Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
CONTINGENCIES	18. CONTINGENCIES From time to time, the Company is involved in claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company expects that the number and significance of these matters will increase as business expands. In particular, the Company expects to face an increasing number of patent and other intellectual property claims as the number of products and competitors in Polycom’s industry grows and the functionality of video, voice, data and web conferencing products overlap. Any claims or proceedings against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or require the Company to enter into royalty or licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on terms favorable to the Company or at all. If management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company will record a reserve for the loss. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters is assessed and the estimates revised. Based on currently available information, management does not believe that the ultimate outcomes of these unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations or liquidity for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable, and potentially in future periods. Litigation Class Action Lawsuit. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Polycom and certain of its current and former officers. The lawsuit alleges that, between July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013, Polycom issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding Polycom’s business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls, alleges that the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading, and alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Polycom has not yet responded to the complaint. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the action. Derivative Lawsuits. On August 21, 2013, the first of two purported shareholder derivative suits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of Polycom’s current and former officers and directors. An additional purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court on October 16, 2013, alleging substantially similar claims. The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste, and allege certain defendants failed to maintain adequate internal controls and issued, or authorized the issuance of, materially false and misleading statements, including with respect to Polycom’s Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The complaints further allege that certain defendants approved an unjustified separation agreement and caused Polycom to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. Polycom has not yet responded to the complaints. On October 31, 2013, the court consolidated the complaints and required the plaintiffs to file an operative complaint. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the actions.

18. CONTINGENCIES

From time to time, the Company is involved in claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company expects that the number and significance of these matters will increase as business expands. In particular, the Company expects to face an increasing number of patent and other intellectual property claims as the number of products and competitors in Polycom’s industry grows and the functionality of video, voice, data and web conferencing products overlap. Any claims or proceedings against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or require the Company to enter into royalty or licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on terms favorable to the Company or at all. If management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company will record a reserve for the loss. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters is assessed and the estimates revised. Based on currently available information, management does not believe that the ultimate outcomes of these unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations or liquidity for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable, and potentially in future periods.

Litigation

Class Action Lawsuit. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Polycom and certain of its current and former officers. The lawsuit alleges that, between July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013, Polycom issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding Polycom’s business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls, alleges that the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading, and alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Polycom has not yet responded to the complaint. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the action.

Derivative Lawsuits. On August 21, 2013, the first of two purported shareholder derivative suits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of Polycom’s current and former officers and directors. An additional purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court on October 16, 2013, alleging substantially similar claims. The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste, and allege certain defendants failed to maintain adequate internal controls and issued, or authorized the issuance of, materially false and misleading statements, including with respect to Polycom’s Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The complaints further allege that certain defendants approved an unjustified separation agreement and caused Polycom to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. Polycom has not yet responded to the complaints. On October 31, 2013, the court consolidated the complaints and required the plaintiffs to file an operative complaint. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the actions.