COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Warranty and Extended Warranty

The Company records a provision for estimated future warranty costs for both return-to-factory and on-site warranties. If future actual costs to repair were to differ significantly from estimates, the impact of these unforeseen costs or cost reductions would be recorded in subsequent periods.

Separately priced extended on-site warranties and service contracts are offered for sale to customers on all product lines. The Company contracts with third-party service providers to provide service relating to on-site warranties and service contracts. Extended warranty and service contract revenue and amounts paid in advance to outside service organizations are deferred and recognized as service revenue and cost of service, respectively, over the period of the service agreement. The Company had $1.6 million and $1.9 million in deferred costs related to deferred service revenue at September 30, 2013 and June 30, 2013, respectively.

In addition, the Company had $0.1 million and $0.2 million in deferred software revenue at September 30, 2013 and June 30, 2013, respectively, which is not included in the table below.

Changes in the liability for product warranty and deferred revenue associated with extended warranties and service contracts were as follows (in thousands):



	Product Warranty			Deferred Revenue
Liability at June 30, 2013	$	790		$	10,354
Settlements made during the period	(109		)	(3,010		)
Change in liability for warranties issued during the period	85			2,368
Change in liability for preexisting warranties	(9		)	—
Liability at September 30, 2013	$	757		$	9,712

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 September 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 with the 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 in connection with the patent infringement lawsuits the Company had filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and at the ITC. In opinions issued by the ITC in November 2012 and May 2013, the ITC concluded or otherwise did not disturb findings that BDT’s customers directly infringe the six asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766, and that all but one of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581 are valid. The ITC also concluded that the six asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 were invalid as anticipated, and that the accused BDT products did not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581. In May 2013, the ITC terminated the investigation.

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 (“Quantum”), based in San Jose, California; Spectra Logic Corporation (“Spectra Logic”), 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 October 2012, the Company voluntarily dismissed its claims against Venture Corporation. In February 2013, the Company filed a joint motion to dismiss its case against Tandberg Data GmbH and Tandberg Data Corp. without prejudice.

In August 2012, 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.

In June 2013, Spectra Logic filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The petition has been assigned Case No. IPR2013-00357. In September 2013, the Company filed a preliminary response to the petition. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has not issued a decision granting or denying the petition.