XML 23 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Note 6

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Note 6

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Guarantees

Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, the Company may agree to indemnify other parties, including customers, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters such as breaches of representations or covenants or intellectual property infringement or other claims made by third parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors.

It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of the Company's exposure under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on the Company's operating results, financial position or cash flows. Under some of these agreements, however, the Company's potential indemnification liability might not have a contractual limit.

Product Warranties

The Company accrues for the estimated costs that may be incurred under its product warranties upon revenue recognition. Changes in the Company's product warranty liability, which is included in cost of product revenues in the consolidated statements of operations, were as follows (in thousands):

			Three Months Ended						Nine Months Ended
			December 31,						December 31,
			2015			2014			2015			2014
Balance at beginning of period		$	325		$	538		$	339		$	660
Accruals for warranties			88			54			263			123
Settlements			(70)			(86)			(223)			(277)
Adjustments			(21)			(83)			(57)			(83)
Balance at end of period		$	322		$	423		$	322		$	423

Minimum Third Party Customer Support Commitments

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company amended its contract with one of its third party customer support vendors containing a minimum monthly commitment of approximately $0.4 million. The agreement requires a 150-day notice to terminate, which represents a minimum remaining obligation of $2.2 million under the contract.

Minimum Third Party Network Service Provider Commitments

The Company has entered into contracts with multiple vendors for third party network service which expire on various dates in fiscal 2016 through 2018. At December 31, 2015, future minimum annual payments under these third party network service contracts were as follows (in thousands):

Year ending March 31:
Remaining 2016					$	751
2017						2,452
2018						891
Total minimum payments					$	4,094

Legal Proceedings

The Company, from time to time, is involved in various legal claims or litigation, including patent infringement claims that can arise in the normal course of the Company's operations. Pending or future litigation could be costly, could cause the diversion of management's attention and could upon resolution, have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

On February 22, 2011, the Company was named a defendant in Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. (BCT) v. 8x8, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the Court), along with 20 other defendants. In August 2011, the suit was dismissed without prejudice and then was refiled against the Company before the same Court. On November 28, 2012, the USPTO initiated and has since maintained a Reexamination Proceeding in which the claims of the patent (asserted against the Company) were rejected as being invalid based on four separate grounds. In response to the USPTO invalidity rejections, the Company filed an informational pleading (on July 10, 2013) to join a motion to stay the proceeding in the District Court, which this motion was granted on July 17, 2013. On May 5, 2015, the Court administratively closed this case with leave to reopen if needed. The Reexamination Proceeding has been on appeal since September 15, 2014. A Decision on Appeal was issued on December 29, 2015, affirming the rejection of all claims. This Decision remains subject to appeal at this date.

On November 25, 2015, the Company was named a defendant in 2-Way Computing, Inc. (2-Way) v. 8x8, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. 2-Way also simultaneously sued five other defendants for infringing the same patent asserted against 8x8. The Company has not yet answered the complaint and cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of the litigation.

On April 16, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit, Slocumb Law Firm v. 8x8, Inc., filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The Slocumb Law Firm alleges that it purchased certain business services from the Company that did not perform as advertised or expected, and asserts various causes of actions including fraud, breach of contract, violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act and negligence. On June 10, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court grant the Company's motion to stay the case and compel the Slocumb Law Firm to arbitrate its claims against the Company in Santa Clara County, California pursuant to a clause mandating arbitration of disputes set forth in the terms and conditions to which Slocumb Law Firm agreed in connection with its purchase of business services from the Company. The Company has not yet received a formal arbitration demand from the Slocumb Law Firm, nor has discovery commenced. The Company intends to vigorously defend against Slocumb Law Firm's claims.

State and Municipal Taxes

From time to time, the Company has received inquiries from a number of state and municipal taxing agencies with respect to the remittance of sales, use, telecommunications, excise, and income taxes. Several jurisdictions currently are conducting tax audits of the Company's records. The Company collects or has accrued for taxes that it believes are required to be remitted. The amounts that have been remitted have historically been within the accruals established by the Company.