v2.4.0.6

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Oct. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies Lease Commitments The Company leases certain of its domestic and foreign facilities and certain office equipment under non-cancelable lease agreements. The lease agreements generally require the Company to pay property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repair costs. Rent expenses were $62.0 million, $58.1 million and $49.7 million in fiscal 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Company charges operating lease payments to expense using the straight-line method. The Company subleases portions of its facilities and records sublease payments as a reduction of rent expense. On October 15, 2011, the Company agreed to lease two office buildings to be constructed in Mountain View, California. Once construction is complete, the buildings together will provide approximately 341,000 square feet. The lease of such premises begins upon the later of March 1, 2015 or six months after construction is substantially completed, and expires approximately 15 years thereafter and can be extended for an additional 19 years after such initial expiration. The Company may terminate the lease if the lessor fails to substantially complete construction of the buildings by March 1, 2015. Anticipated future minimum lease payments on all non-cancelable operating leases with a term in excess of one year, net of sublease income, as of October 31, 2012 are as follows:
|  | Minimum Lease Payments |  |  | Sublease Income |  |  | Net |
|  | (in thousands) |
Fiscal Year |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
2013 |  | $ | 46,782 |  |  | $ | 3,096 |  |  | $ | 43,686 |
2014 |  |  | 43,344 |  |  |  | 122 |  |  |  | 43,222 |
2015 |  |  | 32,184 |  |  |  | — |  |  |  | 32,184 |
2016 |  |  | 32,040 |  |  |  | — |  |  |  | 32,040 |
2017 |  |  | 29,674 |  |  |  | — |  |  |  | 29,674 |
Thereafter |  |  | 254,254 |  |  |  | — |  |  |  | 254,254 |
Total |  | $ | 438,278 |  |  | $ | 3,218 |  |  | $ | 435,060 |
Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, which arise in the normal course of its business. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations. The Company reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount is estimable, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. The Company has determined that no disclosure of estimated loss is required for a claim against the Company because: (a) there is not a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized (if any) may be incurred with respect to such claim; (b) a reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated; or (c) such estimate is immaterial. In connection with the Company’s definitive merger agreement to acquire Magma, four putative stockholder class actions were filed against Magma, Magma’s board of directors, Synopsys and the Synopsys merger subsidiary on December 5, 2011, December 9, 2011, December 13, 2011, and December 19, 2011, in state court in California and Delaware, and the cases were consolidated in California state court (collectively, the Magma Lawsuits). The Magma Lawsuits allege, among other things, that Magma and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Magma’s stockholders in negotiating and entering into the definitive merger agreement and by agreeing to sell Magma at an unfair price, and that Magma and Synopsys aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On February 10, 2012, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which they agreed on the terms of a proposed settlement of the lawsuits, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the defendants. Pursuant to the MOU, Magma agreed to make certain additional disclosures concerning Magma’s acquisition by Synopsys, which supplemented the information provided in Magma’s proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2012, and to pay certain legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs’ counsel. As contemplated by the MOU, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, which is subject to customary conditions including court approval following notice to Magma’s former stockholders. The court granted preliminary approval of such proposed settlement in September 2012. The court has scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of such proposed settlement for January 25, 2013. On December 5, 2011, plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. (Dynetix) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Synopsys in federal district court in the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company’s VCS functional verification tool, and more specifically its VCS multicore technology and VCS Cloud product, infringes Dynetix’s United States Patent No. 6,466,898, and that such infringement is willful. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. Synopsys asserted patent infringement counterclaims against Dynetix based on Dynetix’s two verification products. The court held a claims construction hearing regarding the Dynetix patent in October 2012 and accepted a majority of the constructions submitted by Synopsys. The Company acquired Emulation & Verification Engineering S.A. (EVE) on October 4, 2012. EVE and EVE-USA, Inc. (collectively, the EVE Parties) are currently defendants in three patent infringement lawsuits filed by Mentor Graphics Corporation (Mentor). Mentor filed suit against the EVE Parties in federal district court in the District of Oregon on August 16, 2010 alleging that EVE’s ZeBu series of products infringes Mentor’s United States Patent No. 6,876,962. Mentor filed an additional suit in federal district court in the District of Oregon on August 17, 2012 alleging that EVE’s ZeBu series of products infringes Mentor’s United States Patent No. 6,947,882. Both cases have been consolidated in federal district court in the District of Oregon and seek compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. Mentor also filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nihon EVE K.K. in Tokyo District Court in 2010 alleging that EVE’s ZeBu series of products infringes Mentor’s Japanese Patent No. P3,588,324. This case seeks compensatory damages, a permanent injunction and destruction of inventory. On September 27, 2012, Synopsys, EVE and EVE-USA, Inc. filed an action for declaratory relief against Mentor in federal district court in the Northern District of California, seeking a determination that Mentor’s United States Patents Nos. 6,009,531, 5,649,176 and 6,240,376, which were the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Mentor against EVE in 2006 and settled in the same year, are invalid and not infringed by EVE’s products, and that Mentor is without right or authority to threaten or maintain suit against the plaintiffs on such patents. In addition, on September 26, 2012, Synopsys filed two inter parties review requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of Mentor’s ‘376 and ‘882 patents.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration