Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(5) Commitments and Contingencies (a) Commitments From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that require it to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily relate to agreements under which the Company assumes indemnity obligations for intellectual property infringement, as well as other obligations from time to time depending on arrangements negotiated with customers and other third parties. The conditions of these obligations vary. Thus, the overall maximum amount of the Company’s indemnification obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations and does not currently expect to incur any material obligations in the future. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an indemnification liability on its Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2023 or December 31, 2022. (b) Contingencies Following an internal review initiated in 2018, the Company believes that its Brazilian subsidiary failed or likely failed to comply with local procurement regulations in conducting business with certain Brazilian government entities. On February 6, 2020, the Company learned that a Brazilian court authorized the Brazilian Federal Police to use certain investigative measures in its investigation into alleged corruption and procurement fraud involving certain government officials, pertaining to a particular transaction. The transaction at issue is part of the basis of the previously reported failure or likely failure of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The Company is not aware of any allegations that any former employee or the Company made any payments to Brazilian government officials. The Brazilian Federal Police expanded the investigation to include other possible cases of procurement fraud involving Brazilian government entities. Criminal penalties may be imposed against individuals; however, neither employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary nor the subsidiary itself have been targets of the Federal Police investigation. The Company has also learned that Brazil’s Federal Comptroller General filed an administrative action against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with respect to the alleged procurement violations. These matters remain the subject of investigation by Brazilian authorities. The Company is taking measures to attempt to resolve these matters. On January 18, 2023, Brazil’s General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“SG/CADE”) launched an administrative proceeding to investigate potentially anticompetitive conduct, naming various individuals and companies as defendants including the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The proceeding involves conduct relating to transactions with certain Brazilian public and private entities that is part of the basis of the foregoing failure or likely failure of the Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The proceeding was precipitated by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary’s voluntary disclosure of information to SG/CADE that arose out of the internal review initiated in 2018, and the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has secured a leniency agreement with SG/CADE. If at the end of the proceeding, CADE’s Tribunal confirms that the leniency agreement obligations have been fulfilled, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary will receive full immunity from fines. The Company believes that a loss is probable in connection with these Brazilian matters. In the first quarter of 2023, the Company was able to reasonably estimate a minimum loss of $0.2 million in respect of these matters, which amount the Company has accrued in its consolidated financial statements. However, given the stage of these matters, the Company remains unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond such minimum loss at this time. The accrued amount is included as a component of “Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and operating lease liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2023. The final outcome of these matters may result in a loss that is significantly greater than this accrued amount. Any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters may result in a material impact on the Company’s earnings and financial results for the period in which any such liability is accrued. However, the Company believes that any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. On November 4, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by a patent assertion entity called Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”). In its complaint, Daedalus alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,341,172 (the “’172 Patent”) and 9,032,076 (the “’076 Patent”) based on specific functionality in the MicroStrategy platform. The ’172 Patent relates to a method for providing aggregate data access in response to a query, whereas the ’076 Patent relates to a role-based access control system. On March 1, 2021, Daedalus provided its formal infringement contentions which included additional accused functionality as part of its infringement allegations from the complaint, materially expanding the scope of its case. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, asking the court to rule that the asserted claims are invalid as being directed to patent ineligible matter. This matter is in the latter stage of factual discovery. The court conducted a claim construction hearing on July 15, 2021. The court appointed a special master on October 28, 2021 and directed the special master to submit a Report and Recommendation as to the issue of claim construction and the pending motion to dismiss by February 1, 2022. On January 21, 2022, the special master issued two separate Reports and Recommendations. The first Report and Recommendation recommended constructions of certain patent claim terms and the second Report and Recommendation recommended, without reaching the merits, dismissing the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to re-filing after discovery ends. The parties filed their respective objections to the special master’s Reports and Recommendations on February 4, 2022, and their oppositions to the other party’s objections on February 18, 2022. On March 9, 2022, the court issued an order overruling all parties’ objections and adopting the special master’s Reports and Recommendations in full. As per court order, the parties submitted a joint proposed schedule, which the court adopted on April 7, 2022, providing new deadlines for the close of fact discovery, expert reports, expert discovery, and dispositive motions. Fact discovery reopened on April 18, 2022 and closed on June 1, 2022. In July 2022, the case proceeded to expert discovery and the parties exchanged their opening expert reports on issues for which they bear the burden of proof on July 1, 2022, their rebuttal reports on July 29, 2022, and their reply reports on August 12, 2022. The parties engaged in expert depositions the weeks of August 22 and August 29, 2022. On September 21, 2022, the parties filed their respective motions for summary judgment, and on October 12, 2022 and October 19, 2022, the parties filed their opposition and reply briefs. The court conducted a status hearing on November 14, 2022 and issued an order the following day indefinitely postponing all case deadlines including trial originally scheduled for January 2023. The court also re-appointed the Special Master to assist in addressing the parties’ motions for summary judgment and other pending pre-trial motions. The outcome of this matter is not presently determinable. On August 31, 2022, the District of Columbia (the “District”), through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia naming as defendants (i) Michael J. Saylor, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Executive Chairman, in his personal capacity, and (ii) the Company. The District sought, among other relief, monetary damages under the District’s False Claims Act for the alleged failure of Mr. Saylor to pay personal income taxes to the District over a number of years together with penalties, interest, and treble damages. The complaint alleged that the amount of personal income taxes purportedly involved was more than $25 million. The complaint also alleged in the sole claim against the Company that it violated the District’s False Claims Act by conspiring to assist Mr. Saylor’s alleged failure to pay personal income taxes. On October 26, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s complaint. On February 28, 2023, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the sole claim against the Company as well as a claim against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act. The court did not dismiss claims against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor failed to pay personal income taxes, interest and penalties due. On April 13, 2023, the District, through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a motion to amend its complaint to attempt to restore claims under the False Claims Act against both Mr. Saylor and the Company, attaching a proposed amended complaint to its motion. The proposed amended complaint alleges that the Company violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements in the form of false withholding filings with the District Office of Tax and Revenue. The proposed amended complaint also alleges that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements and by causing the Company to make and use false records and statements. The final outcome of this matter is not presently determinable. The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company has contingent liabilities that, in management’s judgment, are not probable of assertion. If such unasserted contingent liabilities were to be asserted, or become probable of assertion, the Company may be required to record significant expenses and liabilities in the period in which these liabilities are asserted or become probable of assertion.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(5) Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Commitments

From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that require it to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily relate to agreements under which the Company assumes indemnity obligations for intellectual property infringement, as well as other obligations from time to time depending on arrangements negotiated with customers and other third parties. The conditions of these obligations vary. Thus, the overall maximum amount of the Company’s indemnification obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations and does not currently expect to incur any material obligations in the future. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an indemnification liability on its Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2023 or December 31, 2022.

(b) Contingencies

Following an internal review initiated in 2018, the Company believes that its Brazilian subsidiary failed or likely failed to comply with local procurement regulations in conducting business with certain Brazilian government entities.

On February 6, 2020, the Company learned that a Brazilian court authorized the Brazilian Federal Police to use certain investigative measures in its investigation into alleged corruption and procurement fraud involving certain government officials, pertaining to a

particular transaction. The transaction at issue is part of the basis of the previously reported failure or likely failure of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The Company is not aware of any allegations that any former employee or the Company made any payments to Brazilian government officials. The Brazilian Federal Police expanded the investigation to include other possible cases of procurement fraud involving Brazilian government entities. Criminal penalties may be imposed against individuals; however, neither employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary nor the subsidiary itself have been targets of the Federal Police investigation.

The Company has also learned that Brazil’s Federal Comptroller General filed an administrative action against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with respect to the alleged procurement violations. These matters remain the subject of investigation by Brazilian authorities. The Company is taking measures to attempt to resolve these matters.

On January 18, 2023, Brazil’s General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“SG/CADE”) launched an administrative proceeding to investigate potentially anticompetitive conduct, naming various individuals and companies as defendants including the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The proceeding involves conduct relating to transactions with certain Brazilian public and private entities that is part of the basis of the foregoing failure or likely failure of the Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The proceeding was precipitated by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary’s voluntary disclosure of information to SG/CADE that arose out of the internal review initiated in 2018, and the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has secured a leniency agreement with SG/CADE. If at the end of the proceeding, CADE’s Tribunal confirms that the leniency agreement obligations have been fulfilled, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary will receive full immunity from fines.

The Company believes that a loss is probable in connection with these Brazilian matters. In the first quarter of 2023, the Company was able to reasonably estimate a minimum loss of $0.2 million in respect of these matters, which amount the Company has accrued in its consolidated financial statements. However, given the stage of these matters, the Company remains unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond such minimum loss at this time. The accrued amount is included as a component of “Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and operating lease liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2023. The final outcome of these matters may result in a loss that is significantly greater than this accrued amount. Any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters may result in a material impact on the Company’s earnings and financial results for the period in which any such liability is accrued. However, the Company believes that any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

On November 4, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by a patent assertion entity called Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”). In its complaint, Daedalus alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,341,172 (the “’172 Patent”) and 9,032,076 (the “’076 Patent”) based on specific functionality in the MicroStrategy platform. The ’172 Patent relates to a method for providing aggregate data access in response to a query, whereas the ’076 Patent relates to a role-based access control system.

On March 1, 2021, Daedalus provided its formal infringement contentions which included additional accused functionality as part of its infringement allegations from the complaint, materially expanding the scope of its case. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, asking the court to rule that the asserted claims are invalid as being directed to patent ineligible matter. This matter is in the latter stage of factual discovery. The court conducted a claim construction hearing on July 15, 2021. The court appointed a special master on October 28, 2021 and directed the special master to submit a Report and Recommendation as to the issue of claim construction and the pending motion to dismiss by February 1, 2022. On January 21, 2022, the special master issued two separate Reports and Recommendations. The first Report and Recommendation recommended constructions of certain patent claim terms and the second Report and Recommendation recommended, without reaching the merits, dismissing the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to re-filing after discovery ends. The parties filed their respective objections to the special master’s Reports and Recommendations on February 4, 2022, and their oppositions to the other party’s objections on February 18, 2022. On March 9, 2022, the court issued an order overruling all parties’ objections and adopting the special master’s Reports and Recommendations in full. As per court order, the parties submitted a joint proposed schedule, which the court adopted on April 7, 2022, providing new deadlines for the close of fact discovery, expert reports, expert discovery, and dispositive motions. Fact discovery reopened on April 18, 2022 and closed on June 1, 2022. In July 2022, the case proceeded to expert discovery and the parties exchanged their opening expert reports on issues for which they bear the burden of proof on July 1, 2022, their rebuttal reports on July 29, 2022, and their reply reports on August 12, 2022. The parties engaged in expert depositions the weeks of August 22 and August 29, 2022. On September 21, 2022, the parties filed their respective motions for summary judgment, and on October 12, 2022 and October 19, 2022, the parties filed their opposition and reply briefs. The court conducted a status hearing on November 14, 2022 and issued an order the following day indefinitely postponing all case deadlines including trial originally scheduled for January 2023. The court also re-appointed the Special Master to assist in addressing the parties’ motions for summary judgment and other pending pre-trial motions. The outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

On August 31, 2022, the District of Columbia (the “District”), through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia naming as defendants (i) Michael J. Saylor, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Executive Chairman, in his personal capacity, and (ii) the Company. The District sought, among other relief, monetary damages under the District’s False Claims Act for the alleged failure of Mr. Saylor to pay personal income taxes to the District over a number of years together with penalties, interest, and treble damages. The complaint alleged that the amount of personal income taxes purportedly involved was more than $25 million. The complaint also alleged in the sole claim against the Company that it violated the District’s False Claims Act by conspiring to assist Mr. Saylor’s alleged failure to pay personal income taxes. On October 26, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s complaint. On February 28, 2023, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the sole claim against the Company as well as a claim against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act. The court did not dismiss claims against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor failed to pay personal income taxes, interest and penalties due. On April 13, 2023, the District, through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a motion to amend its complaint to attempt to restore claims under the False Claims Act against both Mr. Saylor and the Company, attaching a proposed amended complaint to its motion. The proposed amended complaint alleges that the Company violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements in the form of false withholding filings with the District Office of Tax and Revenue. The proposed amended complaint also alleges that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements and by causing the Company to make and use false records and statements. The final outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company has contingent liabilities that, in management’s judgment, are not probable of assertion. If such unasserted contingent liabilities were to be asserted, or become probable of assertion, the Company may be required to record significant expenses and liabilities in the period in which these liabilities are asserted or become probable of assertion.