Commitments and contingencies

Operating lease and purchase obligations

As of March 31, 2014, we had future minimum non-cancelable financial commitments primarily related to office space under non-cancelable operating leases and license fees due to certain of our third party content providers, regardless of usage level. The aggregate future minimum commitments, net of sublease income, were comprised of the following (in thousands):



	Payments Due by Period
	Total		Fiscal 2014		Fiscal 2015		Fiscal 2016		Fiscal 2017		Fiscal 2018		Thereafter
Operating lease obligations, net of sublease income	$	31,262	$	6,596	$	4,727	$	4,751	$	4,644	$	4,294	$	6,250
Purchase obligations	6,480		2,989		3,278		213		—		—		—
Total contractual obligations	$	37,742	$	9,585	$	8,005	$	4,964	$	4,644	$	4,294	$	6,250

Contingencies

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. When we believe a loss or a cost of indemnification is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated loss or cost of indemnification in our consolidated financial statements. Where the outcome of these matters is not determinable, we do not make a provision in our financial statements until the loss or cost of indemnification, if any, is probable and can be reasonably estimated or the outcome becomes known. We expense legal fees related to these matters as they are incurred.

On December 31, 2009, Vehicle IP, LLC, or Vehicle IP, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking monetary damages, fees and expenses and other relief. Verizon Wireless was named as a co-defendant in the Vehicle IP litigation based on the VZ Navigator product and has demanded that we indemnify and defend Verizon against Vehicle IP. At this time, we have not agreed to defend or indemnify Verizon. AT&T was also named as a co-defendant in the Vehicle IP litigation based on the AT&T Navigator and Telenav Track products. AT&T has tendered the defense of the litigation to us and we are defending the case on behalf of AT&T. After the Court issued its claim construction ruling the parties agreed to focus on early summary judgment motions, and asked the Court to postpone the rest of the case schedule pending the resolution of these potentially case-dispositive motions. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment of noninfringement. On April 10, 2013 the Court granted AT&T and our motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. While the Court's ruling appears to be dispositive of plaintiff's claims, plaintiff is appealing the district court's claim construction and summary judgment ruling. The appeal is currently ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the oral argument was held on April 10, 2014. Due to the uncertainties related to litigation, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will incur a loss; however, we cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses we may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On April 30, 2010, Traffic Information, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking monetary damages, fees and expenses, and other relief. The patent at issue was subject to reexamination by the PTO and the reexamined claims were found invalid. Plaintiff appealed this finding and on May 30, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, confirmed the invalidity of these claims. Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of this decision with the PTAB, which was denied on January 13, 2014. Plaintiff has indicated its intent to appeal this finding. In light of the reexamination and plaintiff's appeal of the reexamination findings, the Court stayed the case and the case will remain stayed and administratively closed unless the patentee obtains a favorable decision on appeal before the PTAB or Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 12, 2014, Traffic Information filed an appeal with the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit. Due to the preliminary status of the lawsuit and uncertainties related to litigation, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will incur a loss; however, we cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses we may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of this complaint on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

On November 22, 2013, Bay Area Surgical Group, Inc., Knowles Surgery Center, LLC, National Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, Los Altos Surgery Center, LP, Forest Ambulatory Surgical Associates, LP, and SOAR Surgery Center, LLC filed a lawsuit against Aetna Life Insurance Company and approximately 300 Aetna health plan sponsors, including Telenav, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Aetna and the co-defendants failed to properly pay benefits and administer claims and provide the requested documents mandated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). On March 6, 2014 the Court dismissed without prejudice all causes of action against Telenav, Inc. and the Telenav Health and Welfare Plan.

In addition, we have received, and expect to continue to receive, demands for indemnification from our wireless carrier and other customers, which demands can be very expensive to settle or defend, and we have in the past offered to contribute to settlement amounts and incurred legal fees in connection with certain of these indemnity demands. A number of these indemnity demands, including demands relating to pending litigation, remain outstanding and unresolved as of the date of this Form 10-Q. Furthermore, in response to these demands we may be required to assume control of and bear all costs associated with the defense of our customers in compliance with our contractual commitments. At this time, we are not a party to the following cases; however our customers have requested that we indemnify them in connection with such cases:

In 2008, Alltel, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile USA, or T-Mobile, each demanded that we indemnify and defend them against patent infringement lawsuits brought by patent holding companies EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology LLC and Location Based Services LLC (collectively, “EMSAT”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. After T-Mobile also sought indemnification and defense from Google, Inc., Google intervened in the T-Mobile litigation. After claim construction and related motion practice, EMSAT agreed to dismiss all claims against Google in the T-Mobile suit, and in March 2011, EMSAT and AT&T settled their claims. By March 2011, all the EMSAT cases were either dismissed or stayed while the PTO completed its reexamination of the validity of the patents at issue. The PTO has concluded its reexamination of two of the patents in suit, confirming the validity of only two of the asserted claims from those patents. At this time, all patent claims that EMSAT alleged to be infringed by the Telenav GPS Navigator product have been cancelled during reexamination. EMSAT agreed to dismiss its allegations relating to the patent claims that were cancelled during reexamination. Accordingly, the Court has lifted the stays in the suits against T-Mobile, Alltel and Sprint. Due to uncertainties related to litigation, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. We have arbitrated with and compensated one carrier for our defense obligations, without a negative effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We have not yet determined the extent of our indemnification and defense obligations to the other wireless carriers. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will incur additional loss; however, we cannot currently estimate a range of other possible losses we may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the overall effects of these cases on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

In March 2009, AT&T demanded that we indemnify and defend them against a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Tendler Cellular of Texas LLC, or Tendler, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In June 2010, AT&T settled its claims with Tendler and we came to an agreement with AT&T as to the extent of our contribution towards AT&T's settlement and the amount of our contribution was not material; however, there continues to be a disagreement as to whether any additional amounts are owed to AT&T for legal fees and expenses related to the defense of the matter. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will incur additional loss; however, we cannot currently estimate a range of other possible losses we may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the overall effects on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.