Commitments and Contingencies

Lease commitments

We lease certain of our facilities, equipment, and co-locations under operating leases that expire at various dates through fiscal 2029. We currently sublease some space under various operating leases that will expire on various dates through fiscal 2018. Some of our leases contain renewal options, escalation clauses, rent concessions, and leasehold improvement incentives. Rent expense under operating leases was $128 million, $121 million, and $124 million for fiscal 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively.

The minimum future rentals on noncancelable operating leases by fiscal year are as follows:



	April 3, 2015
	(Dollars in millions)
2016	$	103
2017	81
2018	69
2019	62
2020	42
Thereafter	85
Total minimum future lease payments	$	442
Sublease income	(1		)
Total minimum future lease payments, net	$	441

Purchase obligations

We have purchase obligations that are associated with agreements for purchases of goods or services. Management believes that cancellation of these contracts is unlikely and we expect to make future cash payments according to the contract terms. The following reflects unrecognized purchase obligations by fiscal year:



	April 3, 2015
	(Dollars in millions)
2016	$	539
2017	1
2018	2
Thereafter	—
Total purchase obligations	$	542

Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, we may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of our breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by us. In addition, our bylaws contain indemnification obligations to our directors, officers, employees and agents, and we have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and certain of our officers to give such directors and officers additional contractual assurances regarding the scope of the indemnification set forth in our bylaws and to provide additional procedural protections. We maintain director and officer insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from our obligation to indemnify our directors and officers. It is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, we have not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements and we have not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Consolidated Financial Statements.

We provide limited product warranties and the majority of our software license agreements contain provisions that indemnify licensees of our software from damages and costs resulting from claims alleging that our software infringes on the intellectual property rights of a third party. Historically, payments made under these provisions have been immaterial. We monitor the conditions that are subject to indemnification to identify if a loss has occurred.

Litigation contingencies

GSA

During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, we were advised by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that the government is investigating our compliance with certain provisions of our U.S. General Services Administration (“GSA”) Multiple Award Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0240T effective January 24, 2007, including provisions relating to pricing, country of origin, accessibility, and the disclosure of commercial sales practices.

As reported on the GSA’s publicly-available database, our total sales under the GSA Schedule contract were approximately $222 million from the period beginning January 2007 and ending September 2012. We have fully cooperated with the government throughout its investigation and in January 2014, representatives of the government indicated that their initial analysis of our actual damages exposure from direct government sales under the GSA schedule is approximately $145 million; since the initial meeting, the government’s analysis of our potential damages exposure relating to direct sales has increased. The government has also indicated they are going to pursue claims for certain sales to New York, California, and Florida as well as sales to the federal government through reseller GSA Schedule contracts, which could significantly increase our potential damages exposure.

In 2012, a sealed civil lawsuit was filed against Symantec related to compliance with the GSA Schedule contract and contracts with California, Florida, and New York. On July 18, 2014, the Court-imposed seal expired, and the government intervened in the lawsuit. On September 16, 2014, the states of California and Florida intervened in the lawsuit, and the state of New York notified the Court that it would not intervene. On October 3, 2014, the Department of Justice filed an amended complaint, which did not state a specific damages amount. On October 17, 2014, California and Florida combined their claims with those of the Department of Justice and the relator on behalf of New York in an Omnibus Complaint; the state claims also do not state specific damages amounts.

It is possible that the litigation could lead to claims or findings of violations of the False Claims Act, and could be material to our results of operations and cash flows for any period. Resolution of False Claims Act investigations can ultimately result in the payment of somewhere between one and three times the actual damages proven by the government, plus civil penalties in some cases, depending upon a number of factors. Our current estimate of the low end of the range of the probable estimated loss from this matter is $25 million, which we have accrued. This amount contemplates estimated losses from both the investigation of compliance with the terms of the GSA Schedule contract as well as possible violations of the False Claims Act. There is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred in excess of our accrual for this matter, however, we are currently unable to determine a range of estimated losses resulting from this matter.

On December 8, 2010, Intellectual Ventures ("IV") sued Symantec for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court in Delaware. The complaint alleged infringement of four patents by various Symantec internet security products, including Norton security products, Symantec Endpoint Protection, and other Symantec email and web security products. In October 2014, one patent was dismissed from the case. On January 26, 2015, a jury trial began on the remaining three patents. At trial, IV requested a damages award of approximately $299 million. Symantec offered evidence that the three patents were invalid and not infringed. Symantec also offered evidence that, even if any of the patents are found to be valid and infringed, any damages would be significantly lower than the amount requested by IV.

On February 6, 2015, after a nine-day trial, the jury issued a verdict finding that Symantec infringed two patents, that Symantec did not infringe the third patent, that Symantec had not established that the patents are invalid based on prior art, and that the proper measure of damages for Symantec’s past and future use of the two patents until their expiration was $17 million ($9 million for one patent and $8 million for the second patent). On April 10, 2015, the Court heard a post-trial motion brought by Symantec specifically addressing whether the three patents-in-suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to lack of patentable subject matter. On April 22, 2015, the Court issued an order holding that two of the patents are invalid, including one of the patents Symantec was found to infringe. Therefore, the $9 million jury verdict related to that patent has been rendered moot. Symantec is still considering its options to seek to overturn all or part of the remaining $8 million verdict. Symantec does not believe that it is probable that it has incurred a material loss and, as a result, has not made an accrual for this matter.

Other

See Note 13 for information regarding an agreement in principle to settle litigation. We are also involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings that are incidental to our business. Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in one or more of the cases, it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or losses from each of these cases. The final resolution of these lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.