(10) 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 has agreed to indemnify customers and partners for third-party claims arising from intellectual property infringement. 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 December 31, 2014 or December 31, 2013.

The Company leases office space and computer and other equipment under operating lease agreements. It also leases certain computer and other equipment under capital lease agreements and licenses certain software under other financing arrangements. Under the lease agreements, in addition to base rent, the Company is generally responsible for certain taxes, utilities and maintenance costs, and other fees; and several leases include options for renewal or purchase. As of December 31, 2014, the Company was leasing approximately 233,000 square feet of office space at a location in Northern Virginia that began serving as its corporate headquarters in October 2010, including approximately 19,000 square feet of office space for which it gave written notice in August 2014 of its intent to terminate, effective February 2015, as part of the 2014 Restructuring Plan. The Company never used the terminated lease space and it remained vacant until it was terminated in early February 2015. The term of the lease expires in December 2020. At December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, deferred rent of $18.9 million and $20.1 million, respectively, is included in other long-term liabilities and $3.0 million and $2.8 million, respectively, is included in current accrued expenses.

The following table shows future minimum rent payments under noncancellable operating and capital leases and agreements with initial terms of greater than one year, net of total future minimum rent payments to be received under noncancellable sublease agreements (in thousands), based on the expected due dates of the various installments as of December 31, 2014:


Year	Operating Leases Amount		Capital Leases and Other Financing Amount
2015	$	24,627	$	1,563
2016		21,150		121
2017		17,861		18
2018		17,270		18
2019		16,263		0
Thereafter		19,929		0

	$	117,100	$	1,720

Total rental expenses under operating lease agreements for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 were $30.4 million, $28.3 million, and $26.4 million, respectively.

(b) Contingencies

In December 2011, DataTern, Inc. (“DataTern”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,101,502 (the “’502 Patent”), allegedly owned by DataTern, by making, selling, or offering for sale several of the Company’s products and services including MicroStrategy 9™, MicroStrategy Intelligence Server, MicroStrategy Business Intelligence Platform™, MicroStrategy Cloud Personal, and other MicroStrategy applications for creating or using data mining, dashboards, business analytics, data storage and warehousing, and Web hosting support. The complaint accused the Company of willful infringement and sought an unspecified amount of damages, an award of attorneys’ fees, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. In October 2012, the case was stayed pending final judgment in a separate action involving the ’502 Patent filed by DataTern in the Southern District of New York, in which MicroStrategy was not a party. Final judgment in that separate action was entered against DataTern in December 2012 (the “New York Judgment”). DataTern appealed the New York Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). In February 2013, MicroStrategy and DataTern filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement in light of the New York Judgment and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered summary judgment against DataTern. In March 2013, DataTern filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit. In January 2014, the Federal Circuit stayed DataTern’s appeal pending the disposition of DataTern’s appeal of the New York Judgment. In May 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the New York Judgment in part and reversed it in part. After petitions for rehearing were denied regarding the New York Judgment, the Company and DataTern agreed that the stay in their appeal in the Federal Circuit should be lifted. The Federal Circuit held oral arguments in MicroStrategy’s appeal in November 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating the District of Massachusetts’ summary judgment, stating that the claim construction on which the summary judgment was based was incorrect. On January 26, 2015, the Federal Circuit ordered that the case be remanded for further proceedings, and in February 2015, the Company filed motions for summary judgment in the district court on grounds of non-infringement and invalidity. The Company has received indemnification requests from certain of its resellers and customers who were sued by DataTern in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in lawsuits alleging infringement of the ’502 Patent. The outcome of these matters is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these matters at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for these matters has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

In December 2011, Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“Vasudevan”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company’s sale of MicroStrategy 9 and other MicroStrategy products infringes four patents allegedly owned by Vasudevan known as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,877,006, 7,167,864, 7,720,861, and 8,082,268, all entitled “Multimedia Inspection Database System for Dynamic Runtime Evaluation.” The complaint accused the Company of infringement, inducing others to infringe, and acts of contributory infringement with respect to the patents at issue and sought a permanent injunction, an unspecified amount of damages, and other relief as may be granted by the

court. In October 2013, following a series of motions by the parties, the court dismissed the case, entered judgment of non-infringement based on a stipulation of non-infringement filed by Vasudevan, and also granted MicroStrategy’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, finding the four patents in the suit invalid. In November 2013, Vasudevan filed its Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Also in November 2013, Vasudevan filed a motion that was unopposed by the Company to consolidate the appeal with Vasudevan’s appeal of a related matter against TIBCO Software, which had also been dismissed by the District Court on summary judgment. In February 2014, in response to Vasudevan’s motion, the Court entered an order that the cases be treated as companion cases. On September 12, 2014, the parties presented oral arguments before the Federal Circuit. The parties are currently awaiting the Federal Circuit’s final decision in the case. The outcome of this matter on appeal is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this matter at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for this matter has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company is also involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these other legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these other legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its 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.