Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is involved in various pending and threatened litigation matters related to operations, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. The Company believes that no actions, other than the matters listed below, depart from customary litigation incidental to its business. As background to the disclosure below, please note the following:


•	These matters raise difficult and complicated factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties and complexities.

•

The Company reviews all of its litigation on an on-going basis and follows the authoritative provisions for accounting for contingencies when making accrual and disclosure decisions. A liability must be accrued if (a) it is probable that a liability has been incurred and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. If one of these criteria has not been met, disclosure is required when there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss may be incurred. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, the Company bases decisions on the assessment of the ultimate outcome following all appeals. Legal fees associated with defending litigation matters are expensed as incurred.

CheckFree Corporation and CashEdge, Inc. v. Metavante Corporation and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.

This is a patent infringement action that was filed by CheckFree Corporation and CashEdge, Inc., subsidiaries of Fiserv, Inc. (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") against Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and our subsidiary, Metavante Corporation (collectively the “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division on January 5, 2012. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees for the alleged infringement of three patents. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants infringe the patents at issue by providing customers financial and payment solutions that process payment instructions, provide electronic biller notifications, and/or process account-to-account funds transfer transactions and have requested financial damages and injunctive relief. Defendants filed their Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiffs' complaint for patent infringement denying the claims of patent infringement and asserting defenses, including non-infringement and invalidity. Additionally, Defendants filed counterclaims asserting patent infringement of three patents and adding Fiserv, Inc. as a Counter Defendant. Defendants seek damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs and Counter Defendant Fiserv, Inc., filed their Answer to Defendants' counterclaims denying the claims of patent infringement and asserting defenses, including non-infringement and invalidity. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend its First Amended Complaint to add a fourth patent and Defendants' Motion to Amend its First Amended Answer and Counterclaims. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking an order invalidating all of the Plaintiffs' asserted patents. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to invalidate select patent claims from one of Defendants' asserted patents. On June 24, 2013, Defendants filed for covered business method (“CBM”) post-grant reviews of the validity of the Plaintiff's asserted patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). On June 25, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the case pending the outcome of the CBM post-grant reviews. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 23, 2013, the US Patent Office instituted Defendants’ CBM Petitions, thereby agreeing to review the validity of Plaintiff's patents. Additionally, on January 17, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Stay the litigation pending the outcome of the CBM review proceedings. On December 22, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued final written decisions on Defendants’ CBM Petition holding that all claims of each of the Plaintiffs' four patents are unpatentable. On January 6, 2015, the Court issued an Endorsed Order requesting the parties file, on or before March 31, 2015, a joint report advising how the parties intend to proceed in this matter. Unless appeals are filed and the PTAB’s decisions are reversed, Defendants will have no liability for infringement of the asserted patents.

DataTreasury Corporation v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. et. al.

This patent infringement lawsuit was filed on May 28, 2013 by DataTreasury Corporation (the “Plaintiff”) against Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (the “Company”) and multiple customer banks in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patents at issue by making, using, selling or offering to sell systems and methods for image-based check processing. The Complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees for the alleged infringement of two patents. On October 25, 2013, the Company filed for CBM post-grant reviews of the validity of the Plaintiff's asserted patents at the USPTO. The Company filed a Motion to Stay the case pending the outcome of the CBM post-grant reviews. On April 29, 2014, the USPTO instituted the Company's two CBM petitions. On August 14, 2014, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Stay the litigation pending the outcome of the CBM review proceedings. The parties are waiting for the PTAB to issue final written decisions in the CBM post-grant review proceedings. An estimate of a possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, for this action cannot be made at this time.

Indemnifications and Warranties

The Company generally indemnifies its clients, subject to certain limitations and exceptions, against damages and costs resulting from claims of patent, copyright, or trademark infringement associated solely with its clients' use of the Company's software applications or services. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments under such indemnifications, but continues to monitor the conditions that are subject to the indemnifications to identify whether it is probable that a loss has occurred, and would recognize any such losses when they are estimable. In addition, the Company warrants to clients that its software operates substantially in accordance with the software specifications. Historically, no material costs have been incurred related to software warranties and no accruals for warranty costs have been made.

Leases

The Company leases certain of its property under leases which expire at various dates. Several of these agreements include escalation clauses and provide for purchases and renewal options for periods ranging from one to five years.

Future minimum operating lease payments for leases with remaining terms greater than one year for each of the years in the five years ending December 31, 2019, and thereafter, in the aggregate, are as follows (in millions):



2015	$	62.3
2016	56.7
2017	45.2
2018	34.2
2019	23.9
Thereafter	44.3
Total	$	266.6

In addition, the Company has operating lease commitments relating to office equipment and computer hardware with annual lease payments of approximately $4.6 million per year that renew on a short-term basis. See Note 7 for information on the Company's capital lease obligations.

Rent expense incurred under all operating leases during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, was $85.3 million, $80.0 million and $86.0 million, respectively. Included in discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings was rent expense of $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. There was no rent expense in discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013.

Data Processing and Maintenance Services Agreements. The Company has agreements with various vendors, which expire between 2015 and 2023, for portions of its computer data processing operations and related functions. The Company’s estimated aggregate contractual obligation remaining under these agreements was approximately $533.7 million as of December 31, 2014. However, this amount could be more or less depending on various factors such as the inflation rate, foreign exchange rates, the introduction of significant new technologies, or changes in the Company’s data processing needs.