COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Note 8

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2014

Notes to Financial Statements

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Note 8

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Guarantees

Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, the Company indemnifies other parties, including customers, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. Under these arrangements, the Company typically agrees to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, intellectual property infringement or other claims made against certain 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 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 revenue in the condensed consolidated statements of income, were as follows (in thousands):

		Three Months Ended				Nine Months Ended
		December 31,				December 31,
		2014		2013		2014		2013
Balance at beginning of period	$	538	$	552	$	660	$	452
Accruals for warranties		54		274		123		744
Settlements		(86)		(192)		(277)		(562)
Changes in estimate		(83)		-		(83)		-
Balance at end of period	$	423	$	634	$	423	$	634

Minimum Third Party Customer Support Commitments

In the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company amended a 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. The total remaining obligation as of December 31, 2014 under the amended contract is $2.2 million.

Minimum Third Party Network Service Provider Commitments

The Company entered into contracts with multiple vendors for third party network services that expire on various dates in fiscal 2015 through 2018. At December 31, 2014, future minimum annual payments under these third party network service contracts were as follows (in thousands):

Year ending March 31:
Remaining 2015	$	747
2016		3,014
2017		2,452
2018		891
Total minimum payments	$	7,104

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may become involved in various legal claims and litigation that arise in the normal course of its operations. While the results of such claims and litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company is not currently aware of any such matters that it believes would have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On February 22, 2011, the Company was named a defendant in a lawsuit, 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 we cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of litigation.

On March 31, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit, CallWave Communications LLC v. 8x8, Inc.  CallWave Communications also sued Fonality Inc. on March 31, 2014, and previously had sued other companies including Verizon, Google, T-Mobile, and AT&T. The Company answered the complaint and filed counterclaims in response thereto. We cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of the litigation.

On December 31, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit, Adaptive Data, LLC v. 8x8, Inc.  Adaptive Data, LLC also sued another 36 other defendants on December 31, 2014 and another 16 defendants on January 5, 2015 regarding the same patents asserted in our case. Service of process has not yet been effected on the Company.

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 taxes. 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.