XML 25 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Note 6

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Notes to Financial Statements

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Note 6

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases its headquarters facility in San Jose, California under an operating lease agreement that expires in October 2019. The lease is an industrial net lease with monthly base rent of $130,821 for the first 15 months with a 3% increase each year thereafter, and requires us to pay property taxes, utilities and normal maintenance costs. The Company also leases facilities for office space under non-cancelable operating leases for its various domestic and international locations.

The Company has entered into a series of noncancelable capital lease agreements for office equipment bearing interest at various rates. Assets under capital lease at June 30, 2016 totaled $1.6 million with accumulated amortization of $0.6 million.

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 income (loss), were as follows (in thousands):

			Three Months Ended
			June 30,
			2016			2015
Balance at beginning of period		$	326		$	339
Accruals for warranties			114			98
Settlements			(87)			(83)
Adjustments			(13)			(12)
Balance at end of period		$	340		$	342

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 effective April 1, 2010. The agreement requires a 150-day notice to terminate. At June 30, 2016, the total remaining obligation upon a termination of the contract was $2.2 million.

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 2017 through 2020. At June 30, 2016, future minimum annual payments under these third party network service contracts were as follows (in thousands):

Year ending March 31:
Remaining 2017					$	1,961
2018						981
2019						32
2020						8
Total minimum payments					$	2,982

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. v. 8x8, Inc. et al., along with 20 other defendants. On August 17, 2011, the suit was dismissed without prejudice as to the Company under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 17, 2011, Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. refiled its suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Further, on November 28, 2012, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office initiated a Reexamination proceeding with a Reexamination Declaration explaining that there is a substantial new question of patentability, based on four separate grounds and affecting each claim of the patent which is the basis for the complaint filed against us. On March 26, 2013, the USPTO issued a first Office Action in the Reexamination, with all claims of the '722 patent being rejected on each of the four separate grounds raised in the Request for Reexamination. On July 10, 2013, the Company filed an informational pleading in support of and joining a motion to stay the proceeding in the District Court; the District Court granted the motion on July 17, 2013, based on the possibility that at least one of the USPTO rejections will be upheld and considering the USPTO's conclusion that Bear Creek's patent suffers from a defective claim for priority. On March 24, 2014, the USPTO issued another Office Action in which the rejections of the claims were maintained. On August 15, 2014, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice, as the USPTO maintained all rejections of the patent claims.

On September 15, 2014, Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal of this decision with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The case is currently on appeal. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and is presenting a vigorous defense, but the Company cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of litigation.

On April 16, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Slocumb Law Firm v. 8x8, Inc. The Slocumb Law Firm has alleged that it purchased certain business services from the Company that did not perform as advertised or expected, and has asserted causes of actions for fraud, breach of contract, violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act and negligence. On May 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, seeking an order compelling 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. No briefing schedule or hearing date for the motion has been set as of this time. Discovery has not yet commenced in the case. 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.