NOTE 7— COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Leases

As of March 31, 2015, future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating and capital leases were as follows:

Year Ended December 31,	Capital Leases			Operating Leases
	(in thousands)
Remaining nine months of 2015	$	829		$	11,934
2016	512			10,485
2017	—			7,445
2018	—			4,480
2019	—			3,351
2020 and beyond	—			4,766
Total minimum lease payments	$	1,341		$	42,461
Less: Amount representing interest	(26		)
Present value of capital lease obligations	1,315
Less: Current portion	(1,098		)
Long-term portion of capital lease obligations	$	217

Purchase commitments

At March 31, 2015, the Company had non-cancelable purchase commitments of $75.5 million, of which $74.2 million is expected to be paid in 2015 and $1.3 million in 2016 and beyond. The purchase orders are based on the Company’s current manufacturing needs. The Company does not have significant agreements for the purchase of raw materials or other goods specifying minimum quantities or set prices that exceed its expected requirements.

Legal proceedings

The Company is currently involved in various legal proceedings. Unless otherwise noted below, during the periods presented the Company did not record any accrual for loss contingencies associated with such legal proceedings, determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible, or determine that the amount or range of any possible loss is reasonably estimable. The Company is engaged in other legal actions not described below arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance, it believes that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its operating results, liquidity or financial position.

Pending legal proceedings as of March 31, 2015 were as follows:

Avago Technologies Fiber (IP) Singapore Pte. Ltd.vs. IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics A/S

On September 29, 2010, Avago Technologies Fiber (IP) Singapore Pte. Ltd. (“Avago IP”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics A/S (now Mellanox Technologies Denmark Aps) (collectively, “IPtronics”) now pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division (Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863 EJD), asserting infringement of the 456 patent and U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447. On September 11, 2012, Avago IP along with additional subsidiaries of Avago Technologies Limited (collectively, “Avago”) filed a second amended and supplemental complaint against the IPtronics adding allegations that IPtronics engaged in violations of the Lanham Act, Section 43 (A); misappropriated Avago’s trade secrets; engaged in unfair competition against Avago; intentionally interfered with Avago’s contractual relations; and were unjustly enriched by and through the conduct complained of by Avago. A motion to file a third amended complaint was filed but never granted.

Avago’s motion to file a Fourth Amended and Supplemental Complaint (the “Complaint”) to add the Company and a new claim for interference with prospective economic advantage against IPtronics was granted. The Company and IPtronics have answered the new complaint and the case is set for trial in May-June, 2016. IPtronics’ motion to add an antitrust counterclaim against Avago for pursuing a sham action was denied and, as explained below, that claim is being pursued in a separate action.

Pursuant to the Complaint, Avago seeks unspecified damages, treble damages, injunctive relief and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court. 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 IPtronics is not successful in defending the Complaint, the Company 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.

IPtronics Inc. and Mellanox Technologies Denmark ApS vs. Avago Technologies Inc., et al.

IPtronics has filed an antitrust Complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division (Case No.: 5:14-cv-05647-BLF (PSG)), against the US and foreign Avago entities (collectively “Avago”) for pursuing what the Company believes to be a baseless ITC action against IPtronics. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages in an amount to compensate IPtronics for the damages resulting from the Avago Entities’ alleged illegal conduct. In response to the Complaint Avago filed a motion to dismiss which will be heard on June 11, 2015. No case schedule has been set.

Weinberger Case

On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action was filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company’s President and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the Company’s board of directors (the “Israeli Claim”). The Israeli Claim was filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the “Claimant”). The Israeli Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the Company’s President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO are responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher price than their true value during a period commencing on April 19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the Company’s shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time. The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney fees and Claimant’s fee and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court. On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the Company filed a procedural agreement with the court to stay the Israeli Claim pending the completion of the In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation disclosed herein. On April 24, 2013, the Israeli court approved this procedural agreement and stayed the Israeli proceedings.

On January 7, 2015 the plaintiff, with the consent of the Company, filed a request to withdraw the Israeli Claim (and related class action claim) against the Company and the Board (the “Withdrawal Petition”) after the plaintiff, in view of the decision to dismiss the U. S. Class Action (In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation disclosed herein), reached the conclusion that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Israeli Claim and have the complaint approved as a class action. Neither the plaintiff nor its attorneys received or will receive any benefit in return for their withdrawal.

On January 8, 2015, the Israeli Court approved the Withdrawal Petition and dismissed the Israeli Claim.

Infinite Data Case

On February 19, 2013, Infinite Data LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Infinite Data”) and a non-practicing entity and exclusive licensee of U.S. patent number 5,790,530 (the “Patent”), filed suit against approximately 25 of the Company’s end users and direct customers of its InfiniBand products in the United States District Court in Delaware. All actions included the same allegation of infringement regarding the Patent and seek the payment of damages, costs, expenses and injunctive relief. Several of the end users and direct customers sued by Infinite Data tendered indemnification requests to the Company on the basis of existing contractual or asserted statutory obligations imposed on the Company to provide such indemnification. All of these cases were stayed pending the outcome of the declaratory judgment action filed by the Company (see below). Based on currently available information, the Company believes that the resolution of these proceedings is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In response to these filings and accusations of infringement by the Company’s products, on May 21, 2013, the Company filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Infinite Data asking for a declaration that the Patent is invalid and that the Company’s products do not infringe. On November 14, 2013, Infinite Data filed its answer denying that the Patent was invalid and counterclaimed that the Company’s products infringe. Pursuant to the Counterclaims, Infinite Data seeks unspecified damages, treble damages, injunctive relief and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.

Infinite Data, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. and Mellanox Technologies, Inc. each entered into settlement agreements in which Infinite Data agreed to dismiss Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., with no liability or payment made by Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. and to dismiss Mellanox Technologies, Inc. in exchange for a payment of $1.3M. The case against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. was dismissed with prejudice on December 3, 2014 and the case against Mellanox Technologies, Inc. was dismissed with prejudice on January 5, 2015. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, Infinite Data has dismissed with prejudice its complaints against all of Mellanox Technologies, Inc.’s direct and indirect customers except Ford, which dismissal is still pending.