6. Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Commitments

The Company leases its facilities under non-cancelable operating leases. These operating leases expire at various dates through March 2022. Future minimum rental commitments under operating leases at December 31, 2014 are as follows:


Year Ending December 31,	Operating Lease Commitments
2015	$	5,998
2016		4,997
2017		4,515
2018		3,879
2019		3,773
2020 and thereafter		7,951
	$	31,113

Certain amounts included in the table above relating to co-location leases for the Company's servers include usage based charges in addition to base rent.

The Company's primary office lease has the option to renew the lease for two successive periods of five years each. In connection with the office lease, the Company entered into a letter of credit in the amount of $2,404.

Certain of the Company's operating leases include escalating payment amounts and lease incentives. The Company is recognizing the related rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The lease incentives are considered an inseparable part of the lease agreement, and are recognized as a reduction of rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company had deferred rent and rent incentives of $1,548 and $1,304, respectively, of which $1,483 and $1,261, respectively, is classified as a long-term liability in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $6,280, $5,328 and $4,197, respectively. Income from sublease rental activity amounted to $0, $0 and $88 , respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.

Capital Lease Commitments

In connection with the Purchase Agreement, the Company assumed various capital lease arrangements for certain computer equipment for a total obligation of $2,899 as of the closing of the Acquisition. The lease arrangements expire at various dates through May 2017. Future minimum rental commitments under capital leases at December 31, 2014 are as follows:

Year Ending December 31	Capital Lease Commitments
2015	$	1,204
2016		464
2017		72
Less – interest on capital leases		56
	$	1,684

At December 31, 2014, total assets under capital leases were $2,664 and related accumulated amortization was $1,015.

In addition to the operating lease and capital lease commitments discussed above, as of December 31, 2014, the Company had non-cancelable commitments of $9,071 payable in 2015, $8,000 payable in 2016, and $8,000 payable in 2017 primarily for content delivery network and storage services.

Legal Matters

The Company, from time to time, is party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Management does not believe that the outcome of these claims will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company based on the status of proceedings at this time.

On August 27, 2012, a complaint was filed by Blue Spike, LLC naming the Company in a patent infringement case (Blue Spike, LLC v. Audible Magic Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,346,472 with a listed issue date of March 18, 2008, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals,” U.S. Patent No. 7,660,700 with a listed issue date of February 9, 2010, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals,” U.S. Patent No. 7,949,494 with a listed issue date of May 24, 2011, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals” and U.S. Patent No. 8,214,175 with a listed issue date of July 3, 2012, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals.” The complaint seeks an injunction enjoining infringement, damages and pre- and post-judgment costs and interest. The Company answered and filed counterclaims against Blue Spike on December 3, 2012. The Company amended its answer and counterclaims on July 15, 2013. This complaint is subject to indemnification by one of the Company's vendors. The Company cannot yet determine whether it is probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential loss, if any.

On September 10, 2013, a complaint was filed by Cinsay Inc. naming the Company in a patent infringement case (Cinsay Inc. v. Brightcove Inc. and Joyus Inc., United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,312,486 with a listed issue date of November 13, 2012, entitled “Interactive Product Placement and Method Therefor” and U.S. Patent No. 8,533,753 with a listed issue date of September 10, 2013, entitled “Interactive Product Placement and Method Therefor.” On October 1, 2013, Cinsay filed an amended complaint against the Company in which it reasserted the allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,312,486 and U.S. Patent No. 8,533,753 and added allegations that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,549,555 with a listed issue date of October 1, 2013, entitled “Interactive Product Placement and Method Therefor.” The amended complaint seeks an injunction enjoining infringement, damages and pre- and post-judgment costs and interest. The Company answered the amended complaint on November 12, 2013. The Company settled the matter on July 15, 2014 for an amount that is not material and, pursuant to the settlement, all claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice on August 14, 2014. The Company recorded the impact of the settlement as a charge to operations in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Guarantees and Indemnification Obligations

The Company typically enters into indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses and costs incurred by the indemnified party, generally the Company's customers, in connection with patent, copyright, trade secret, or other intellectual property or personal right infringement claim by third parties with respect to the Company's technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. Based on when customers first subscribe for the Company's service, the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under certain of these indemnification agreements is unlimited, however, more recently the Company has typically limited the maximum potential value of such potential future payments in relation to the value of the contract. Based on historical experience and information known as of December 31, 2014, the Company has not incurred any costs for the above guarantees and indemnities. The Company has received requests for indemnification from customers in connection with patent infringement suits brought against the customer by a third party. To date, the Company has not agreed that the requested indemnification is required by the Company's contract with any such customer.

In certain circumstances, the Company warrants that its products and services will perform in all material respects in accordance with its standard published specification documentation in effect at the time of delivery of the licensed products and services to the customer for the warranty period of the product or service. To date, the Company has not incurred significant expense under its warranties and, as a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is immaterial.

Beginning on September 18, 2014, the Company suffered a service disruption resulting from a distributed denial-of-service attack at third-party data center facilities used by the Company. By September 20, 2014, the Company had restored the services impacted by the attack. While this matter has resulted in the issuance of service credits by the Company to some customers, and may result in remediation expenses, litigation and other liabilities, this incident did not have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014.