Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Operating Leases We lease various operating spaces in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia under non-cancelable operating lease arrangements that expire on various dates through 2025. We recognize rent expense under these arrangements on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. Rent expense for all operating leases amounted to $2.5 million and $2.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $7.5 million and $7.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. There have been no material changes in our operating lease commitments under contractual obligation, as disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. Financing Obligation—Build-to-Suit Lease In August 2012, we executed a lease for a building then under construction in Santa Clara, California to serve as our headquarters. The lease term is 120 months and commenced in August 2013. The underlying building asset is depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of 30 years. At the conclusion of the initial lease term, we will de-recognize both the net book values of the asset and the remaining financing obligation. There have been no material changes in our operating lease commitments under contractual obligation, as disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we have recorded assets of $53.4 million, representing the total costs of the building and improvements incurred, including the costs paid by the lessor (the legal owner of the building) and additional improvement costs paid by us, and a corresponding financing obligation of $40.0 million and $41.2 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2017, $1.8 million and $38.2 million were recorded as short-term and long-term financing obligations, respectively. Land lease expense related to our lease financing obligation is classified as rent expense in our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of income, and amounted to $0.3 million and $1.0 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively, and $0.3 million and $1.0 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively. Purchase Commitments We outsource most of our manufacturing and supply chain management operations to third-party contract manufacturers, who procure components and assemble products on our behalf based on our forecasts in order to reduce manufacturing lead times and ensure adequate component supply. We issue purchase orders to our contract manufacturers for finished product and a significant portion of these orders consist of firm non-cancelable commitments. In addition, we purchase strategic component inventory from certain suppliers under purchase commitments that in some cases are non-cancelable, including integrated circuits, which are consigned to our contract manufacturers. As of September 30, 2017, we had non-cancelable purchase commitments of $131.8 million. In addition, we have provided deposits to secure our obligations to purchase inventory. We had $34.7 million and $63.1 million in deposits as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. These deposits are classified in other current and long term assets in our accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. Guarantees We have entered into agreements with some of our direct customers and channel partners that contain indemnification provisions relating to potential situations where claims could be alleged that our products infringe the intellectual property rights of a third party. We have at our option and expense the ability to repair any infringement, replace product with a non-infringing equivalent-in-function product or refund our customers all or a portion of the value of the product. Other guarantees or indemnification agreements include guarantees of product and service performance and standby letters of credit for lease facilities and corporate credit cards. We have not recorded a liability related to these indemnification and guarantee provisions and our guarantee and indemnification arrangements have not had any significant impact on our consolidated financial statements to date. Legal Proceedings OptumSoft, Inc. Matters On April 4, 2014, OptumSoft filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County titled OptumSoft, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., in which it asserts (i) ownership of certain components of our EOS network operating system pursuant to the terms of a 2004 agreement between the companies; and (ii) breaches of certain confidentiality and use restrictions in that agreement. Under the terms of the 2004 agreement, OptumSoft provided us with a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to software delivered by OptumSoft comprising a software tool used to develop certain components of EOS and a runtime library that is incorporated into EOS. The 2004 agreement places certain restrictions on our use and disclosure of the OptumSoft software and gives OptumSoft ownership of improvements, modifications and corrections to, and derivative works of, the OptumSoft software that we develop. In its lawsuit, OptumSoft has asked the Court to order us to (i) give OptumSoft access to our software for evaluation by OptumSoft; (ii) cease all conduct constituting the alleged confidentiality and use restriction breaches; (iii) secure the return or deletion of OptumSoft’s alleged intellectual property provided to third parties, including our customers; (iv) assign ownership to OptumSoft of OptumSoft’s alleged intellectual property currently owned by us; and (v) pay OptumSoft’s alleged damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of the lawsuit. David Cheriton, one of our founders and a former member of our board of directors, who resigned from our board of directors on March 1, 2014 and has no continuing role with us, is a founder and, we believe, the largest stockholder and director of OptumSoft. The 2010 David R. Cheriton Irrevocable Trust dtd July 28, 2010, a trust for the benefit of the minor children of Mr. Cheriton, is one of our largest stockholders. On April 14, 2014, we filed a cross-complaint against OptumSoft, in which we assert our ownership of the software components at issue and our interpretation of the 2004 agreement. Among other things, we assert that the language of the 2004 agreement and the parties’ long course of conduct support our ownership of the disputed software components. We ask the Court to declare our ownership of those software components, all similarly-situated software components developed in the future and all related intellectual property. We also assert that, even if we are found not to own certain components, such components are licensed to us under the terms of the 2004 agreement. However, there can be no assurance that our assertions will ultimately prevail in litigation. On the same day, we also filed an answer to OptumSoft’s claims, as well as affirmative defenses based in part on OptumSoft’s failure to maintain the confidentiality of its claimed trade secrets, its authorization of the disclosures it asserts and its delay in claiming ownership of the software components at issue. We have also taken additional steps to respond to OptumSoft’s allegations that we improperly used and/or disclosed OptumSoft confidential information. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these allegations, we believe we have (i) revised our software to remove the elements we understand to be the subject of the claims relating to improper use and disclosure of OptumSoft confidential information and made the revised software available to our customers and (ii) removed information from our website that OptumSoft asserted disclosed OptumSoft confidential information. The parties tried Phase I of the case, relating to contract interpretation and application of the contract to certain claimed source code, in September 2015. On December 16, 2015, the Court issued a Proposed Statement of Decision Following Phase 1 Trial, and on January 8, 2016, OptumSoft filed objections to that Proposed Statement of Decision. On March 23, 2016, the Court issued a Final Statement of Decision Following Phase I Trial, in which it agreed with and adopted our interpretation of the 2004 agreement and held that we, and not OptumSoft, own all the software at issue in Phase I. The remaining issues that were not addressed in the Phase I trial are set to be tried in Phase II including the application of the Court’s interpretation of the 2004 agreement as set forth in the Final Statement of Decision Following Phase I Trial to any other source code that OptumSoft claims to own following a review. Phase II was previously scheduled to be tried in April 2016; however, that trial date has been vacated and a new trial date has not yet been set. We intend to vigorously defend against any claims brought against us by OptumSoft. However, we cannot be certain that, if litigated, any claims by OptumSoft would be resolved in our favor. For example, if it were determined that OptumSoft owned components of our EOS network operating system, we would be required to transfer ownership of those components and any related intellectual property to OptumSoft. If OptumSoft were the owner of those components, it could make them available to our competitors, such as through a sale or license. An adverse litigation ruling could result in a significant damages award against us and injunctive relief. In addition, OptumSoft could assert additional or different claims against us, including claims that our license from OptumSoft is invalid. With respect to the legal proceedings described above, it is our belief that while a loss is not probable, it may be reasonably possible. Further, at this stage in the litigation, any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. Therefore, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against us in a reporting period for a material amount, our consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) Matters We are currently involved in several litigation matters with Cisco Systems, Inc. These matters are summarized below. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc. (Case No. 4:14-cv-05343) (“’43 Case”) On December 5, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that we infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577; 6,741,592; 7,023,853; 7,061,875; 7,162,537; 7,200,145; 7,224,668; 7,290,164; 7,340,597; 7,460,492; 8,051,211; and 8,356,296 (respectively, “the ’577 patent,” “the ’592 patent,” “the ’853 patent,” “the 875 patent,” “the ’537 patent,” “the ’145 patent,” “the ’668 patent,” “the ’164 patent,” “the ’597 patent,” “the ’492 patent,” “the ’211 patent,” and “the ’296 patent”). Cisco seeks, as relief for our alleged infringement in the ’43 Case, lost profits and/or reasonable royalty damages in an unspecified amount, including treble damages, attorney’s fees, and associated costs. Cisco also seeks injunctive relief in the ’43 Case. On February 10, 2015, the Court granted our unopposed motion to stay the ’43 Case until the proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission (“USITC”) pertaining to the same patents (as discussed below) became final. Trial has not been scheduled in the ’43 Case. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc. (Case No. 5:14-cv-05344) (“’44 Case”) On December 5, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that we infringe numerous copyrights pertaining to Cisco’s “Command Line Interface” or “CLI” and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,047,526 and 7,953,886 (respectively, “the ’526 patent” and “the ’886 patent”). As relief for our alleged patent infringement in the ’44 Case, Cisco seeks lost profits and/or reasonable royalty damages in an unspecified amount including treble damages, attorney’s fees, and associated costs as well as injunctive relief. As relief for our alleged copyright infringement, Cisco seeks monetary damages for alleged lost profits, profits from our alleged infringement, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and associated costs. As described below, on May 25, 2016, our petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ’886 patent was instituted by the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Cisco subsequently agreed to dismiss its claims as to the ‘886 patent with prejudice. On December 14, 2016, following a two-week trial, the jury found that we had proven our copyright defense of scenes a faire and that Cisco had failed to prove infringement of the ’526 patent, and on that basis judgment was entered in our favor on all claims on December 19, 2016. On January 17, 2017, Cisco filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of our scenes a faire defense. Cisco did not file any post-trial motion regarding the ’526 patent, nor did it file a motion for a new trial. We also filed a conditional motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or for a new trial on several grounds, which would be at issue only if the court granted Cisco’s motion. The hearing on both parties’ motions was held on April 27, 2017. On May 10, 2017, the court denied Cisco’s motion and denied our motions as moot. Cisco filed a notice of appeal on June 6, 2017, and the parties are in the process of submitting their appeal briefs. Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 5:16-cv-00923) (“’23 Case”) On February 24, 2016, we filed a complaint against Cisco in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging antitrust violations and unfair competition. On August 23, 2016, the Court granted Cisco’s motion to stay the ’23 Case until judgment was entered on Cisco’s copyright claims in the ’44 Case. On March 2, 2017, the Court lifted the stay and trial is set for August 3, 2018. On March 23, 2017, Cisco filed a motion to dismiss our complaint in the ’23 Case. On October 10, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Cisco’s motion to dismiss, with leave for us to amend to cure any deficiencies as to the claims that were dismissed. Certain Network Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-944) (“944 Investigation”) On December 19, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the USITC alleging that we violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). The USITC instituted Cisco’s complaint as Investigation No. 337-TA-944. Cisco initially alleged that certain of our switching products infringe the ’592, ’537, ’145, ’164, ’597, and ’296 patents. Cisco subsequently dropped the ’296 patent from the 944 Investigation. Cisco sought, among other things, a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of accused switch products (including our 7000 Series of switches) and components and software therein and a cease and desist order against us restricting our activities with respect to our imported accused switch products and components and software therein. On February 2, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued his initial determination finding a violation of Section 337. More specifically, the ALJ found that a violation has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain network devices, related software, and components thereof that the ALJ found infringed asserted claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ’537 patent; asserted claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 of the ’592 patent; and asserted claims 5, 7, 45, and 46 of the ’145 patent. The ALJ did not find a violation of Section 337 with respect to any asserted claims of the ’597 and ’164 patents. On June 23, 2016, the Commission issued its Final Determination, which found a violation with respect to the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents, and found no violation with respect to the ’597 and ’164 patents. The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order pertaining to network devices, related software and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ’537 patent; claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 of the ’592 patent; and claims 5, 7, 45, and 46 of the ’145 patent. On August 22, 2016, the Presidential review period for the 944 Investigation expired. The USITC orders will be in effect until the expiration of the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents. Both we and Cisco filed petitions for review of the USITC’s Final Determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was held on June 6, 2017. On September 27, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USITC’s Final Determination. On August 26, 2016, Cisco filed an enforcement complaint under Section 337 with the USITC. Cisco alleges that we are violating the cease and desist and limited exclusion orders issued in the 944 Investigation by engaging in the “marketing, distribution, offering for sale, selling, advertising, and/or aiding or abetting other entities in the sale and/or distribution of products that Cisco alleges continue to infringe claims 1-2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ’537 patent,” despite the design changes we have made to those products. Cisco asks the USITC to (1) enforce the cease and desist order; (2) modify the Commission’s limited exclusion order and/or cease and desist order “in any manner that would assist in the prevention of the unfair practices that were originally the basis for issuing such Order or assist in the detection of violations of such Order”; (3) impose the maximum statutory civil penalties for violation of the cease and desist order “including monetary sanctions for each day’s violation of the cease and desist order of the greater of $100,000 or twice the domestic value of the articles entered or sold, whichever is higher”; (4) bring a civil action in U.S. district court “requesting collection of such civil penalties and the issuance of a mandatory injunction preventing further violation of Cease and Desist Order”; and (5) impose “such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.” On September 28, 2016, the Commission instituted the enforcement proceeding. The proceeding has been assigned to ALJ Judge Shaw, who presided over the underlying investigation. The target date for the investigation was initially set for September 20, 2017. On June 20, 2017, the ALJ issued his initial determination finding that we did not violate the June 23, 2016 cease and desist order. The initial determination also recommended a civil penalty of $307 million if the Commission decided to overturn the finding of no violation. On July 3, 2017, the parties filed petitions for review of certain findings in the initial determination. On August 4, 2017, the Commission issued an order remanding the investigation to the ALJ to make additional findings on certain issues and issue a remand initial determination. The Commission ordered the ALJ to set a schedule for completion of any necessary remand proceedings and a new target date for the enforcement action. On August 25, 2017 the ALJ issued an Initial Determination setting a June 4, 2018 deadline for the remand initial determination and September 4, 2018 as the new target date for the enforcement action. The ALJ also set a briefing schedule and a February 1, 2018 hearing. On September 18, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the Initial Determination setting the target date. Certain Network Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-945) (“945 Investigation”) On December 19, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the USITC alleging that we violated Section 337. The USITC instituted Cisco’s complaint as Investigation No. 337-TA-945. Cisco alleges that certain of our switching products infringe the ’577, ’853, ’875, ’668, ’492, and ’211 patents. Cisco seeks, among other things, a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of accused switch products (including our 7000 Series of switches) related software, and components thereof and a cease and desist order against us restricting our activities with respect to our imported accused switch products, related software, and components thereof. On December 9, 2016, the ALJ issued her initial determination finding a violation of Section 337. More specifically, the ALJ found that a violation has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain network devices, related software, and components thereof that the ALJ found infringe asserted claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the ’577 patent and asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 19, 56, and 64 of the ’668 patent. The ALJ did not find a violation of Section 337 with respect to asserted claim 2 of the ’577 patent or any asserted claims of the ’853, ’492, ’875, and ’211 patents. On December 29, 2016, we, Cisco and the Office of Unfair Import Investigation (“OUII”) filed petitions for review of certain findings contained in the initial determination. On March 1, 2017, the Commission issued a notice that it was reviewing the final initial determination in part on certain issues. On May 4, 2017, the Commission issued its Final Determination, which found a violation with respect to the ’577 and ’668 patents, and found no violation with respect to the ’211, ’853, ’875 and ’492 patents. The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order pertaining to network devices, related software and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the ’577 patent and 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of the ’668 patent. The 60-day Presidential review period for the 945 Investigation expired on July 4, 2017. During the 60-day Presidential review period, the USITC Orders permitted Arista to continue importing and selling products covered by the orders so long as we paid a 5% bond. Because the United States Trade Representative did not disapprove the USITC’s final determination, the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order are now in full effect. On May 25, 2017 and June 1, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding all claims of the ’577 and ’668 patents that we were found to have infringed in the 945 Investigation unpatentable. On June 1, 2017 and June 2, 2017, we filed emergency petitions to suspend the remedial orders in the 945 Investigation. On July 20, 2017, the Commission issued a notice denying our petition to suspend the remedial orders. On July 21, 2017, we filed a motion to stay the remedial orders in the 945 Investigation pending disposition of the relevant appeals and sought expedited consideration of our motion. On September 11, 2017, the Commission denied our motion to stay. On June 30, 2017, Cisco filed a petition for review of the USITC’s Final Determination to the Federal Circuit regarding the ’853, ’492, ’875 and ’211 patents. On July 21, 2017, we filed a petition for review of the Final Determination to the Federal Circuit. On August 25, 2017 we filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requesting that the Federal Circuit stay the remedial orders pending the completion of the appeal of the 945 Investigation. On September 22, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying our motion to stay, but ordered that our redesigned products be allowed to enter the country “unless and until Commission proceedings are initiated and completed to produce an enforceable determination that such a redesign is barred” by a Commission remedial order. On September 27, 2017, Cisco filed a petition with the USITC requesting that the Commission institute a modification proceeding to determine whether our redesigned products infringe the patent claims underlying the remedial orders in the 945 Investigation. On October 27, 2017, the Commission instituted the modification proceeding. The USITC has assigned Mary Joan McNamara as the ALJ to oversee the proceeding. The Commission has set a deadline of five months for the ALJ to issue a recommended determination on what, if any, modifications to the remedial orders issued in the 945 Investigation are appropriate. This deadline may be extended by one month upon a showing of good cause. The recommended determination will be subject to review by the Commission after which the Commission will issue a final determination. The Commission has not set a target date for the final determination. On November 1, 2017, Cisco filed a request for an expedited “limited recommended determination” on certain issues relating to the ’577 patent. Cisco’s request seeks completion of briefing by December 11, 2017 and a recommended determination “as soon as practicable” after that. Inter Partes Reviews We have filed petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ’597, ’211, ’668, ’853, ’537, ’577, ’886, and ’526 patents. IPRs relating to the ’597 (IPR No. 2015-00978) and ’211 (IPR No. 2015-00975) patents were instituted in October 2015 and hearings on these IPRs were completed in July 2016. On September 28, 2016, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding claims 1, 14, 39-42, 71, 72, 84, and 85 of the ’597 patent unpatentable. The PTAB also found that claims 29, 63, 64, 73, and 86 of the ’597 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. On October 5, 2016, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding claims 1 and 12 of the ’211 patent unpatentable. The PTAB also found that claims 2, 6-9, 13, 17-20 of the ’211 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. Both parties have appealed the final written decisions on the ’211 and ’537 patent IPRs. The IPR relating to the ’886 patent was instituted on May 25, 2016. Following that decision, Cisco agreed to dismiss its claims as to the ʼ886 patent with prejudice, and we dismissed our counterclaims as to the ʼ886 patent without prejudice. IPRs relating to the ’668 (IPR No. 2016-00309), ’577 (IPR No. 2016-00303), ’853 (IPR No. 2016-0306), and ’537 (IPR No. 2016-0308) patents were instituted in June 2016 and hearings were held on March 7, 2017. On May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding claims 1, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of ’577 patent unpatentable, and that claim 2 of the ’577 patent, claim 63 of the ’853 patent, and claims 1, 10, 19, and 21 of the ’537 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. On June 1, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-28, 30-31, 33-36, 55-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the ’668 patent unpatentable. We filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the ’577 patent on July 21, 2017, and Notices of Appeal concerning the ‘853 and ’537 patents on July 26, 2017. Cisco cross-appealed concerning the ’577 patent on July 26, 2017 and filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the ’668 patent on August 1, 2017. For the appeals of the IPRs on the ’668 and ’577 patents, the Federal Circuit granted our motion for an expedited briefing schedule, and the briefing will be completed in November 2017. * * * * * We intend to vigorously defend against each of the Cisco lawsuits, as summarized in the preceding paragraphs. However, we cannot be certain that any claims by Cisco will be resolved in our favor regardless of the merit of the claims. Any adverse litigation ruling could result in injunctive relief, including the above described injunctive relief, could lead to significant penalties assessed or damages awarded against us or a requirement that we make substantial royalty payments to Cisco, and/or could require that we modify our products. For example, in the 944 Investigation, the USITC issued a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of our network devices (including our 7000 Series of switches), related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more of the claims of the ’537, ʼ592, and ʼ145 patents specified above and a cease and desist order restricting our activities with respect to such imported products. In the 945 Investigation, the USITC issued a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of our network devices, related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more of the claims of the ’577 and ’668 patents specified above and a cease and desist order restricting our activities with respect to such imported products. To comply with these orders, we have sought to develop technical redesigns that no longer infringe the patents that are the subject of the orders. In any efforts to develop these technical redesigns for our products, we may be unable to do so in a manner that does not continue to infringe the patents or that is acceptable to our customers. Our redesign efforts could be extremely costly and time consuming as well as disruptive to our other development activities and distracting to management. Moreover, our ability to import redesigned products into the United States is based on rulings from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and the Federal Circuit. While these favorable rulings currently allow us to import our redesigned products into the United States, the USITC could determine in an enforcement action or modification proceeding that our redesigned products continue to infringe the patents that are the subject of any USITC orders. In addition, the Federal Circuit or CBP could decide to withdraw or alter their rulings based on a change in circumstances. Any failure to effectively redesign our products, obtain customer acceptance of those redesigned products, retain authorization to import those redesigned products, or address the USITC findings in a manner that complies with the USITC orders, may cause a disruption to our product shipments, a rejection or return of our redesigned products by (or a delay or loss of sales to) customers, subject us to penalties or damage awards, and materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations, and financial condition. Specifically, in response to the USITC’s findings in the 944 Investigation, we have made design changes to our products for sale in the United States to address the features that were found to infringe the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents. Following the issuance of the final determination in the 944 Investigation, we submitted a Section 177 ruling request to CBP seeking approval to import these redesigned products into the United States. On November 18, 2016, we received a 177 ruling from CBP finding that our redesigned products did not infringe the relevant claims of the ʼ537, ’592, and ʼ145 patents, and approving the importation of those redesigned products into the United States. On January 13, 2017, at the request of Cisco and without our input, CBP issued a letter to us revoking its prior November 18 ruling. CBP subsequently conducted an inter partes proceeding between Arista and Cisco to determine whether our redesigned products infringe and whether to approve them for importation into the United States. On April 7, 2017, following the inter partes proceeding, CBP again ruled that our redesigned products do not infringe the relevant claims of the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents and again approved those redesigns for importation into the United States. On September 12, 2017, Cisco filed a second request with CBP seeking to revoke our approval to import our redesigns relating to the 944 Investigation. We have opposed Cisco’s request, and CBP has not yet ruled on Cisco’s request. Similarly, on May 4, 2017, the USITC issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order in the 945 Investigation with respect to the ’668 and ’577 patents. We have made design changes to our products for sale in the United States to address the features that were found to infringe the ’577 and ’668 patents. We are making ongoing modifications to our products to also ensure that they continue to meet customer requirements, and we are working with our customers to qualify those modified products for use in our customers’ networks. In particular, the ’577 patent was directed to a feature that is implemented in the merchant silicon chips that we purchase from third-party suppliers. Because we do not design, build or manufacture these merchant silicon chips, we are limited in further modifications that we can make to our products for this patent. We are deploying these additional modifications for a subset of our products, and for all of our products we will remove the features found to infringe until the ’577 patent expires on June 30, 2018. These redesign and qualification efforts could be extremely costly and time consuming for us and our customers as well as disruptive to our other development activities and distracting to management. We may not be able to complete, and our customers may not be able to qualify these redesigned products in a timely fashion, if at all. For example, some of our customers continue to test and qualify our redesigned products which address the ’577 and ’668 patents to ensure that they meet their network requirements. This could result in an inability to ship those redesigned products to our customers, a delay or cancellation of purchases by, some customers until those further modifications are completed and/or qualified or a rejection or return of our redesigned products or a delay or loss of sales to some customers, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, deferred revenue balances, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition. Because the USITC did not suspend its orders in the 945 Investigation, despite a PTAB finding that every relevant claim of the ’668 and ’577 patents is unpatentable, we were previously barred from importing our redesigned products into the United States until we received approval from CBP. On July 21, 2017, we submitted a Part 177 request to CBP seeking approval to import our redesigned products into the United States. Following the Federal Circuit’s order on September 22, 2017, allowing us to import our redesigned products, we withdrew our request. On October 12, 2017, CBP, over Cisco’s objection, terminated the Part 177 proceedings, and confirmed that it will permit entry of our redesigns pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s September 22, 2017 order. In either the 944 or 945 Investigations, if the USITC determines that our redesigned products infringe patents that are the subject of USITC remedial orders, those products will be barred from import into the United States, or sale after importation. In addition, the USITC may impose the maximum statutory civil penalties for violation of the cease and desist order “including monetary sanctions for each day’s violation of the cease and desist order of the greater of $100,000 or twice the domestic value of the articles entered or sold, whichever is higher,” bring a civil action in U.S. district court “requesting collection of such civil penalties and the issuance of a mandatory injunction preventing further violation of Cease and Desist Order,” or impose “such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.” In the 944 Investigation, the ALJ recommended a civil penalty of $307 million if the Commission were to reverse ALJ’s finding of no violation. Any such finding by the USITC could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, reputation, results of operations and financial condition. An adverse finding in an enforcement action or modification proceeding would take effect immediately upon USITC’s issuance of the final determination, without any Presidential review period. To address such a finding, we would have to further redesign our products to make them non-infringing, and until we made such changes we would not be able to import or ship our products to customers. In such a situation, we may not be able to do so in a manner that does not continue to infringe the patents or that is acceptable to customers. We may not be able to complete, and our customers may not be able to qualify, such redesigned products in a timely fashion, if at all, following the issuance of an adverse final determination, leading to an inability to sell or ship products to customers. Our redesign efforts could be extremely costly and time consuming as well as disruptive to our other development activities and distracting to management. For example, in the enforcement action for the 944 Investigation, although the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that our redesigned products did not violate the June 23, 2016 cease and desist order, if the ALJ modifies the initial determination during the remand proceeding, or if the Commission finds a violation in its final determination on September 4, 2018, we will no longer be able to import or ship our products in the U.S. until we make further changes to address those findings, which could materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition. We would also need to obtain USITC or CBP approval to resume importation of such redesigned products into the United States. In addition, the USITC would not provide a service and support exception for our previously redesigned products, and customers may be required to upgrade to new products to obtain service and support. If we are unable to obtain such approvals or provide such service and support exception, our business, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. In the 945 Investigation, while the USITC orders are based upon patent claims that the PTAB has found to be invalid, these orders will remain in effect unless and until the PTAB decisions are affirmed on appeal and the PTO cancels the patents. If the Commission finds a violation in its final determination for the modification proceeding, we will no longer be able to import or ship our products in the U.S. until we make further changes to address those findings and/or until the PTAB decisions are so affirmed and the PTO cancels the patents, which could materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition. We would also need to obtain USITC or CBP approval to resume importation of any such redesigned products into the United States. In addition, the USITC would not provide a service and support exception for our previously redesigned products, and customers may be required to upgrade to new products to obtain service and support. If we are unable to obtain such approvals or provide such service and support exception, our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, even if the PTAB decisions are affirmed on appeal, and the patent claims are canceled, if we are found to have violated the USITC’s orders while those orders remain in effect, we may be subject to penalties. To comply with the USITC’s remedial orders, we have also made certain changes to our manufacturing, importation and shipping workflows. These changes have included shifting manufacturing and integration of our products to be sold in the United States to U.S. facilities. Such changes may be extremely costly, time consuming, and we may not be able to implement such changes successfully. Any failure to successfully change our manufacturing and importation processes or shipping workflows in a manner that is compliant with the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order may cause a disruption in our product shipments and materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, reputation, results of operations, and financial condition. In connection with these changes, to the extent that we are required to make further modifications to our supply chain to obtain alternative U.S. sources for subcomponents, we may be unable to obtain a sufficient quantity of these components on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner, if at all, which could delay or halt entirely production of our products or require us to make further modifications to our products to incorporate new components that are available in the United States. Any of these events could result in lost sales, reduced gross margins or damage to our end-customer relationships, which would materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Additionally, the existence of Ciscoʼs lawsuits against us could cause concern among our customers and partners and could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Many of our customers and partners require us to indemnify and defend them against third party infringement claims and pay damages in the case of adverse rulings. These claims could harm our relationships with our customers or channel partners, cause them to delay or defer purchasing decisions or deter them from doing business with us. From time to time, we may also be required to provide additional assurances beyond our standard terms. Whether or not we prevail in the lawsuit, we expect that the litigation will be expensive, time-consuming and a distraction to management in operating our business. With respect to the various legal proceedings described above, it is our belief that while a loss is not probable, it may be reasonably possible. Further, at this stage in the litigation, any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. Therefore, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against us in a reporting period for a material amount, our consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same (U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1010) (the “1010 Investigation”) On May 23, 2016, Tessera Technologies, Inc., Tessera, Inc., and Invensas Corp. (“Tessera”) filed a complaint in the USITC alleging that Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technologies Limited, and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (“Broadcom”) and certain of Broadcom's customers violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). On June 20, 2016, the USITC instituted Tessera’s complaint as Investigation No. 337-TA-1010. Tessera alleges that certain Broadcom semiconductor devices infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,856,007; 6,849,946; and 6,133,136. Tessera further alleges that Broadcom’s downstream customers, Arista Networks, Inc.; ARRIS International plc; ARRIS Group, Inc.; ARRIS Technology, Inc.; ARRIS Enterprises LLC; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; Pace Ltd.; Pace Americas, LLC; Pace USA; LLC, ASUSteK Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer International; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC; Comcast Business Communications, LLC; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; NETGEAR, Inc.; Technicolor S.A.; Technicolor USA, Inc.; and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC (“Downstream Respondents”) are violating Section 337 by importing, selling after importation, or selling for importation products that incorporate the accused Broadcom semiconductor devices. The accused Company products include certain models of our switching products. Tessera seeks the following relief: (1) a permanent limited exclusion order excluding from importation into the U.S. all of Broadcom’s semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages, as well as Downstream Respondents’ products containing Broadcom’s semiconductor devices that infringe one or more of the three patents-in-suit and (2) a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting Broadcom and the Downstream Respondents and related companies from importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, offering for sale, selling, qualifying for use in the products of others, distributing, or using the accused Broadcom semiconductor devices and Downstream Respondents’ products containing Respondents’ semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages that infringe one or more of the three patents subject to the USITC Investigation. An evidentiary hearing was held from March 27-31, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the ALJ issued an initial determination that found a violation with respect to the ’946 patent and no violation with respect the ’136 and ’007 patents. The ALJ recommended that the Commission issue limited exclusion and cease and desist orders and recommended a 100% bond for imports during the Presidential review period. The Commission has indicated it will review the initial determination, and the target date for the final determination is December 1, 2017. To the extent claims made by Tessera in the USITC Investigation against us are based solely on functionality residing in Broadcom’s products, Broadcom has agreed to defend us at no cost to us. * * * * * An adverse final determination from the Commission could result in issuance of remedial orders that could prevent Broadcom, Arista, and the other Downstream Respondents from selling infringing products for import into the United States, importing infringing products into the United States, or selling infringing products after importation into the United States. This could include both the infringing semiconductor devices as well as downstream products, including our Ethernet switches, that incorporate those devices. During the 60-day Presidential review period following the final determination, Broadcom, Arista, and the other Downstream Respondents could continue to import and sell infringing products by paying a bond. The ALJ’s recommended bond is 100% of the entered value of the product. Following the end of the Presidential review period, if the U.S. Trade Representative chooses not to disapprove the final determination, the remedial orders would go into full effect. If the USITC orders go into full effect, to continue importing and selling products found to be infringing, Broadcom and its manufacturers would need to develop redesigned products that do not infringe, and we would have to integrate these devices into its own products, or Broadcom and/or the Downstream Respondents would need to obtain a license from Tessera. It may not be possible to do this in a timely fashion, if at all. Because the asserted patents are directed towards technology used in the manufacture of the semiconductor devices not manufactured or designed by us, we would be dependent on Broadcom and its manufacturers to create such redesigned products. Before Broadcom, Arista, or the other Downstream Respondents could import redesigned products into the United States, the products would have to be approved by CBP or the USITC. We may not be successful in any efforts to obtain such approvals in a timely manner, or at all. While a favorable ruling from CBP would allow Broadcom, Arista, and the other Downstream Respondents to resume importation of our redesigned products into the United States, the USITC could ultimately determine in an enforcement action that such redesigned products continue to infringe the patents that are the subject of the USITC orders. Any failure to effectively redesign these products and obtain timely clearance from CBP or USITC to import such redesigned products or to obtain a license from Tessera may cause a disruption to our product shipments and materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations, and financial condition. However, it is our belief that at this stage of the legal proceedings, the likelihood of a loss is remote. Other Matters In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to other claims and legal proceedings including matters relating to commercial, employee relations, business practices and intellectual property. We record a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of September 30, 2017, provisions recorded for contingent losses related to other claims and matters have not been significant. Based on currently available information, management does not believe that any additional liabilities relating to other unresolved matters are probable or that the amount of any resulting loss is estimable, and believes these other matters are not likely, individually and in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and our view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs, and potentially in future periods.

Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

We lease various operating spaces in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia under non-cancelable operating lease arrangements that expire on various dates through 2025. We recognize rent expense under these arrangements on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. Rent expense for all operating leases amounted to $2.5 million and $2.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $7.5 million and $7.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. There have been no material changes in our operating lease commitments under contractual obligation, as disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Financing Obligation—Build-to-Suit Lease

In August 2012, we executed a lease for a building then under construction in Santa Clara, California to serve as our headquarters. The lease term is 120 months and commenced in August 2013. The underlying building asset is depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of 30 years. At the conclusion of the initial lease term, we will de-recognize both the net book values of the asset and the remaining financing obligation. There have been no material changes in our operating lease commitments under contractual obligation, as disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we have recorded assets of $53.4 million, representing the total costs of the building and improvements incurred, including the costs paid by the lessor (the legal owner of the building) and additional improvement costs paid by us, and a corresponding financing obligation of $40.0 million and $41.2 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2017, $1.8 million and $38.2 million were recorded as short-term and long-term financing obligations, respectively.

Land lease expense related to our lease financing obligation is classified as rent expense in our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of income, and amounted to $0.3 million and $1.0 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively, and $0.3 million and $1.0 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

We outsource most of our manufacturing and supply chain management operations to third-party contract manufacturers, who procure components and assemble products on our behalf based on our forecasts in order to reduce manufacturing lead times and ensure adequate component supply. We issue purchase orders to our contract manufacturers for finished product and a significant portion of these orders consist of firm non-cancelable commitments. In addition, we purchase strategic component inventory from certain suppliers under purchase commitments that in some cases are non-cancelable, including integrated circuits, which are consigned to our contract manufacturers. As of September 30, 2017, we had non-cancelable purchase commitments of $131.8 million. In addition, we have provided deposits to secure our obligations to purchase inventory. We had $34.7 million and $63.1 million in deposits as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. These deposits are classified in other current and long term assets in our accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Guarantees

We have entered into agreements with some of our direct customers and channel partners that contain indemnification provisions relating to potential situations where claims could be alleged that our products infringe the intellectual property rights of a third party. We have at our option and expense the ability to repair any infringement, replace product with a non-infringing equivalent-in-function product or refund our customers all or a portion of the value of the product. Other guarantees or indemnification agreements include guarantees of product and service performance and standby letters of credit for lease facilities and corporate credit cards. We have not recorded a liability related to these indemnification and guarantee provisions and our guarantee and indemnification arrangements have not had any significant impact on our consolidated financial statements to date.

Legal Proceedings

OptumSoft, Inc. Matters

On April 4, 2014, OptumSoft filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County titled OptumSoft, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., in which it asserts (i) ownership of certain components of our EOS network operating system pursuant to the terms of a 2004 agreement between the companies; and (ii) breaches of certain confidentiality and use restrictions in that agreement. Under the terms of the 2004 agreement, OptumSoft provided us with a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to software delivered by OptumSoft comprising a software tool used to develop certain components of EOS and a runtime library that is incorporated into EOS. The 2004 agreement places certain restrictions on our use and disclosure of the OptumSoft software and gives OptumSoft ownership of improvements, modifications and corrections to, and derivative works of, the OptumSoft software that we develop.

In its lawsuit, OptumSoft has asked the Court to order us to (i) give OptumSoft access to our software for evaluation by OptumSoft; (ii) cease all conduct constituting the alleged confidentiality and use restriction breaches; (iii) secure the return or deletion of OptumSoft’s alleged intellectual property provided to third parties, including our customers; (iv) assign ownership to OptumSoft of OptumSoft’s alleged intellectual property currently owned by us; and (v) pay OptumSoft’s alleged damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of the lawsuit. David Cheriton, one of our founders and a former member of our board of directors, who resigned from our board of directors on March 1, 2014 and has no continuing role with us, is a founder and, we believe, the largest stockholder and director of OptumSoft. The 2010 David R. Cheriton Irrevocable Trust dtd July 28, 2010, a trust for the benefit of the minor children of Mr. Cheriton, is one of our largest stockholders.

On April 14, 2014, we filed a cross-complaint against OptumSoft, in which we assert our ownership of the software components at issue and our interpretation of the 2004 agreement. Among other things, we assert that the language of the 2004 agreement and the parties’ long course of conduct support our ownership of the disputed software components. We ask the Court to declare our ownership of those software components, all similarly-situated software components developed in the future and all related intellectual property. We also assert that, even if we are found not to own certain components, such components are licensed to us under the terms of the 2004 agreement. However, there can be no assurance that our assertions will ultimately prevail in litigation. On the same day, we also filed an answer to OptumSoft’s claims, as well as affirmative defenses based in part on OptumSoft’s failure to maintain the confidentiality of its claimed trade secrets, its authorization of the disclosures it asserts and its delay in claiming ownership of the software components at issue. We have also taken additional steps to respond to OptumSoft’s allegations that we improperly used and/or disclosed OptumSoft confidential information. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these allegations, we believe we have (i) revised our software to remove the elements we understand to be the subject of the claims relating to improper use and disclosure of OptumSoft confidential information and made the revised software available to our customers and (ii) removed information from our website that OptumSoft asserted disclosed OptumSoft confidential information.

The parties tried Phase I of the case, relating to contract interpretation and application of the contract to certain claimed source code, in September 2015. On December 16, 2015, the Court issued a Proposed Statement of Decision Following Phase 1 Trial, and on January 8, 2016, OptumSoft filed objections to that Proposed Statement of Decision. On March 23, 2016, the Court issued a Final Statement of Decision Following Phase I Trial, in which it agreed with and adopted our interpretation of the 2004 agreement and held that we, and not OptumSoft, own all the software at issue in Phase I. The remaining issues that were not addressed in the Phase I trial are set to be tried in Phase II including the application of the Court’s interpretation of the 2004 agreement as set forth in the Final Statement of Decision Following Phase I Trial to any other source code that OptumSoft claims to own following a review. Phase II was previously scheduled to be tried in April 2016; however, that trial date has been vacated and a new trial date has not yet been set.

We intend to vigorously defend against any claims brought against us by OptumSoft. However, we cannot be certain that, if litigated, any claims by OptumSoft would be resolved in our favor. For example, if it were determined that OptumSoft owned components of our EOS network operating system, we would be required to transfer ownership of those components and any related intellectual property to OptumSoft. If OptumSoft were the owner of those components, it could make them available to our competitors, such as through a sale or license. An adverse litigation ruling could result in a significant damages award against us and injunctive relief. In addition, OptumSoft could assert additional or different claims against us, including claims that our license from OptumSoft is invalid.

With respect to the legal proceedings described above, it is our belief that while a loss is not probable, it may be reasonably possible. Further, at this stage in the litigation, any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. Therefore, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against us in a reporting period for a material amount, our consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) Matters

We are currently involved in several litigation matters with Cisco Systems, Inc. These matters are summarized below.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc. (Case No. 4:14-cv-05343) (“’43 Case”)

On December 5, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that we infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577; 6,741,592; 7,023,853; 7,061,875; 7,162,537; 7,200,145; 7,224,668; 7,290,164; 7,340,597; 7,460,492; 8,051,211; and 8,356,296 (respectively, “the ’577 patent,” “the ’592 patent,” “the ’853 patent,” “the 875 patent,” “the ’537 patent,” “the ’145 patent,” “the ’668 patent,” “the ’164 patent,” “the ’597 patent,” “the ’492 patent,” “the ’211 patent,” and “the ’296 patent”). Cisco seeks, as relief for our alleged infringement in the ’43 Case, lost profits and/or reasonable royalty damages in an unspecified amount, including treble damages, attorney’s fees, and associated costs. Cisco also seeks injunctive relief in the ’43 Case. On February 10, 2015, the Court granted our unopposed motion to stay the ’43 Case until the proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission (“USITC”) pertaining to the same patents (as discussed below) became final. Trial has not been scheduled in the ’43 Case.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc. (Case No. 5:14-cv-05344) (“’44 Case”)

On December 5, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that we infringe numerous copyrights pertaining to Cisco’s “Command Line Interface” or “CLI” and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,047,526 and 7,953,886 (respectively, “the ’526 patent” and “the ’886 patent”). As relief for our alleged patent infringement in the ’44 Case, Cisco seeks lost profits and/or reasonable royalty damages in an unspecified amount including treble damages, attorney’s fees, and associated costs as well as injunctive relief. As relief for our alleged copyright infringement, Cisco seeks monetary damages for alleged lost profits, profits from our alleged infringement, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and associated costs.

As described below, on May 25, 2016, our petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ’886 patent was instituted by the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Cisco subsequently agreed to dismiss its claims as to the ‘886 patent with prejudice.

On December 14, 2016, following a two-week trial, the jury found that we had proven our copyright defense of scenes a faire and that Cisco had failed to prove infringement of the ’526 patent, and on that basis judgment was entered in our favor on all claims on December 19, 2016.

On January 17, 2017, Cisco filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of our scenes a faire defense. Cisco did not file any post-trial motion regarding the ’526 patent, nor did it file a motion for a new trial. We also filed a conditional motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or for a new trial on several grounds, which would be at issue only if the court granted Cisco’s motion. The hearing on both parties’ motions was held on April 27, 2017. On May 10, 2017, the court denied Cisco’s motion and denied our motions as moot.

Cisco filed a notice of appeal on June 6, 2017, and the parties are in the process of submitting their appeal briefs.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 5:16-cv-00923) (“’23 Case”)

On February 24, 2016, we filed a complaint against Cisco in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging antitrust violations and unfair competition. On August 23, 2016, the Court granted Cisco’s motion to stay the ’23 Case until judgment was entered on Cisco’s copyright claims in the ’44 Case. On March 2, 2017, the Court lifted the stay and trial is set for August 3, 2018.

On March 23, 2017, Cisco filed a motion to dismiss our complaint in the ’23 Case. On October 10, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Cisco’s motion to dismiss, with leave for us to amend to cure any deficiencies as to the claims that were dismissed.

Certain Network Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-944) (“944 Investigation”)

On December 19, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the USITC alleging that we violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). The USITC instituted Cisco’s complaint as Investigation No. 337-TA-944. Cisco initially alleged that certain of our switching products infringe the ’592, ’537, ’145, ’164, ’597, and ’296 patents. Cisco subsequently dropped the ’296 patent from the 944 Investigation. Cisco sought, among other things, a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of accused switch products (including our 7000 Series of switches) and components and software therein and a cease and desist order against us restricting our activities with respect to our imported accused switch products and components and software therein.

On February 2, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued his initial determination finding a violation of Section 337. More specifically, the ALJ found that a violation has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain network devices, related software, and components thereof that the ALJ found infringed asserted claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ’537 patent; asserted claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 of the ’592 patent; and asserted claims 5, 7, 45, and 46 of the ’145 patent. The ALJ did not find a violation of Section 337 with respect to any asserted claims of the ’597 and ’164 patents. On June 23, 2016, the Commission issued its Final Determination, which found a violation with respect to the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents, and found no violation with respect to the ’597 and ’164 patents. The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order pertaining to network devices, related software and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ’537 patent; claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 of the ’592 patent; and claims 5, 7, 45, and 46 of the ’145 patent. On August 22, 2016, the Presidential review period for the 944 Investigation expired. The USITC orders will be in effect until the expiration of the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents.

Both we and Cisco filed petitions for review of the USITC’s Final Determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was held on June 6, 2017. On September 27, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USITC’s Final Determination.

On August 26, 2016, Cisco filed an enforcement complaint under Section 337 with the USITC. Cisco alleges that we are violating the cease and desist and limited exclusion orders issued in the 944 Investigation by engaging in the “marketing, distribution, offering for sale, selling, advertising, and/or aiding or abetting other entities in the sale and/or distribution of products that Cisco alleges continue to infringe claims 1-2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ’537 patent,” despite the design changes we have made to those products. Cisco asks the USITC to (1) enforce the cease and desist order; (2) modify the Commission’s limited exclusion order and/or cease and desist order “in any manner that would assist in the prevention of the unfair practices that were originally the basis for issuing such Order or assist in the detection of violations of such Order”; (3) impose the maximum statutory civil penalties for violation of the cease and desist order “including monetary sanctions for each day’s violation of the cease and desist order of the greater of $100,000 or twice the domestic value of the articles entered or sold, whichever is higher”; (4) bring a civil action in U.S. district court “requesting collection of such civil penalties and the issuance of a mandatory injunction preventing further violation of Cease and Desist Order”; and (5) impose “such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.” On September 28, 2016, the Commission instituted the enforcement proceeding. The proceeding has been assigned to ALJ Judge Shaw, who presided over the underlying investigation. The target date for the investigation was initially set for September 20, 2017. On June 20, 2017, the ALJ issued his initial determination finding that we did not violate the June 23, 2016 cease and desist order. The initial determination also recommended a civil penalty of $307 million if the Commission decided to overturn the finding of no violation. On July 3, 2017, the parties filed petitions for review of certain findings in the initial determination.

On August 4, 2017, the Commission issued an order remanding the investigation to the ALJ to make additional findings on certain issues and issue a remand initial determination. The Commission ordered the ALJ to set a schedule for completion of any necessary remand proceedings and a new target date for the enforcement action. On August 25, 2017 the ALJ issued an Initial Determination setting a June 4, 2018 deadline for the remand initial determination and September 4, 2018 as the new target date for the enforcement action. The ALJ also set a briefing schedule and a February 1, 2018 hearing. On September 18, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the Initial Determination setting the target date.

Certain Network Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-945) (“945 Investigation”)

On December 19, 2014, Cisco filed a complaint against us in the USITC alleging that we violated Section 337. The USITC instituted Cisco’s complaint as Investigation No. 337-TA-945. Cisco alleges that certain of our switching products infringe the ’577, ’853, ’875, ’668, ’492, and ’211 patents. Cisco seeks, among other things, a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of accused switch products (including our 7000 Series of switches) related software, and components thereof and a cease and desist order against us restricting our activities with respect to our imported accused switch products, related software, and components thereof.

On December 9, 2016, the ALJ issued her initial determination finding a violation of Section 337. More specifically, the ALJ found that a violation has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain network devices, related software, and components thereof that the ALJ found infringe asserted claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the ’577 patent and asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 19, 56, and 64 of the ’668 patent. The ALJ did not find a violation of Section 337 with respect to asserted claim 2 of the ’577 patent or any asserted claims of the ’853, ’492, ’875, and ’211 patents. On December 29, 2016, we, Cisco and the Office of Unfair Import Investigation (“OUII”) filed petitions for review of certain findings contained in the initial determination. On March 1, 2017, the Commission issued a notice that it was reviewing the final initial determination in part on certain issues.

On May 4, 2017, the Commission issued its Final Determination, which found a violation with respect to the ’577 and ’668 patents, and found no violation with respect to the ’211, ’853, ’875 and ’492 patents. The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order pertaining to network devices, related software and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the ’577 patent and 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of the ’668 patent. The 60-day Presidential review period for the 945 Investigation expired on July 4, 2017. During the 60-day Presidential review period, the USITC Orders permitted Arista to continue importing and selling products covered by the orders so long as we paid a 5% bond. Because the United States Trade Representative did not disapprove the USITC’s final determination, the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order are now in full effect.

On May 25, 2017 and June 1, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding all claims of the ’577 and ’668 patents that we were found to have infringed in the 945 Investigation unpatentable. On June 1, 2017 and June 2, 2017, we filed emergency petitions to suspend the remedial orders in the 945 Investigation. On July 20, 2017, the Commission issued a notice denying our petition to suspend the remedial orders. On July 21, 2017, we filed a motion to stay the remedial orders in the 945 Investigation pending disposition of the relevant appeals and sought expedited consideration of our motion. On September 11, 2017, the Commission denied our motion to stay.

On June 30, 2017, Cisco filed a petition for review of the USITC’s Final Determination to the Federal Circuit regarding the ’853, ’492, ’875 and ’211 patents. On July 21, 2017, we filed a petition for review of the Final Determination to the Federal Circuit.

On August 25, 2017 we filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requesting that the Federal Circuit stay the remedial orders pending the completion of the appeal of the 945 Investigation. On September 22, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying our motion to stay, but ordered that our redesigned products be allowed to enter the country “unless and until Commission proceedings are initiated and completed to produce an enforceable determination that such a redesign is barred” by a Commission remedial order.

On September 27, 2017, Cisco filed a petition with the USITC requesting that the Commission institute a modification proceeding to determine whether our redesigned products infringe the patent claims underlying the remedial orders in the 945 Investigation. On October 27, 2017, the Commission instituted the modification proceeding. The USITC has assigned Mary Joan McNamara as the ALJ to oversee the proceeding. The Commission has set a deadline of five months for the ALJ to issue a recommended determination on what, if any, modifications to the remedial orders issued in the 945 Investigation are appropriate. This deadline may be extended by one month upon a showing of good cause. The recommended determination will be subject to review by the Commission after which the Commission will issue a final determination. The Commission has not set a target date for the final determination. On November 1, 2017, Cisco filed a request for an expedited “limited recommended determination” on certain issues relating to the ’577 patent. Cisco’s request seeks completion of briefing by December 11, 2017 and a recommended determination “as soon as practicable” after that.

Inter Partes Reviews

We have filed petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ’597, ’211, ’668, ’853, ’537, ’577, ’886, and ’526 patents. IPRs relating to the ’597 (IPR No. 2015-00978) and ’211 (IPR No. 2015-00975) patents were instituted in October 2015 and hearings on these IPRs were completed in July 2016. On September 28, 2016, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding claims 1, 14, 39-42, 71, 72, 84, and 85 of the ’597 patent unpatentable. The PTAB also found that claims 29, 63, 64, 73, and 86 of the ’597 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. On October 5, 2016, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding claims 1 and 12 of the ’211 patent unpatentable. The PTAB also found that claims 2, 6-9, 13, 17-20 of the ’211 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. Both parties have appealed the final written decisions on the ’211 and ’537 patent IPRs.

The IPR relating to the ’886 patent was instituted on May 25, 2016. Following that decision, Cisco agreed to dismiss its claims as to the ʼ886 patent with prejudice, and we dismissed our counterclaims as to the ʼ886 patent without prejudice.

IPRs relating to the ’668 (IPR No. 2016-00309), ’577 (IPR No. 2016-00303), ’853 (IPR No. 2016-0306), and ’537 (IPR No. 2016-0308) patents were instituted in June 2016 and hearings were held on March 7, 2017. On May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding claims 1, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of ’577 patent unpatentable, and that claim 2 of the ’577 patent, claim 63 of the ’853 patent, and claims 1, 10, 19, and 21 of the ’537 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. On June 1, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-28, 30-31, 33-36, 55-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the ’668 patent unpatentable. We filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the ’577 patent on July 21, 2017, and Notices of Appeal concerning the ‘853 and ’537 patents on July 26, 2017. Cisco cross-appealed concerning the ’577 patent on July 26, 2017 and filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the ’668 patent on August 1, 2017. For the appeals of the IPRs on the ’668 and ’577 patents, the Federal Circuit granted our motion for an expedited briefing schedule, and the briefing will be completed in November 2017.

* * * * *

We intend to vigorously defend against each of the Cisco lawsuits, as summarized in the preceding paragraphs. However, we cannot be certain that any claims by Cisco will be resolved in our favor regardless of the merit of the claims. Any adverse litigation ruling could result in injunctive relief, including the above described injunctive relief, could lead to significant penalties assessed or damages awarded against us or a requirement that we make substantial royalty payments to Cisco, and/or could require that we modify our products.

For example, in the 944 Investigation, the USITC issued a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of our network devices (including our 7000 Series of switches), related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more of the claims of the ’537, ʼ592, and ʼ145 patents specified above and a cease and desist order restricting our activities with respect to such imported products. In the 945 Investigation, the USITC issued a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of our network devices, related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more of the claims of the ’577 and ’668 patents specified above and a cease and desist order restricting our activities with respect to such imported products.

To comply with these orders, we have sought to develop technical redesigns that no longer infringe the patents that are the subject of the orders. In any efforts to develop these technical redesigns for our products, we may be unable to do so in a manner that does not continue to infringe the patents or that is acceptable to our customers. Our redesign efforts could be extremely costly and time consuming as well as disruptive to our other development activities and distracting to management. Moreover, our ability to import redesigned products into the United States is based on rulings from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and the Federal Circuit. While these favorable rulings currently allow us to import our redesigned products into the United States, the USITC could determine in an enforcement action or modification proceeding that our redesigned products continue to infringe the patents that are the subject of any USITC orders. In addition, the Federal Circuit or CBP could decide to withdraw or alter their rulings based on a change in circumstances. Any failure to effectively redesign our products, obtain customer acceptance of those redesigned products, retain authorization to import those redesigned products, or address the USITC findings in a manner that complies with the USITC orders, may cause a disruption to our product shipments, a rejection or return of our redesigned products by (or a delay or loss of sales to) customers, subject us to penalties or damage awards, and materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations, and financial condition.

Specifically, in response to the USITC’s findings in the 944 Investigation, we have made design changes to our products for sale in the United States to address the features that were found to infringe the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents. Following the issuance of the final determination in the 944 Investigation, we submitted a Section 177 ruling request to CBP seeking approval to import these redesigned products into the United States. On November 18, 2016, we received a 177 ruling from CBP finding that our redesigned products did not infringe the relevant claims of the ʼ537, ’592, and ʼ145 patents, and approving the importation of those redesigned products into the United States. On January 13, 2017, at the request of Cisco and without our input, CBP issued a letter to us revoking its prior November 18 ruling. CBP subsequently conducted an inter partes proceeding between Arista and Cisco to determine whether our redesigned products infringe and whether to approve them for importation into the United States. On April 7, 2017, following the inter partes proceeding, CBP again ruled that our redesigned products do not infringe the relevant claims of the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents and again approved those redesigns for importation into the United States. On September 12, 2017, Cisco filed a second request with CBP seeking to revoke our approval to import our redesigns relating to the 944 Investigation. We have opposed Cisco’s request, and CBP has not yet ruled on Cisco’s request.

Similarly, on May 4, 2017, the USITC issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order in the 945 Investigation with respect to the ’668 and ’577 patents. We have made design changes to our products for sale in the United States to address the features that were found to infringe the ’577 and ’668 patents. We are making ongoing modifications to our products to also ensure that they continue to meet customer requirements, and we are working with our customers to qualify those modified products for use in our customers’ networks. In particular, the ’577 patent was directed to a feature that is implemented in the merchant silicon chips that we purchase from third-party suppliers. Because we do not design, build or manufacture these merchant silicon chips, we are limited in further modifications that we can make to our products for this patent. We are deploying these additional modifications for a subset of our products, and for all of our products we will remove the features found to infringe until the ’577 patent expires on June 30, 2018. These redesign and qualification efforts could be extremely costly and time consuming for us and our customers as well as disruptive to our other development activities and distracting to management. We may not be able to complete, and our customers may not be able to qualify these redesigned products in a timely fashion, if at all. For example, some of our customers continue to test and qualify our redesigned products which address the ’577 and ’668 patents to ensure that they meet their network requirements. This could result in an inability to ship those redesigned products to our customers, a delay or cancellation of purchases by, some customers until those further modifications are completed and/or qualified or a rejection or return of our redesigned products or a delay or loss of sales to some customers, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, deferred revenue balances, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition.

Because the USITC did not suspend its orders in the 945 Investigation, despite a PTAB finding that every relevant claim of the ’668 and ’577 patents is unpatentable, we were previously barred from importing our redesigned products into the United States until we received approval from CBP. On July 21, 2017, we submitted a Part 177 request to CBP seeking approval to import our redesigned products into the United States. Following the Federal Circuit’s order on September 22, 2017, allowing us to import our redesigned products, we withdrew our request. On October 12, 2017, CBP, over Cisco’s objection, terminated the Part 177 proceedings, and confirmed that it will permit entry of our redesigns pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s September 22, 2017 order.

In either the 944 or 945 Investigations, if the USITC determines that our redesigned products infringe patents that are the subject of USITC remedial orders, those products will be barred from import into the United States, or sale after importation. In addition, the USITC may impose the maximum statutory civil penalties for violation of the cease and desist order “including monetary sanctions for each day’s violation of the cease and desist order of the greater of $100,000 or twice the domestic value of the articles entered or sold, whichever is higher,” bring a civil action in U.S. district court “requesting collection of such civil penalties and the issuance of a mandatory injunction preventing further violation of Cease and Desist Order,” or impose “such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.” In the 944 Investigation, the ALJ recommended a civil penalty of $307 million if the Commission were to reverse ALJ’s finding of no violation. Any such finding by the USITC could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, reputation, results of operations and financial condition.

An adverse finding in an enforcement action or modification proceeding would take effect immediately upon USITC’s issuance of the final determination, without any Presidential review period. To address such a finding, we would have to further redesign our products to make them non-infringing, and until we made such changes we would not be able to import or ship our products to customers. In such a situation, we may not be able to do so in a manner that does not continue to infringe the patents or that is acceptable to customers. We may not be able to complete, and our customers may not be able to qualify, such redesigned products in a timely fashion, if at all, following the issuance of an adverse final determination, leading to an inability to sell or ship products to customers. Our redesign efforts could be extremely costly and time consuming as well as disruptive to our other development activities and distracting to management. For example, in the enforcement action for the 944 Investigation, although the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that our redesigned products did not violate the June 23, 2016 cease and desist order, if the ALJ modifies the initial determination during the remand proceeding, or if the Commission finds a violation in its final determination on September 4, 2018, we will no longer be able to import or ship our products in the U.S. until we make further changes to address those findings, which could materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition. We would also need to obtain USITC or CBP approval to resume importation of such redesigned products into the United States. In addition, the USITC would not provide a service and support exception for our previously redesigned products, and customers may be required to upgrade to new products to obtain service and support. If we are unable to obtain such approvals or provide such service and support exception, our business, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

In the 945 Investigation, while the USITC orders are based upon patent claims that the PTAB has found to be invalid, these orders will remain in effect unless and until the PTAB decisions are affirmed on appeal and the PTO cancels the patents. If the Commission finds a violation in its final determination for the modification proceeding, we will no longer be able to import or ship our products in the U.S. until we make further changes to address those findings and/or until the PTAB decisions are so affirmed and the PTO cancels the patents, which could materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition. We would also need to obtain USITC or CBP approval to resume importation of any such redesigned products into the United States. In addition, the USITC would not provide a service and support exception for our previously redesigned products, and customers may be required to upgrade to new products to obtain service and support. If we are unable to obtain such approvals or provide such service and support exception, our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations or financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, even if the PTAB decisions are affirmed on appeal, and the patent claims are canceled, if we are found to have violated the USITC’s orders while those orders remain in effect, we may be subject to penalties.

To comply with the USITC’s remedial orders, we have also made certain changes to our manufacturing, importation and shipping workflows. These changes have included shifting manufacturing and integration of our products to be sold in the United States to U.S. facilities. Such changes may be extremely costly, time consuming, and we may not be able to implement such changes successfully. Any failure to successfully change our manufacturing and importation processes or shipping workflows in a manner that is compliant with the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order may cause a disruption in our product shipments and materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, reputation, results of operations, and financial condition.

In connection with these changes, to the extent that we are required to make further modifications to our supply chain to obtain alternative U.S. sources for subcomponents, we may be unable to obtain a sufficient quantity of these components on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner, if at all, which could delay or halt entirely production of our products or require us to make further modifications to our products to incorporate new components that are available in the United States. Any of these events could result in lost sales, reduced gross margins or damage to our end-customer relationships, which would materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, the existence of Ciscoʼs lawsuits against us could cause concern among our customers and partners and could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Many of our customers and partners require us to indemnify and defend them against third party infringement claims and pay damages in the case of adverse rulings. These claims could harm our relationships with our customers or channel partners, cause them to delay or defer purchasing decisions or deter them from doing business with us. From time to time, we may also be required to provide additional assurances beyond our standard terms. Whether or not we prevail in the lawsuit, we expect that the litigation will be expensive, time-consuming and a distraction to management in operating our business.

With respect to the various legal proceedings described above, it is our belief that while a loss is not probable, it may be reasonably possible. Further, at this stage in the litigation, any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. Therefore, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against us in a reporting period for a material amount, our consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same (U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1010) (the “1010 Investigation”)

On May 23, 2016, Tessera Technologies, Inc., Tessera, Inc., and Invensas Corp. (“Tessera”) filed a complaint in the USITC alleging that Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technologies Limited, and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (“Broadcom”) and certain of Broadcom's customers violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). On June 20, 2016, the USITC instituted Tessera’s complaint as Investigation No. 337-TA-1010.

Tessera alleges that certain Broadcom semiconductor devices infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,856,007; 6,849,946; and 6,133,136. Tessera further alleges that Broadcom’s downstream customers, Arista Networks, Inc.; ARRIS International plc; ARRIS Group, Inc.; ARRIS Technology, Inc.; ARRIS Enterprises LLC; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; Pace Ltd.; Pace Americas, LLC; Pace USA; LLC, ASUSteK Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer International; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC; Comcast Business Communications, LLC; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; NETGEAR, Inc.; Technicolor S.A.; Technicolor USA, Inc.; and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC (“Downstream Respondents”) are violating Section 337 by importing, selling after importation, or selling for importation products that incorporate the accused Broadcom semiconductor devices. The accused Company products include certain models of our switching products.

Tessera seeks the following relief: (1) a permanent limited exclusion order excluding from importation into the U.S. all of Broadcom’s semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages, as well as Downstream Respondents’ products containing Broadcom’s semiconductor devices that infringe one or more of the three patents-in-suit and (2) a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting Broadcom and the Downstream Respondents and related companies from importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, offering for sale, selling, qualifying for use in the products of others, distributing, or using the accused Broadcom semiconductor devices and Downstream Respondents’ products containing Respondents’ semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages that infringe one or more of the three patents subject to the USITC Investigation.

An evidentiary hearing was held from March 27-31, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the ALJ issued an initial determination that found a violation with respect to the ’946 patent and no violation with respect the ’136 and ’007 patents. The ALJ recommended that the Commission issue limited exclusion and cease and desist orders and recommended a 100% bond for imports during the Presidential review period. The Commission has indicated it will review the initial determination, and the target date for the final determination is December 1, 2017.

To the extent claims made by Tessera in the USITC Investigation against us are based solely on functionality residing in Broadcom’s products, Broadcom has agreed to defend us at no cost to us.

* * * * *

An adverse final determination from the Commission could result in issuance of remedial orders that could prevent Broadcom, Arista, and the other Downstream Respondents from selling infringing products for import into the United States, importing infringing products into the United States, or selling infringing products after importation into the United States. This could include both the infringing semiconductor devices as well as downstream products, including our Ethernet switches, that incorporate those devices. During the 60-day Presidential review period following the final determination, Broadcom, Arista, and the other Downstream Respondents could continue to import and sell infringing products by paying a bond. The ALJ’s recommended bond is 100% of the entered value of the product. Following the end of the Presidential review period, if the U.S. Trade Representative chooses not to disapprove the final determination, the remedial orders would go into full effect.

If the USITC orders go into full effect, to continue importing and selling products found to be infringing, Broadcom and its manufacturers would need to develop redesigned products that do not infringe, and we would have to integrate these devices into its own products, or Broadcom and/or the Downstream Respondents would need to obtain a license from Tessera. It may not be possible to do this in a timely fashion, if at all. Because the asserted patents are directed towards technology used in the manufacture of the semiconductor devices not manufactured or designed by us, we would be dependent on Broadcom and its manufacturers to create such redesigned products.

Before Broadcom, Arista, or the other Downstream Respondents could import redesigned products into the United States, the products would have to be approved by CBP or the USITC. We may not be successful in any efforts to obtain such approvals in a timely manner, or at all. While a favorable ruling from CBP would allow Broadcom, Arista, and the other Downstream Respondents to resume importation of our redesigned products into the United States, the USITC could ultimately determine in an enforcement action that such redesigned products continue to infringe the patents that are the subject of the USITC orders.

Any failure to effectively redesign these products and obtain timely clearance from CBP or USITC to import such redesigned products or to obtain a license from Tessera may cause a disruption to our product shipments and materially and adversely affect our business, revenues, prospects, reputation, results of operations, and financial condition. However, it is our belief that at this stage of the legal proceedings, the likelihood of a loss is remote.

Other Matters

In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to other claims and legal proceedings including matters relating to commercial, employee relations, business practices and intellectual property. We record a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of September 30, 2017, provisions recorded for contingent losses related to other claims and matters have not been significant. Based on currently available information, management does not believe that any additional liabilities relating to other unresolved matters are probable or that the amount of any resulting loss is estimable, and believes these other matters are not likely, individually and in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and our view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs, and potentially in future periods.