COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases its office, production and sales facilities under non-cancelable operating leases that expire in various years through fiscal year 2020. The leases provide for biennial or annual rent escalations intended to approximate increases in cost of living indices, and certain of the leases provide for rent abatement. The San Diego headquarter's lease expires in February 2014 and has a five-year option to renew. The San Jose facility's lease expires in May 2017 and has a five-year option to renew.

Future minimum lease payments under these arrangements are as follows (in thousands):



	Minimum Lease Payments
Fiscal 2014	$	2,282
Fiscal 2015	828
Fiscal 2016	654
Fiscal 2017	613
Fiscal 2018	38
Thereafter	57
	$	4,472

Rental expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the respective lease terms and was $2.7 million and $2.6 million in fiscal 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Litigation

From time to time, the Company may be involved in various lawsuits, legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. Management does not believe any legal proceedings or claims pending at June 30, 2013 will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business, liquidity, financial position or results of operations. Litigation, however, is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm the Company's business.

In August and October 2010, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), respectively, against various parties. Both lawsuits claim infringement of two of the Company's U.S. Patents, Nos. 6,328,766 and 6,353,581.

In November 2011, the Company entered into a multi-year settlement and cross-licensing agreement with IBM pursuant to which the Company released all claims it had against IBM and Dell Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and at the ITC. However, the Company's infringement case against BDT AG and its affiliates continues.

In July 2012, the ITC released the public version of the Initial Determination, which finds that the six asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 are valid. The Initial Determination finds no infringement of United States Patent No. 6,353,581. In November 2012, the full Commission issued an opinion that did not revisit the Chief Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that BDT's customers directly infringe every asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766, and affirmed the validity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581. The Commission remanded certain aspects of the Chief Administrative Law Judge's validity findings for U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766. In December 2012, the Commission granted us a petition for reconsideration and further remanded the determination of whether BDT directly or indirectly infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581 to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. In March 2013, the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the ITC issued a public notice of the Remand Initial Determination. The Remand Initial Determination held that there is no infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581, and that the six asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 are invalid as anticipated. In April 2013, the ITC issued a public notice of the Remand Initial Determination. In May 2013, the ITC granted in part the Company's request to review the Remand Initial Determination, and reviewed the findings that BDT's FlexStor II^® product line does not infringe one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581, and that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 are invalid as anticipated.

In June 2012, the Company filed five additional patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against seven companies. In these lawsuits the Company has asserted claims of infringement on one or both of the following U.S. Patent Nos. owned by the Company: 6,328,766 and 6,353,581, against the following defendants: Quantum Corporation, based in San Jose, California; Spectra Logic Corporation, based in Boulder, Colorado; PivotStor, Inc., based in Irvine, California; Qualstar Corporation, based in Simi Valley, California; Tandberg Data GmbH, based in Germany; Tandberg Data Corp., based in Westminster, Colorado; and Venture Corporation Limited, based in Singapore. In February 2013, the Company filed a joint motion to dismiss its case against Tandberg without prejudice.

In August 2012, Quantum Corporation (“Quantum”) filed counterclaims against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California action, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, and infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,491,812, 6,542,787, 6,498,771 and 5,925,119 by its products. In April 2013, Quantum filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,263,596 by the Company's products. Quantum is seeking monetary damages from the Company and injunctive relief.

In May 2013, Safe Storage LLC (“Safe Storage”), a Delaware limited liability company, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346 by the Company's products. Safe Storage is seeking monetary damages from the Company and injunctive relief.