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. Amounts received under the grant are subject to recoupment in the event that Ciena fails to achieve certain minimum investment, employment and project milestones. As of July 31, 2015, Ciena has received payment for the full amount of the grant. Payments received were recorded as a reduction in research and development expenses.

Foreign Tax Contingencies

As of October 31, 2014 and July 31, 2015, Ciena had accrued liabilities of $0.5 million and $1.1 million, respectively, related to preliminary assessment notices from the India tax authorities asserting deficiencies in payments for the tax years 2009 and 2010 related to income taxes. This contingency has been reported as a component of other long-term liabilities. Although Ciena estimates that it could be exposed to possible losses of up to $2.7 million, it has not accrued a liability of such amount as of July 31, 2015. Ciena has not accrued the additional income tax liability because it does not believe that such a loss is more likely than not. Ciena continues to evaluate the likelihood of a probable and reasonably possible loss, 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 to occur.

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 its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Litigation

From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class action lawsuits in connection with Ciena’s then-pending acquisition of Cyan, Inc. (“Cyan”) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware:


•	Luvishis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11027-CB, filed May 15, 2015


•	Poll v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11028-CB, filed May 15, 2015


•	Canzano v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 11052-CB, filed May 20, 2015


•	Kassis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11069-CB, filed May 27, 2015


•	Fenske v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11090-CB, filed June 3, 2015

Each of the complaints named Cyan (except for the Canzano complaint), Ciena, Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Ciena subsidiary created solely for the purpose of effecting the acquisition (“Merger Sub”), and the members of Cyan’s board of directors as defendants. On June 23, 2015, each of these lawsuits was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re Cyan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action complaint, naming Ciena, Merger Sub and the members of Cyan’s board of directors as defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Cyan board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the value of Cyan to its public stockholders, taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, failing to properly value Cyan and obtain the best exchange ratio, ignoring or not protecting against certain conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose all material information necessary for Cyan stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The amended complaint also alleges that Ciena and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Cyan board members. The amended complaint seeks (i) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Cyan and Ciena from consummating the merger, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated prior to the entry of the court’s final judgment, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and (iv) costs including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. On August 10, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. No briefing schedule or hearing date has been set on these motions. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously.

As a result of our acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, we became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan’s board of directors, Cyan’s former Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan’s initial public offering. On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-539008. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of Cyan’s common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for Cyan’s initial public offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint, which the court overruled in October 2014 and allowed the case to proceed. On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intend 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. In July 2009, upon request of Ciena and certain other defendants, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) granted the defendants' inter partes application for reexamination with respect to certain claims of the '673 Patent, and the district court granted the defendants' motion to stay the case pending reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit. In December 2010, the PTO confirmed the validity of some claims and rejected the validity of other claims of the '673 Patent, to which Ciena and other defendants filed an appeal. On March 16, 2012, the PTO on appeal rejected multiple claims of the '673 Patent, including the two claims on which Ciena is alleged to infringe. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested a reopening of the prosecution of the '673 Patent, which request was denied by the PTO on April 29, 2013. Thereafter, on May 28, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amendment with the PTO in which it canceled the claims of the '673 Patent on which Ciena is alleged to infringe. The case currently remains stayed, and there can be no assurance as to whether or when the stay will be lifted.

In addition to the matters described above, Ciena is subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims against third parties that may involve contractual indemnification obligations on the part of Ciena. 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.