COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

We lease certain of our facilities and some of our equipment under non-cancellable operating lease arrangements that expire at various dates through 2028. We also have one land lease that expires in 2091. Rent expense includes base contractual rent and variable costs such as building expenses, utilities, taxes, insurance and equipment rental. Rent expense and sublease income for these leases for fiscal 2013, 2012 and 2011 were as follows (in thousands):



	2013		2012		2011
Rent expense	$	118,976	$	105,809	$	111,574
Less: sublease income	3,057		2,330		3,211
Net rent expense	$	115,919	$	103,479	$	108,363

We occupy three office buildings in San Jose, California where our corporate headquarters are located. We reference these office buildings as the Almaden Tower and the East and West Towers.

The lease agreements for the East and West Towers and the Almaden Tower are effective through August 2014 and March 2017, respectively. We are the investors in the lease receivables related to these leases for the East and West Towers and the Almaden Tower in the amount of $126.8 million and $80.4 million, respectively, which is recorded as investment in lease receivables on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of November 29, 2013, the carrying value of the lease receivables related to the towers approximated fair value. Under the agreement for the East and West Towers and the agreement for the Almaden Tower, we have the option to purchase the buildings at any time during the lease term for approximately $143.2 million and $103.6 million, respectively. The residual value guarantees under the East and West Towers and the Almaden Tower obligations are $126.8 million and $89.4 million, respectively. If we purchase the properties, the investments in the lease receivables may be credited against the purchase price.

These two leases are both subject to standard covenants including certain financial ratios on the Almaden Tower lease that are reported to the lessors quarterly. In August 2009, we were required to obtain a standby letter of credit on the East and West Tower lease for approximately $16.6 million which enabled us to secure a lower interest rate and reduce the number of covenants. As defined in the lease agreement, the standby letter of credit primarily represents the lease investment equity balance which is callable in the event of default. As of November 29, 2013, we were in compliance with all of the covenants. In the case of a default, the lessor may demand we purchase the buildings for an amount equal to the lease balance, or require that we remarket or relinquish the buildings. If we choose to remarket or are required to do so upon relinquishing the buildings, we are bound to arrange the sale of the buildings to an unrelated party and will be required to pay the lessor any shortfall between the net remarketing proceeds and the lease balance, up to the residual value guarantee amount less our investment in the lease receivables. Both leases qualify for operating lease accounting treatment and, as such, the buildings and the related obligations are not included in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

See Note 16 for discussion of our capital lease obligation.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

Our purchase obligations consist of agreements to purchase goods and services entered into in the ordinary course of business.

The following table summarizes our non-cancellable unconditional purchase obligations, operating leases and capital leases for each of the next five years and thereafter as of November 29, 2013 (in thousands):



			Operating Leases				Capital Leases
Fiscal Year	Purchase Obligations		Future Minimum Lease Payments		Future Minimum Sublease Income		Future Minimum Lease Payments
2014	$	390,758	$	48,360	$	1,147	$	14,892
2015	45,654		36,270		1,345		3,280
2016	35,137		29,377		1,481		—
2017	2,030		23,991		1,441		—
2018	14,736		22,172		1,019		—
Thereafter	10,000		63,058		2,700		—
Total	$	498,315	$	223,228	$	9,133	$	18,172
Less: interest							(227		)
Total							$	17,945

The table above includes operating lease commitments related to our restructured facilities. See Note 10 for information regarding our restructuring charges.

Guarantees

The lease agreements for our corporate headquarters provide for residual value guarantees as noted above. The fair value of a residual value guarantee in lease agreements entered into after December 31, 2002, must be recognized as a liability on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. As such, we recognized $5.2 million and $3.0 million in liabilities, related to the extended East and West Towers and Almaden Tower leases, respectively. These liabilities were recorded in other long-term liabilities with the offsetting entry recorded as prepaid rent in other assets. The balance was amortized to our Consolidated Statements of Income over the life of the original leases. As of November 29, 2013 there was no remaining balance of the unamortized portion of the fair value of the residual value guarantees, for either lease, remaining on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Royalties

We have royalty commitments associated with the shipment and licensing of certain products. Royalty expense is generally based on a dollar amount per unit shipped or a percentage of the underlying revenue. Royalty expense, which was recorded under our cost of products revenue on our Consolidated Statements of Income, was approximately $40.2 million, $29.6 million and $29.8 million in fiscal 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, we provide indemnifications of varying scope to customers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of our products and from time to time, we are subject to claims by our customers under these indemnification provisions. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on our future results of operations.

To the extent permitted under Delaware law, we have agreements whereby we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is or was serving at our request in such capacity. The indemnification period covers all pertinent events and occurrences during the officer's or director's lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, we have director and officer insurance coverage that reduces our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage is minimal.

Legal Proceedings

In connection with disputes relating to the validity or alleged infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, including patent rights, we have been, are currently and may in the future be subject to claims, negotiations or complex, protracted litigation. Intellectual property disputes and litigation may be very costly and can be disruptive to our business operations by diverting the attention and energies of management and key technical personnel. Although we have successfully defended or resolved past litigation and disputes, we may not prevail in any ongoing or future litigation and disputes. Third-party intellectual property disputes could subject us to significant liabilities, require us to enter into royalty and licensing arrangements on unfavorable terms, prevent us from licensing certain of our products or offering certain of our services, subject us to injunctions restricting our sale of products or services, cause severe disruptions to our operations or the markets in which we compete, or require us to satisfy indemnification commitments with our customers including contractual provisions under various license arrangements and service agreements.

Between May 4, 2011 and July 14, 2011, five putative class action lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara Superior Court and Alameda Superior Court in California. On September 12, 2011, the cases were consolidated into In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation (“HTEAL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In the consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Adobe, along with Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucas Films and Pixar, agreed not to recruit each other's employees in violation of Federal and state antitrust laws. Plaintiffs claim the alleged agreements suppressed employee compensation and deprived employees of career opportunities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees. All defendants deny the allegations and that they engaged in any wrongdoing of any kind. On October 24, 2013, the court certified a class of all persons who worked in the technical, creative, and/or research and development fields on a salaried basis in the United States for one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c) Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March 2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December 2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009, excluding retail employees, corporate officers, members of the boards of directors, and senior executives of all defendants. We dispute these claims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. As of November 29, 2013, no amounts have been accrued as a loss is not considered probable or estimable. The trial is currently scheduled to be held in May 2014.

In addition to intellectual property disputes and other litigation matters described above, we are subject to legal proceedings, claims and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims relating to commercial, employment and other matters. Some of these disputes and legal proceedings may include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages. We consider all claims on a quarterly basis in accordance with GAAP and based on known facts assess whether potential losses are considered reasonably possible, probable and estimable. Based upon this assessment, we then evaluate disclosure requirements and whether to accrue for such claims in our financial statements. This determination is then reviewed and discussed with our Audit Committee and our independent registered public accounting firm.

We make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Unless otherwise specifically disclosed here or in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, we have determined that no provision for liability nor disclosure is required related to any claim against us because: (a) there is not a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized (if any) may be incurred with respect to such claim; (b) a reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated; or (c) such estimate is immaterial.

All legal costs associated with litigation are expensed as incurred. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, we believe that we have valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against us. It is possible, nevertheless, that our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such proceedings, claims or investigations.

In connection with our anti-piracy efforts, conducted both internally and through organizations such as the Business Software Alliance, from time to time we undertake litigation against alleged copyright infringers. Such lawsuits may lead to counter-claims alleging improper use of litigation or violation of other laws. We believe we have valid defenses with respect to such counter-claims; however, it is possible that our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations could be affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these counter-claims.