NOTE 9—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Leases

The Company leases office space and motor vehicles under operating leases with various expiration dates through 2021. Rent expense was approximately $6.8 million, $6.6 million and $2.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The terms of the facility lease 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.

The Company has entered into capital lease agreements for electronic design automation software. The total amount of assets under capital lease agreements within "Property and equipment, net" was approximately $4.1 million and $0.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

At December 31, 2012, future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating and capital leases totaled approximately $52.7 million. For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, the accumulated amortization for assets under capital lease agreements totaled approximately $0.3 million and $0.1 million, respectively. At December 31, 2012, future minimum payments under non-cancelable operating and capital leases are as follows:

Year Ended December 31,	Capital Leases			Operating Leases

	(in thousands)
2013	$	1,268		$	13,003
2014		1,260			10,536
2015		1,114			6,177
2016		503			4,750
2017 and beyond		—			14,436

Total minimum lease payments	$	4,145		$	48,902

Less: Amount representing interest		(57	)

Present value of capital lease obligations		4,088
Less: Current portion		(1,253	)

Long-term portion of capital lease obligations	$	2,835

Purchase commitments

At December 31, 2012, the Company had non-cancelable purchase commitments of $59.0 million, $57.9 million of which is expected to be paid in 2013 and $1.1 million in 2014 and beyond.

Legal proceedings

Avago Technologies Fiber (IP) Singapore Pte. Ltd.

On September 24, 2012, Avago Technologies Fiber (IP) Singapore Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, "Avago") filed a complaint against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Mellanox Technologies, Inc., IPtronics A/S, IPtronics, Inc., FCI USA, LLC, FCI Deutschland GmbH and FCI SA (collectively, "Respondents") with the United States International Trade Commission (Inv. No. 337-TA-860). The complaint alleges that the Respondents have engaged in unfair acts in violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, through allegedly unlicensed importation, sale for importation and/or sale after importation of products covered by patents asserted by Avago. Pursuant to the complaint, Avago seeks as permanent relief a limited exclusion order barring from entry into the United States, among other Respondent products, all imported Mellanox optoelectronic devices and products containing the same that allegedly infringe the patents asserted by Avago, and a cease and desist order prohibiting the importation, sale, offer for sale, advertising, solicitation, use and/or warehousing of inventory for distribution of such imported products in the United States. Neither the outcome of the proceeding nor the amount and range of potential damages or exposure associated with the proceeding can be assessed with certainty. In the event we are not successful in defending the Avago claims, we could be forced to license technology from Avago and be prevented from importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, soliciting, using and/or warehousing for distribution the allegedly infringing products. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that the resolution of this proceeding is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Barnicle Case

On February 7, 2013, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO and CFO, were sued in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming it and them as defendants and entitled, Patrick Barnicle, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CIV 925. The complaint was filed by Patrick Barnacle for himself as plaintiff and, purportedly, on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's ordinary shares between April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013 (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false or misleading statements (or failed to disclose certain facts) regarding the Company's business and outlook. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that the resolution of this proceeding is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Ryan Case

On February 14, 2013, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO and CFO, were sued in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming it and them as defendants and entitled, David R. Ryan, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1047. The factual allegations and legal claims asserted in the Ryan complaint, as well as the relief sought and the proposed class and class period in the Ryan complaint, are substantially the same as in the Barnicle case described above. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that the resolution of this proceeding is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Petrov Case

On February 22, 2013, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO and CFO, were sued in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming it and them as defendants and entitled, Valentin Petrov, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1225. The complaint was filed by Valentin Petrov for himself as plaintiff and, purportedly, on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's ordinary shares between April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013 (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false or misleading statements (or failed to disclose certain facts) regarding the Company's business and outlook. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that the resolution of this proceeding is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.