NOTE 7—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating leases

The Company leases office space and equipment under noncancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through April 2022. Rent expense for the years ended March 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $504,000, $348,000 and $354,000, respectively. The terms of the facility leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period, and has accrued for rent expense incurred but not paid.

Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases with remaining lease terms in excess of one year at March 31, 2017 are as follows:


	Operating
Fiscal Year Ending March 31,	Leases
	(In thousands)
2018	$	279
2019		195
2020		108
2021		80
2022		54
Thereafter		35
Total	$	751

Royalty obligations

The Company has license agreements that require it to pay royalties on the sale of products using the licensed technology. Royalty expense for the years ended March 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $35,000, $44,000 and $53,000, respectively, and was included within cost of revenues.

Indemnification obligations

The Company is a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise in the context of contracts entered into by the Company, under which the Company customarily agrees to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to such matters as title to assets sold and certain intellectual property rights. In each of these circumstances, payment by the Company is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract, which procedures typically allow the Company to challenge the other party’s claims. Further, the Company’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances, the Company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by it under these agreements.

It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these or similar agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations 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 effect on its business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. The Company believes that if it were to incur a loss in any of these matters, such loss should not have a material effect on its business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Product warranties

The Company warrants its products to be free of defects generally for a period of three years. The Company estimates its warranty costs based on historical warranty claim experience and includes such costs in cost of revenues. Warranty costs and the accrued warranty liability were not material as of March 31, 2017 and 2016 and for the years ended March 31, 2017, 2016 or 2015.

Legal proceedings

In March 2011, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, a semiconductor manufacturer, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging that certain of the Company’s SRAM products infringe patents held by Cypress. The complaint sought unspecified damages for past infringement and a permanent injunction against future infringement.

On June 10, 2011, Cypress filed a complaint against the Company with the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”). The ITC complaint, as subsequently amended, alleged infringement by the Company of certain patents involved in the District Court case and one additional patent and also alleged infringement by certain of the Company’s distributors and customers who allegedly incorporate the Company’s SRAMs in their products. The ITC complaint sought a limited exclusion order excluding the allegedly infringing SRAMs, and products containing them, from entry into the United States and permanent orders directing the Company and the other respondents to cease and desist from selling or distributing such products in the United States. On July 21, 2011, the ITC formally instituted an investigation in response to Cypress’s complaint. On June 7, 2013, the full Commission affirmed a determination that GSI’s SRAM devices, and products containing them, do not infringe the Cypress patents and that Cypress had failed to establish existence of a domestic industry that practices the patents. Moreover, the Commission reversed a portion of an earlier determination with respect to the validity of the patents, finding the asserted claims of one of the patents to have been anticipated by prior art and, therefore, invalid. The Commission ordered the investigation terminated, and Cypress did not appeal the ruling.

The Minnesota District Court case had been stayed pending the conclusion of the ITC proceeding. Following the termination of the ITC investigation, the stay was lifted. On May 1, 2013, Cypress filed an additional lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement by the Company’s products of five additional Cypress patents. Like the Minnesota case, the complaint in the California lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past infringement and a permanent injunction against future infringement. The Company filed answers in both cases denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses. The parties then stipulated that the claims in the Minnesota case with respect to some of the asserted patents would be dismissed without prejudice and that the claims with respect to the remaining patents would be transferred to the Northern District of California and consolidated with the pending California case. On August 20, 2013, the Court in the California case ordered the cases consolidated.

The Company did not record any loss contingency during fiscal 2015 or fiscal 2016 in connection with these legal proceedings as the Company was unable to predict their outcome and could not estimate the likelihood or potential dollar amount of any adverse results.

On May 6, 2015, the Company and Cypress entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the patent infringement litigation and a separate lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which the Company alleged that Cypress had violated federal and state antitrust laws. Under the settlement agreement:

Each of the parties agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice in consideration of the dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit brought by the other party; and

Each party agreed to release all claims against the other with respect to issues raised in the two lawsuits.

The parties agreed that the settlement agreement was entered into to resolve disputed claims, and that each party denies any liability to the other party.