Commitments and Contingencies

Product Warranties

The Company’s accrued liability for estimated future warranty costs is included in “Other accrued liabilities” in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table summarizes the activity related to the Company’s accrued liability for estimated future warranty costs during the three months ended January 26, 2013 and January 28, 2012 (in thousands):



	Accrued Warranty
	Three Months Ended
	January 26, 2013			January 28, 2012
Beginning balance	$	14,453		$	11,298
Liabilities accrued for warranties issued during the period	970			1,777
Warranty claims paid and used during the period	(1,995		)	(229		)
Changes in liability for pre-existing warranties during the period	(1,101		)	(479		)
Ending balance	$	12,327		$	12,367

In addition, the Company has standard defense and indemnification clauses contained within its various customer contracts. As such, the Company indemnifies the parties to whom it sells its products with respect to the Company’s product, alone or potentially in combination with others, infringing upon any patents, trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets, as well as against bodily injury or damage to real or tangible personal property caused by a defective Company product. As of January 26, 2013, there have been no known events or circumstances that have resulted in a material customer contract-related indemnification liability to the Company.

Manufacturing and Purchase Commitments

Brocade has manufacturing arrangements with CMs under which Brocade provides twelve-month product forecasts and places purchase orders in advance of the scheduled delivery of products to Brocade’s customers. The required lead time for placing orders with the CMs depends on the specific product. Brocade issues purchase orders and the CMs then generate invoices based on prices and payment terms mutually agreed upon and set forth in those purchase orders. Although the purchase orders Brocade places with its CMs are cancellable, the terms of the agreements require Brocade to purchase all inventory components not returnable, usable by, or sold to other customers of the CMs.

As of January 26, 2013, the Company’s aggregate commitment to the CMs for inventory components used in the manufacture of Brocade products was $193.2 million, which the Company expects to utilize during future normal ongoing operations, net of a purchase commitments reserve of $4.3 million. The Company’s purchase commitments reserve reflects the Company’s estimate of purchase commitments it does not expect to consume in normal ongoing operations within the next twelve months.

Income Taxes

The Company has several ongoing income tax audits. For additional discussions, see Note 12, “Income Taxes,” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company believes it has adequate reserves for all open tax years.

Legal Proceedings

Stockholder Litigation

In March 2012, a stockholder filed a complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court captioned Stephen Knee vs. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. alleging that the proposal in Brocade’s proxy for its 2012 annual meeting of stockholders seeking additional shares for the 2009 Stock Plan pool was misleading and incomplete; the plaintiff claimed the right to enjoin the stockholders’ vote. In early April 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the stockholders’ vote on the proposal. Brocade filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. On April 10, 2012, the Court held a hearing and issued an order granting the plaintiff’s motion. On April 12, 2012, the Court entered a stipulation and order regarding settlement in which Brocade agreed to postpone the vote on the proposal at least seven days and to issue supplemental disclosures regarding the proposal. The supplemental disclosures were filed with the SEC on April 12, 2012. Brocade’s stockholders approved the proposal on April 20, 2012. On July 26, 2012, the parties signed a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the matter. On August 10, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. On December 7, 2012 the plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. On December 13, 2012 the Court issued a tentative ruling to grant the Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. The Court granted Final Approval of Settlement on December 14, 2012. Final Judgment was entered on December 19, 2012. Brocade has completed payment of attorney fees and expenses to plaintiff's counsel in an amount immaterial to Brocade in accordance with the settlement and the Final Judgment.

Intellectual Property Litigation

On June 21, 2005, Enterasys Networks, Inc. (“Enterasys”) filed a lawsuit against Foundry Networks, LLC (formerly Foundry Networks, Inc.) (“Foundry”) (and Extreme Networks, Inc.) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that certain of Foundry’s products infringe six of Enterasys’ patents and seeking injunctive relief, as well as unspecified damages. The Court severed the claims against Extreme from the claims against Foundry for trial, and Enterasys subsequently added Brocade as a defendant. On August 28, 2007, the Court granted Foundry’s motion to stay the case based on petitions that Foundry had filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in 2007 for reexamination of five of the six Enterasys patents. Two of the patents received final rejections during their respective reexaminations, in which the USPTO held that the claims were invalid. Enterasys filed appeals of those rejections with the USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in 2009. The USPTO’s Board partially affirmed and partially reversed the other of those two rejections on January 24, 2011, and Enterasys did not appeal further, which ended the proceedings on those two patents. The USPTO has issued reexamination certificates for the remaining three patents undergoing reexamination indicating that the patents were valid over the references that had been submitted. Meanwhile, on May 21, 2010, the Court lifted the stay of the litigation, and Enterasys subsequently dropped from the litigation the two patents it appealed at the USPTO. Accordingly, four patents remain at issue in the litigation. No trial date has been set.

On September 6, 2006, Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Chrimar”) filed a lawsuit against Foundry (and D-Link Corporation and PowerDsine, Ltd.) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that certain of Foundry’s products infringe Chrimar’s U.S. Patent 5,406,260 and seeking injunctive relief, as well as unspecified damages. Discovery has been completed. On June 1, 2012, Brocade filed its second Supplemental Statement of Material Facts In Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Paradigm Claim 17 of the 5,406,260 patent. On August 1, 2012, the Court issued its Memorandum and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and dismissed the case. On August 30, 2012, Chrimar filed a notice of appeal and on November 5, 2012 filed its appeal brief. The Company filed its responsive brief on December 20, 2012. Chrimar filed its Reply Brief on January 22, 2013. The appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 2012-1641.

On August 4, 2010, Brocade and Foundry (collectively and for this paragraph only, "Brocade") filed a lawsuit against A10 Networks, Inc. (“A10”), A10’s founder and other individuals in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 29, 2010, Brocade filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, Brocade alleged that A10 and the individual defendants have misappropriated Brocade’s trade secrets, infringed Brocade’s copyrighted works, interfered with existing contracts between Brocade and their employees, whereby certain of Brocade's current and ex-employees breached contracts, breached their fiduciary duties and duties of loyalty to Brocade, and that certain of A10’s products infringe 13 of Brocade’s patents. Brocade is seeking injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. On May 16, 2011, A10 filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that certain of Brocade’s products infringe a patent recently acquired by A10 and seeking injunctive relief, as well as unspecified damages. In addition, A10 filed petitions with the USPTO to have each of 13 of the patents reexamined, in view of prior art that A10 alleges invalidates the patents. The petitions were granted, and reexaminations of the patents are in progress. On January 6, 2012, the Court granted Brocade’s summary judgment motion of non-infringement of the A10 patent. Trial on Brocade’s claims against A10 and the individual defendants commenced on July 16, 2012. On August 6, 2012, the jury found A10 responsible for intellectual property infringement and unfair competition, and awarding damages to Brocade. On November 8, 2012 the Court heard argument on the parties’ post-trial motions. On January 11, 2013, the Court issued an order that affirmed the jury’s finding of A10’s liability for patent and copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition due to A10’s interference with the employment contract of a Foundry Networks employee beginning in 2007. The Court also confirmed the jury’s award of $60 million to Brocade in damages for copyright infringement. The Court did, however, vacate the jury's award of damages for patent infringement, and its award of punitive damages for A10's and Lee Chen's interference with the employment contract of the Foundry employee, and ordered a new trial to re-determine the amounts of any such damages. No trial date has been set. On January 11, 2013, the Court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting A10 from shipping any A10 products that infringe Brocade’s patents. On January 23, 2013, the Court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting A10 from further use of the misappropriated trade secrets. On February 8, 2013, A10 filed a Notice of Appeal of the permanent injunctions. A10 also asked the Court to stay both of the injunctions pending appeal. On February 12, 2013, the Court denied A10’s request to stay the injunctions. Both of the Court-ordered permanent injunctions against A10 are in effect and, among other restrictions imposed by the Court, prohibit A10 from shipping any of its infringing products.

On September 9, 2011, A10 filed a lawsuit against Brocade in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A10 alleged that certain of Brocade’s products infringed two patents acquired by A10. After Brocade moved to dismiss the complaint, A10 dismissed one of its patents-in-suit, leaving only one patent at issue. In lieu of answering the complaint, Brocade filed a new motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. On June 27, 2012, the Court entered a Final Judgment dismissing A10’s action. A10 has appealed the Judgment and the appeal is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

General

From time to time, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of trademarks, copyrights, patents and/or other intellectual property rights and commercial contract disputes. Third parties assert patent infringement claims against the Company from time to time in the form of letters, lawsuits and other forms of communication. In addition, from time to time, the Company receives notification from customers claiming that they are entitled to indemnification or other obligations from the Company related to infringement claims made against them by third parties. Litigation, even if the Company is ultimately successful, can be costly and divert management’s attention away from the day-to-day operations of the Company.

On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and, when possible, estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and outcomes are typically uncertain, and the Company’s past experience does not provide any additional visibility or predictability to estimate the range of loss that may occur because the costs, outcome and status of these types of claims and proceedings have varied significantly in the past. Other than in the Stephen Knee v. Brocade litigation matter for which the Company has paid the settlement amount, the Company is not currently able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from the above legal proceedings and, accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate the effects of the above on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company records a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.