Commitments and Contingencies


(a)	Operating Leases

We lease office space in many U.S. locations. Outside the United States, larger leased sites include sites in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom. We also lease equipment and vehicles. Future minimum lease payments under all noncancelable operating leases with an initial term in excess of one year as of July 27, 2019 are as follows (in millions):



Fiscal Year	Amount
2020	$	441
2021	299
2022	195
2023	120
2024	70
Thereafter	54
Total	$	1,179

Rent expense for office space and equipment totaled $433 million, $442 million, and $403 million in fiscal 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively.


(b)	Purchase Commitments with Contract Manufacturers and Suppliers

We purchase components from a variety of suppliers and use several contract manufacturers to provide manufacturing services for our products. During the normal course of business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate component supply, we enter into agreements with contract manufacturers and suppliers that either allow them to procure inventory based upon criteria as defined by us or establish the parameters defining our requirements. A significant portion of our reported purchase commitments arising from these agreements consists of firm, noncancelable, and unconditional commitments. Certain of these purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers relate to arrangements to secure long-term pricing for certain product components for multi-year periods. In certain instances, these agreements allow us the option to cancel, reschedule, and adjust our requirements based on our business needs prior to firm orders being placed.

The following table summarizes our purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers (in millions):



Commitments by Period	July 27, 2019		July 28, 2018
Less than 1 year	$	4,239	$	5,407
1 to 3 years	728		710
3 to 5 years	—		360
Total	$	4,967	$	6,477

We record a liability for firm, noncancelable, and unconditional purchase commitments for quantities in excess of our future demand forecasts consistent with the valuation of our excess and obsolete inventory. As of July 27, 2019 and July 28, 2018, the liability for these purchase commitments was $129 million and $159 million, respectively, and was included in other current liabilities.


(c)	Other Commitments

In connection with our acquisitions, we have agreed to pay certain additional amounts contingent upon the achievement of certain agreed-upon technology, development, product, or other milestones or upon the continued employment with Cisco of certain employees of the acquired entities.

The following table summarizes the compensation expense related to acquisitions (in millions):



	July 27, 2019		July 28, 2018		July 29, 2017
Compensation expense related to acquisitions	$	313	$	203	$	212

As of July 27, 2019, we estimated that future cash compensation expense of up to $440 million may be required to be recognized pursuant to the applicable business combination agreements.

We also have certain funding commitments, primarily related to our non-marketable equity and other investments, some of which are based on the achievement of certain agreed-upon milestones, and some of which are required to be funded on demand. The funding commitments were $326 million and $223 million as of July 27, 2019 and July 28, 2018, respectively.


(d)	Product Warranties

The following table summarizes the activity related to the product warranty liability (in millions):



	July 27, 2019			July 28, 2018			July 29, 2017
Balance at beginning of fiscal year	$	359		$	407		$	414
Provisions for warranties issued	600			582			691
Adjustments for pre-existing warranties	(12		)	(38		)	(21		)
Settlements	(603		)	(592		)	(677		)
Acquisitions and divestitures	(2		)	—			—
Balance at end of fiscal year	$	342		$	359		$	407

We accrue for warranty costs as part of our cost of sales based on associated material product costs, labor costs for technical support staff, and associated overhead. Our products are generally covered by a warranty for periods ranging from 90 days to five years, and for some products we provide a limited lifetime warranty.


(e)	Financing and Other Guarantees

In the ordinary course of business, we provide financing guarantees for various third-party financing arrangements extended to channel partners and end-user customers. Payments under these financing guarantee arrangements were not material for the periods presented.

Channel Partner Financing Guarantees We facilitate arrangements for third-party financing extended to channel partners, consisting of revolving short-term financing, generally with payment terms ranging from 60 to 90 days. These financing arrangements facilitate the working capital requirements of the channel partners, and, in some cases, we guarantee a portion of these arrangements. The volume of channel partner financing was $29.6 billion, $28.2 billion, and $27.0 billion in fiscal 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively. The balance of the channel partner financing subject to guarantees was $1.4 billion and $1.0 billion as of July 27, 2019 and July 28, 2018, respectively.

End-User Financing Guarantees We also provide financing guarantees for third-party financing arrangements extended to end-user customers related to leases and loans, which typically have terms of up to three years. The volume of financing provided by third parties for leases and loans as to which we had provided guarantees was $14 million, $35 million, and $51 million in fiscal 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively.

Financing Guarantee Summary The aggregate amounts of financing guarantees outstanding at July 27, 2019 and July 28, 2018, representing the total maximum potential future payments under financing arrangements with third parties along with the related deferred revenue, are summarized in the following table (in millions):



	July 27, 2019			July 28, 2018
Maximum potential future payments relating to financing guarantees:
Channel partner	$	197		$	277
End user	21			31
Total	$	218		$	308
Deferred revenue associated with financing guarantees:
Channel partner	$	(62	)	$	(94	)
End user	(15		)	(28		)
Total	$	(77	)	$	(122	)
Maximum potential future payments relating to financing guarantees, net of associated deferred revenue	$	141		$	186


(f)	Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, we indemnify other parties, including customers, lessors, and parties to other transactions with us, with respect to certain matters. We have agreed to indemnify against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants or out of intellectual property infringement or other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim.

We have been asked to indemnify Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) for patent infringement claims asserted against it by Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (“Sprint”) in federal court in Kansas. Sprint alleges that TWC infringed certain Sprint patents by offering VoIP telephone services utilizing products provided by us generally in combination with those of other manufacturers. Sprint seeks monetary damages. Following a trial on March 3, 2017, a jury in Kansas found that TWC willfully infringed five Sprint patents and awarded Sprint $139.8 million in damages. On March 14, 2017, the Kansas court declined Sprint's request for enhanced damages and entered judgment in favor of Sprint for $139.8 million plus 1.06% in post-judgment interest. On May 30, 2017, the Court awarded Sprint $20.3 million in pre-judgment interest and denied TWC's post-trial motions. TWC appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and, on November 30, 2018, a panel of the court affirmed the judgment. TWC filed a petition for rehearing en banc on January 29, 2019, which was denied on March 19, 2019. TWC has petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of the judgment. At this time, we do not believe that our indemnity obligations under our agreement would be material.

During fiscal 2018, we recorded legal and indemnification settlement charges of $127 million to product cost of sales related to prior indemnification matters resolved in fiscal 2018.

In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers and directors, and our Amended and Restated Bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to our agents.

It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to our limited history with prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by us under these agreements have not had a material effect on our operating results, financial position, or cash flows.


(g)	Legal Proceedings

Brazil Brazilian authorities have investigated our Brazilian subsidiary and certain of our former employees, as well as a Brazilian importer of our products, and its affiliates and employees, relating to alleged evasion of import taxes and alleged improper transactions involving the subsidiary and the importer. Brazilian tax authorities have assessed claims against our Brazilian subsidiary based on a theory of joint liability with the Brazilian importer for import taxes, interest, and penalties. In addition to claims asserted by the Brazilian federal tax authorities in prior fiscal years, tax authorities from the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo have asserted similar claims on the same legal basis in prior fiscal years.

The asserted claims by Brazilian federal tax authorities that remain are for calendar years 2003 through 2007, and the asserted claims by the tax authorities from the state of Sao Paulo are for calendar years 2005 through 2007. The total asserted claims by Brazilian state and federal tax authorities aggregate to $214 million for the alleged evasion of import and other taxes, $1.4 billion for interest, and $1.0 billion for various penalties, all determined using an exchange rate as of July 27, 2019. We have completed a thorough review of the matters and believe the asserted claims against our Brazilian subsidiary are without merit, and we are defending the claims vigorously. While we believe there is no legal basis for the alleged liability, due to the complexities and uncertainty surrounding the judicial process in Brazil and the nature of the claims asserting joint liability with the importer, we are unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against our Brazilian subsidiary and are unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any. We do not expect a final judicial determination for several years.

SRI International On September 4, 2013, SRI International, Inc. (“SRI”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing our products and services in the area of network intrusion detection of infringing two U.S. patents. SRI sought monetary damages of at least a reasonable royalty and enhanced damages. The trial on these claims began on May 2, 2016 and, on May 12, 2016, the jury returned a verdict finding willful infringement of the asserted patents. The jury awarded SRI damages of $23.7 million. On May 25, 2017, the Court awarded SRI enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, entered judgment in the new amount of $57.0 million, and ordered an ongoing royalty of 3.5% through the expiration of the patents in 2018. We appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on various grounds. On March 20, 2019, a panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the enhanced damages award; vacated and remanded in part the willful infringement finding; and affirmed the district court's other findings. Cisco filed a petition for rehearing with the Federal Circuit on May 10, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the panel granted in part Cisco’s petition for rehearing, denied Cisco’s petition for an en banc review by the entire Federal Circuit, reaffirmed its earlier determination regarding a portion of the judgment, issued a modified opinion vacating the attorneys’ fees award, and remanded portions of the judgment to the District Court of Delaware for further proceedings. Cisco’s $25.9 million payment, representing the portion of the judgment that the Federal Circuit affirmed plus interest, will be paid by September 18, 2019, and will be subject to a refund if any portion of the affirmed judgment is reversed or vacated by the United States Supreme Court. While the remanded proceedings may result in an additional loss, we do not expect it to be material.

Straight Path On September 24, 2014, Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing our 9971 IP Phone, Unified Communications Manager working in conjunction with 9971 IP Phones, and Video Communication Server products of infringement. All of the asserted patents have expired and Straight Path was therefore limited to seeking monetary damages for the alleged past infringement. On November 13, 2017, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, thereby dismissing Straight Path's claims against us and cancelling a trial which had been set for March 12, 2018. Straight Path appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, and, on January 23, 2019, the court summarily affirmed the finding of non-infringement. On August 23, 2019, Straight Path filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Circuit’s rule allowing summary affirmance.

Oyster Optics On November 24, 2016, Oyster Optics, LLC (“Oyster”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Oyster alleges that certain Cisco ONS 15454 and NCS 2000 line cards infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,620,327 (“the ‘327 Patent”). Oyster seeks monetary damages. Oyster filed infringement claims based on the ‘327 Patent against other defendants, including ZTE, Nokia, NEC, Infinera, Huawei, Ciena, Alcatel-Lucent, and Fujitsu, and the court consolidated the cases alleging infringement of the ‘327 Patent. Oyster's cases against some of the defendants were resolved. The court vacated the November 4, 2018 trial date set for Oyster's claims against Cisco and one other remaining defendant, pending resolution of Oyster's appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling dismissing certain of Oyster's claims. Oyster appealed the summary judgment ruling on December 6, 2018. While we believe that we have strong non-infringement arguments and that the patent is invalid, if Oyster prevails in its appeal of the summary judgment ruling, and if we do not prevail in the District Court in a subsequent trial, we believe damages ultimately assessed would not be material. Due to uncertainty surrounding patent litigation processes, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of this litigation at this time. However, we do not anticipate that any final outcome of the dispute would be material.

In addition, we are subject to legal proceedings, claims, and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including intellectual property litigation. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

For additional information regarding intellectual property litigation, see “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors-We may be found to infringe on intellectual property rights of others” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.