COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Ontario Grant

Ciena was awarded a conditional grant from the Province of Ontario in June 2011. Under this strategic jobs investment fund grant, Ciena can receive up to an aggregate of CAD$25.0 million in funding for eligible costs relating to certain next-generation, coherent optical transport development initiatives over the period from November 1, 2010 to October 31, 2015. Ciena anticipates receiving disbursements, approximating CAD$5.0 million per fiscal year over the period above. Amounts received under the grant are subject to recoupment in the event that Ciena fails to achieve certain minimum investment, employment and project milestones. During fiscal 2011, Ciena recorded a CAD$5.3 million benefit as a reduction in research and development expenses because it believes it has complied with the grant conditions entitling it to this amount, of which CAD$5.0 million was received in fiscal 2011.

Foreign Tax Contingencies

Ciena has received assessment notices from the Mexican tax authorities asserting deficiencies in payments between 2001 and 2005 related primarily to income taxes and import taxes and duties. Ciena has filed judicial petitions appealing these assessments. As of October 31, 2010 and 2011, Ciena had accrued liabilities of $1.4 million related to these contingencies, which are reported as a component of other current accrued liabilities. As of October 31, 2011, Ciena estimates that it could be exposed to possible losses of up to $5.8 million, for which it has not accrued liabilities. Ciena has not accrued the additional income tax liabilities because it does not believe that such losses are probable. Ciena has not accrued the additional import taxes and duties because it does not believe the incurrence of such losses are probable. Ciena continues to evaluate the likelihood of probable and reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these assessments. As a result, future increases or decreases to accrued liabilities may be necessary and will be recorded in the period when such amounts are estimable and more likely than not (for income taxes) or probable (for non-income taxes).

In addition to the matters described above, Ciena is subject to various tax liabilities arising in the ordinary course of business. Ciena does not expect that the ultimate settlement of these liabilities will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Litigation

On July 29, 2011, Cheetah Omni LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Ciena and several other defendants, alleging, among other things, that certain of the parties' products infringe upon multiple U.S. Patents relating to certain reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexer (ROADM) technologies. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages. On November 8, 2011, Ciena filed an answer and counterclaims to Cheetah Omni's amended complaint. Ciena believes that it has valid defenses to the lawsuit and intends to defend it vigorously.

On May 29, 2008, Graywire, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Ciena and four other defendants, alleging, among other things, that certain of the parties' products infringe U.S. Patent 6,542,673 (the “'673 Patent”), relating to an identifier system and components for optical assemblies. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages. Ciena filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims against Graywire on April 17, 2009. On April 27, 2009, Ciena and certain other defendants filed an application for inter partes reexamination of the '673 Patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”). On the same date, Ciena and the other defendants filed a motion to stay the case pending reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit. On July 17, 2009, the district court granted the defendants' motion to stay the case. On July 23, 2009, the PTO granted the defendants' application for reexamination with respect to certain claims of the '673 Patent and, on December 17, 2010, the PTO confirmed the validity of some claims and rejected the validity of other claims. On February 28, 2011, Ciena and the other defendants filed an appeal with respect to certain aspects of the PTO's determination. Separately, on March 17, 2011, the PTO granted a third party application for ex parte reexamination with respect to certain claims of the '673 Patent and, on September 2, 2011, the PTO issued a non-final rejection of the validity of those claims. Ciena believes that it has valid defenses to the lawsuit and intends to defend it vigorously in the event the stay of the case is lifted.

As a result of its June 2002 merger with ONI Systems Corp., Ciena became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in August 2001. The complaint named ONI, certain former ONI officers, and certain underwriters of ONI's initial public offering (IPO) as defendants, and alleges, among other things, that the underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose alleged compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in ONI's registration statement and by engaging in manipulative practices to artificially inflate ONI's stock price after the IPO. The complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former officers violated the securities laws by failing to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative practices. No specific amount of damages has been claimed. Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and all of these actions have been included in a single coordinated proceeding. The former ONI officers have been dismissed from the action without prejudice. In July 2004, following mediated settlement negotiations, the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including Ciena), and their insurers entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement did not require Ciena to pay any amount toward the settlement or to make any other payments. While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate their cases against the underwriter defendants. In October 2004, the district court certified a class with respect to the Section 10(b) claims in six “focus cases” selected out of all of the consolidated cases, which cases did not include Ciena, and which decision was appealed by the underwriter defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 15, 2005, the district court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications, and on August 31, 2005, the district court issued a preliminary order approving the revised stipulated settlement agreement. On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of class certification in the six focus cases. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit's decision, the parties agreed that the settlement could not be approved. On June 25, 2007, the district court approved a stipulation filed by the plaintiffs and the issuer defendants terminating the proposed settlement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed second amended complaints against the defendants in the six focus cases. On September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification based on their amended complaints and allegations. On March 26, 2008, the district court denied motions to dismiss the second amended complaints filed by the defendants in the six focus cases, except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. Briefing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the focus cases was completed in May 2008. That motion was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final approval to a settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants, and directing that the Clerk of the Court close these actions. All appeals of the opinion granting final approval have been either resolved or dismissed, except one. On August 25, 2011, on remand from the Second Circuit, the District Court determined that the last remaining appellant did not have standing to assert his appeal. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain.

In addition to the matters described above, Ciena is subject to various legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Ciena does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Operating Lease Commitments

Ciena has certain minimum obligations under non-cancelable operating leases expiring on various dates through 2021 for equipment and facilities. Future annual minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases at October 31, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):



Year ended October 31,
2012	$	29,884
2013	26,683
2014	21,757
2015	10,969
2016	4,924
Thereafter	5,260
Total	$	99,477

Rental expense for fiscal 2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 was approximately $14.7 million, $22.2 million and $25.5 million, respectively. In addition, Ciena paid approximately $2.2 million, $2.2 million and $2.4 million during fiscal 2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, respectively, related to rent costs for restructured facilities and unfavorable lease commitments, which were offset against Ciena’s restructuring liabilities and unfavorable lease obligations. The amount for operating lease commitments above does not include insurance, taxes, maintenance and other costs required by the applicable operating lease. These costs are variable and are not expected to have a material impact on Ciena's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Purchase Commitments with Contract Manufacturers and Suppliers

As of October 31, 2011, Ciena has purchase commitments of $235.5 million. Purchase commitments relate to purchase order obligations to contract manufacturers and component suppliers for inventory. In certain instances, Ciena is permitted to cancel, reschedule or adjust these orders. Consequently, only a portion of the amount reported as purchase commitments relates to firm, non-cancelable and unconditional obligations.