COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Foreign Tax Contingencies

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, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action complaint, which named as defendants Ciena, Merger Sub, and the members of Cyan’s board of directors. On August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which named as defendants the members of Cyan’s board of directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not named as defendants. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the Cyan board members breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a conflicted and unfair sales process, failing to maximize stockholder value in the acquisition, taking steps to preclude competitive bidding, and failing to disclose material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The second amended complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii) rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iv) compensatory damages, and (v) costs including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. On October 15, 2015, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. In response, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. The defendants opposed the motion and it is set for hearing on June 14, 2016.

As a result of Ciena's acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena 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-14-538355. 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 May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified. 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, which motion was denied on October 23, 2015. On May 24, 2016, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit 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. 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.