7.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

On May 19, 2009, we filed a complaint (the “Lawson litigation”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “trial court”) against four defendants, alleging that they used or sold products, methods, processes, services and/or systems that infringe on certain of our patents. During July and August 2009, we entered into settlement and license agreements with three of the defendants. We obtained a jury verdict against the remaining defendant, Lawson Software, Inc. (“Lawson”) on January 27, 2011. The jury unanimously found that Lawson infringed certain ePlus patents relating to electronic procurement systems, and additionally found that all ePlus patent claims tried in court were not invalid.

On May 23, 2011, the trial court issued a permanent injunction, ordering Lawson and its successors to: immediately stop selling and servicing products relating to its electronic procurement systems that infringe our patents; cease providing any ongoing or future maintenance, training or installation of its infringing products; and refrain from publishing any literature or information that encourages the use or sale of its infringing products. Lawson filed an appeal. On November 21, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) reversed in part, vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. The Appeals Court upheld the finding that the patent claims were not invalid and upheld, in part, the finding of infringement. On June 11, 2013, consistent with the Appeals Court’s decision, the trial court issued an Order modifying the injunction so that it would continue in full effect with respect to those configurations of Lawson’s electronic procurement systems that the Appeals Court affirmed are infringing.

On August 16, 2013, the trial court issued an order finding, by clear and convincing evidence that Lawson was in contempt of the trial court’s May 23, 2011, injunction, entering judgment in our favor in the amount of $18.2 million, and ordering that Lawson pay to the court a daily coercive fine. Lawson filed an appeal and posted a bond, and collection of the judgment and imposition of the coercive fine were stayed pending the appeal.

Patent litigation is extremely complex and issues regarding a patent’s validity can arise even subsequent to a patent’s issuance and a court’s enforcement thereof. On April 3, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a notice canceling the patent at issue in the Lawson litigation. On July 25, 2014, the Appeals Court issued an Opinion vacating the injunction and contempt order. We are presently assessing the Opinion.

These types of cases are complex in nature, are likely to have significant expenses associated with them, and we cannot predict when any litigation will be resolved whether we will be successful in our claim for a contempt finding or damages, whether any award ultimately received will exceed the costs incurred to pursue this matter, or how long it will take to bring this matter to resolution.

Other Matters

We may become party to various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business, including preference payment claims asserted in customer bankruptcy proceedings, claims of alleged infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property rights, claims of alleged non-compliance with contract provisions, employment related claims, claims by competitors, vendors or customers, and claims related to alleged violations of laws and regulations. We accrue for costs associated with these contingencies when a loss is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. Refer to Note 4, "Reserves for Credit Losses," for additional information regarding loss contingencies associated with our accounts, notes and lease-related receivables.