the Motion 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 the Company. Cisco filed an Amended Complaint and the defendants moved to dismiss or strike portions of the Amended Complaint. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss. On September 10, 2020, the Company filed a Motion for Protective Order and a Motion to Strike and Challenge the Sufficiency of Cisco’s Trade Secret Disclosure. On December 21, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part such Motions. On December 30, 2020, Cisco filed a motion for leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration. On January 11, 2021 the Company filed its opposition. The Court issued its Case Management and Pretrial order setting a settlement conference which occurred on April 1, 2021. During such mediation conference, the parties were unable to reach settlement. The Texas arbitration proceeding between Mr. Williams and Cisco was settled pursuant to an agreement by the parties, and Mr. Williams was dismissed with prejudice from both that proceeding and from the district court action. On August 13, 2021, Mr. He settled with Cisco pursuant to which he will be permanently enjoined and forever prohibited from receiving, using, and/or distributing Cisco Confidential Business Information except in limited circumstances. Discovery is ongoing.

On July 22, 2020, Koss Corporation filed a complaint alleging patent infringement by the Company and Polycom, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The Company answered the Complaint on October 1, 2020 disputing the claims. On December 18, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. On January 29, 2021, the plaintiff amended its infringement contentions to add new accused products. On February 12, 2021, the plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On May 20, 2021, the judge granted the Company’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. On November 1, 2021, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the suit with the District Court on the grounds of non-patentable subject matter. The Court will rule based on the briefs without a hearing and the parties are awaiting the Court's ruling.

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.