Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

We lease our office facilities under operating lease agreements expiring through December 2025. Certain of these lease agreements have escalating rent payments. We recognize rent expense under such agreements on a straight-line basis over the lease term, and the difference between the rent paid and the straight-line rent is recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities and other long-term liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

As of January 31, 2017, the aggregate future minimum payments under non-cancelable operating leases consist of the following (in thousands):



Year Ending January 31,	Operating Leases
2018	$	17,937
2019	14,762
2020	13,565
2021	14,118
2022	11,972
Thereafter	15,063
Total	$	87,417

Rent expense recognized under our operating leases were $7.5 million, $11.0 million and $16.6 million for the years ended January 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively.

Purchase Obligations

As of January 31, 2016 and 2017, we had $5.9 million and $4.1 million of non-cancelable contractual purchase obligations related to certain software service contracts.

Letters of Credit

As of January 31, 2016 and 2017, we had letters of credit in the aggregate amount of $7.1 million and $7.7 million, respectively, in connection with our facility leases. The letters of credit are collateralized by restricted cash in the same amount and mature at various dates through June 2024.

Legal Matters

On November 4, 2013, EMC filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets and unlawful interference with business and contractual relationships. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. On November 26, 2013 and November 18, 2014, we counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets, unlawful interference with contractual and business relationships, unfair competition, commercial disparagement, and defamation. Our counterclaim sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. In a separate litigation matters, on November 26, 2013 and March 21, 2016, EMC filed complaints against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement. The complaints sought damages and injunctive and equitable relief.

On October 18, 2016, we entered into an agreement with Dell Inc. (Dell), as successor-in-interest to EMC to settle all litigation between EMC and us. The terms of the settlement include a payment to Dell, the dismissal of all litigation between the parties, mutual releases, and a license to the disputed patent. Accordingly, we paid Dell a one-time settlement amount of $30.0 million, and all litigation between EMC and us was dismissed prior to October 31, 2016. We evaluated the settlement as a multiple-element arrangement, which requires us to allocate the one-time payment to the identifiable elements based on their relative fair values. Based on our estimates of fair value, we determined that the sole benefit of the settlement is to avoid further litigation costs with no value attributable to future use or benefit. Accordingly, we recorded the $30.0 million as a legal settlement charge in general and administrative expenses during the three months ended October 31, 2016.

On September 1, 2016, a purported securities class action entitled Ramsay v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Mateo County) against us and certain of our officers, directors, investors and underwriters for our initial public offering, asserting claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants, captioned Peter Galanis v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 14, 2016), Curtis Wilson v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 15, 2016), Loren Moe v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 23, 2016), and Mason Delahooke and Mahsa Shirazikia v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed October 5, 2016). On October 27, 2016, the aforementioned actions were consolidated under the caption In re Pure Storage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. On December 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On January 26, 2017, the defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the consolidated action, which is scheduled to be heard on March 30, 2017. We believe there is no merit to the allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

From time to time, we have become involved in claims and other legal matters arising in the normal course of business. We investigate these claims as they arise. Although claims are inherently unpredictable, we currently are not aware of any matters that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly we have not recorded any loss contingency on our consolidated balance sheet as of January 31, 2017.

Indemnification

Our arrangements generally include certain provisions for indemnifying customers against liabilities if our products or services infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights. Other guarantees or indemnification arrangements include guarantees of product and service performance and standby letters of credit for lease facilities. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification obligations due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. To date, we have not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and have not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the consolidated financial statements. In addition, we indemnify our officers, directors and certain key employees while they are serving in good faith in their respective capacities. To date, there have been no claims under any indemnification provisions.