Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of December 31, 2014, the Company had outstanding purchase orders totaling $4,748,000 to purchase inventory from various vendors. Certain of these purchase orders may be canceled by the Company, subject to cancellation penalties. These purchase commitments relate to expected sales in 2015.

The Company conducts certain of its operations in leased facilities. These lease agreements expire at various dates through 2023 and are accounted for as operating leases. Certain of these leases contain renewal options, retirement obligations, escalation clauses, rent holidays, and leasehold improvement incentives. Annual rental expense totaled $6,021,000 in 2014, $5,772,000 in 2013, and $5,806,000 in 2012. Future minimum rental payments under these agreements are as follows (in thousands):



Year Ending December 31,	Amount
2015	$	5,315
2016	3,309
2017	2,050
2018	1,490
2019	1,416
Thereafter	2,217
	$	15,797

The Company owns buildings adjacent to its corporate headquarters that are currently occupied with tenants who have lease agreements that expire at various dates through 2021. Annual rental income totaled $1,794,000 in 2014, $676,000 in 2013, and $854,000 in 2012. Rental income and related expenses are included in “Other income (expense)” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Future minimum rental receipts under non-cancelable lease agreements are as follows (in thousands):



Year Ending December 31,	Amount
2015	$	1,678
2016	1,675
2017	1,415
2018	1,009
2019	1,035
Thereafter	1,417
	$	8,229

Contingencies

In May 2008, the Company filed a complaint against MvTec Software GmbH, MvTec LLC, and Fuji America Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of certain patents owned by the Company. In May 2014, the parties mutually agreed to dismiss this action with prejudice. This matter is now closed.

In May 2009, the Company pre-filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §1337, against MvTec Software GmbH, MvTec LLC, Fuji America, and several other respondents alleging unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the unlawful importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation. By this filing, the Company requested the ITC to investigate the Company’s contention that certain machine vision software, machine vision systems, and products containing the same infringe, and respondents directly infringe and/or actively induce and/or contribute to the infringement in the United States, of one or more of the Company’s U.S. patents. In September 2009, the Company reached a settlement with two of the respondents, and in December 2009, the Company reached a settlement with five additional respondents. In March 2010, the Company reached a settlement with respondent Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary Fuji America Corporation. These settlements did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results. An ITC hearing was held in May 2010. In July 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination finding two of the Company’s patents invalid and that respondents did not infringe the patents-at-issue. In September 2010, the ITC issued a notice that it would review the initial determination of the Administrative Law Judge. The ITC issued its Final Determination in November 2010 in which it determined to modify-in-part and affirm-in-part the Administrative Law Judge’s determination, and terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended 19 U.S.C. §1337). The Company filed an appeal of the decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An oral hearing before the United States Court of Appeals occurred in February 2012. In December 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding of non-infringement, and therefore did not also need to address the ITC’s finding regarding validity. This matter is now closed.

In March 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against Microscan Systems, Inc. (“Microscan”) and Code Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Microscan’s Mobile Hawk handheld imager infringes U.S. Patent 7,874,487 owned by the Company (the “'487 patent”). The lawsuit sought to prohibit Code Corporation from manufacturing the product, and Microscan from selling and distributing the product. The Company also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. Late in the day on April 30, 2014, the jury found that Microscan willfully infringed the ‘487 patent and awarded Cognex $2.6 million in damages. Following the verdict, Microscan filed motions requesting judgment as a matter of law on the issues of infringement, invalidity, and willfulness, as well as a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The Company filed motions seeking treble damages (based on the finding of willfulness), attorneys’ fees as an exceptional case, and a permanent injunction against future infringement of the ‘487 patent and the import, manufacture and/or sale of Microscan’s Mobile Hawk product within the U.S. In June 2014, the court issued an order denying all of Microscan’s motions and the Company’s motion for treble damages, while granting the Company’s motion for permanent injunction (limited to enjoining future infringement of the ‘487 patent and the import, manufacture and/or sale of infringing versions of Microscan’s Mobile Hawk product within the U.S.) and the Company’s motion for attorneys’ fees, in part, pending a determination thereof following submission of supplemental briefs by both parties. In July 2014, Microscan filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit appealing all orders, findings, and/or conclusions of the District Court that were adverse to Microscan. In August 2014, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit appealing the order granting summary judgment that claims 23, 28, and 29 of the ’487 patent are invalid. Also in August 2014, the Federal Circuit consolidated Microscan’s appeal and the Company’s appeal. In November 2014, the Company filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company's appeal, and in December 2014, the Court of Appeals granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Company's appeal. In January 2015, Microscan submitted their appeal brief asserting that the damage award should be vacated, the infringement judgment should be reversed, and that the remaining '487 claims are invalid.

In August 2014, Microscan filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company’s DataMan^® 8500 handheld imager infringes U.S. Patent 6,352,204 (the “'204 patent”). The lawsuit sought to prohibit the Company from manufacturing, selling, and distributing the DataMan^® 8500 product. Microscan also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. In September 2014, the Company filed an Answer to the Complaint denying all allegations and asserting in a counterclaim that the ’204 patent is invalid. In October 2014, the Company filed an Amended Answer further explaining its counterclaim of invalidity. Also in October 2014, Microscan filed an Amended Complaint alleging that the Company’s DataMan^® 7500 and DataMan^® 8600 also infringe the ’204 patent. The Company subsequently responded in October 2014 with its Answer to the Amended Complaint. In December 2014, a Markman hearing regarding the legal construction of the relevant patent claim terms was held. In January 2015, the Court issued an order construing such patent claim terms, as the case continues to proceed. In early February 2015, the Company submitted summary judgment motions. Trial is scheduled to begin in April 2015. This matter is ongoing.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the above-referenced pending matter and an adverse resolution of this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity, results of operations, and/or indemnification obligations. In addition, various other claims and legal proceedings generally incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened on behalf of or against the Company. While we cannot predict the outcome of these incidental matters, we believe that any liability arising from them will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.