XML 32 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Oct. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 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 $63.9 million, $67.6 million and $65.6 million in fiscal 2016, 2015 and 2014, 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. The Company's principal offices are located in two office buildings in Mountain View, California. The buildings together provide approximately 341,000 square feet. This space is leased through August 2030, and the Company has two options to extend the lease term, the first to extend the term by ten years, followed by a second option to extend by approximately nine additional years. As of October 31, 2016, anticipated future minimum lease payments on all non-cancellable operating leases with a term in excess of one year, net of sublease income are as follows:
| Minimum Lease Payments |  | Sublease Income |  | Net
| (in thousands)
Fiscal Year |  |  |  |  |
2017 | $ | 52,373 |  |  | $ | 2,141 |  |  | $ | 50,232 |
2018 | 50,938 |  |  | 2,173 |  |  | 48,765 |
2019 | 46,506 |  |  | 2,179 |  |  | 44,327 |
2020 | 35,835 |  |  | 2,239 |  |  | 33,596 |
2021 | 28,801 |  |  | 2,184 |  |  | 26,617 |
Thereafter | 171,040 |  |  | 2,247 |  |  | 168,793 |
Total | $ | 385,493 |  |  | $ | 13,163 |  |  | $ | 372,330 |
Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation that 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 results of operations and financial condition. 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. Mentor Patent Litigation The Company is engaged in complex patent litigation with Mentor Graphics Corporation (Mentor) involving several actions in different forums. The Company acquired Emulation & Verification Engineering S.A. (EVE) on October 4, 2012. At the time of the acquisition, EVE and EVE-USA, Inc. (collectively, the EVE Parties) were defendants in three patent infringement lawsuits filed by 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 products infringed 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 products infringed Mentor’s United States Patent No. 6,947,882. Both cases sought compensatory damages, including lost profits and royalties, and a permanent injunction. Mentor also filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nihon EVE K.K. in Tokyo District Court in 2010 alleging that certain ZeBu products infringe Mentor’s Japanese Patent No. P3,588,324. This case sought compensatory damages, a permanent injunction and destruction of inventory. On May 15, 2015, the Tokyo District Court ruled that such products did not infringe Mentor's patent. Mentor appealed the decision. On March 30, 2016, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the District Court's ruling in our favor. On September 27, 2012, the Company and the EVE Parties 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. Mentor asserted patent infringement counterclaims in this action based on the same three patents and sought compensatory damages, including lost profits and royalties, and a permanent injunction. In April 2013, this action was transferred to the federal district court in Oregon and consolidated with the two Mentor lawsuits in that district (the Oregon Action). The Oregon Action. In the Oregon Action, the Company and the EVE Parties further asserted patent infringement counterclaims against Mentor based on the Company’s United States Patents Nos. 6,132,109 and 7,069,526, seeking compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. After pre-trial summary judgment rulings, the only patent remaining at issue in the Oregon Action was Mentor's ‘376 patent. The Oregon Action went to trial on the remaining Mentor patent, and a jury reached a verdict on October 10, 2014 finding that certain features of the ZeBu products infringed the ‘376 patent and assessing damages of approximately $36 million. On March 12, 2015, the court entered an injunction prohibiting certain sales activities relating to the features found by the jury to infringe. The Company has released a new version of ZeBu software that does not include such features. Both parties have appealed the court's rulings. The hearing on such appeal was held on June 9, 2016, and the court has yet to issue a decision. The Company has accrued an immaterial amount as a loss contingency. The Company cannot estimate a range of losses, if any, exceeding the amount already accrued. The California Action. On December 21, 2012, the Company filed an action for patent infringement against Mentor in federal district court in the Northern District of California, alleging that Mentor’s Veloce products infringe the Company’s United States Patents Nos. 5,748,488, 5,530,841, 5,680,318 and 6,836,420 (the California Action). This case seeks compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. The court stayed the action as to the ‘420 patent pending the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's inter partes review of that patent and appeals from that proceeding. On January 20, 2015, the court granted Mentor's motion for summary judgment on the ‘488, ‘841, and ‘318 patents, finding that such patents were invalid. The Company has appealed the court's ruling. The hearing on such appeal was held on June 9, 2016. On October 17, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the court’s decision. PTO Proceedings. On September 26, 2012, the Company filed two inter partes review requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the PTO) challenging the validity of Mentor’s ‘376 and ‘882 patents. The PTO granted review of the ‘376 patent and denied review of the ‘882 patent. On February 19, 2014, the PTO issued its final decision in the review of the ‘376 patent, finding some of the challenged claims invalid and some of the challenged claims valid. On April 22, 2014, the Company appealed to the Federal Circuit from the PTO’s decision finding certain claims valid. Mentor filed a cross-appeal on May 2, 2014 from the PTO's decision finding certain claims invalid. On February 10, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTO's decision in all respects. On December 21, 2013, Mentor filed an inter partes review request with the PTO challenging the validity of the Company’s ‘420 patent. On June 11, 2015, the PTO issued its final decision in the review, finding all of the challenged claims invalid. On August 12, 2015, the Company appealed to the Federal Circuit from the PTO's decision. On October 11, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTO’s decision. On September 30, 2016, Synopsys filed a petition requesting ex parte reexamination of the ‘376 patent. On November 10, 2016, the PTO instituted reexamination of the ‘376 patent.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: 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=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: 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=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: 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 5: 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=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration