NOTE 13: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

We lease certain facilities under non-cancelable lease agreements and also have equipment leases for various types of office equipment. Some of the leases have renewal options ranging from one to ten years and others contain escalation clauses. These leases are operating leases.

In February 2006, we leased a campus facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado, comprised of three buildings in three separate operating leases with initial terms of five, seven and 15 years. In August 2010, we negotiated lower lease rates and a five year extension on one of the buildings. The future minimum lease payment schedule below includes $26.3 million for this Colorado Springs campus.

Rent expense was $11.5 million in fiscal 2013 and $12.7 million in both fiscal 2012 and 2011. Sublease income was immaterial in fiscal 2013, 2012 and 2011.

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

We use contract manufacturers for certain manufacturing functions. Under these arrangements, the contract manufacturer procures inventory to manufacture products based upon our forecast of customer demand. We are responsible for the financial impact on the contract manufacturer of any reduction or product mix shift in the forecast relative to materials that the contract manufacturer had already purchased under a prior forecast. Such a variance in forecasted demand could require a cash payment for finished goods in excess of current customer demand or for costs of excess or obsolete inventory. As of March 31, 2013 and 2012, we had issued non-cancelable purchase commitments for $22.3 million and $34.3 million, respectively, to purchase finished goods from our contract manufacturers.

Legal Proceedings

Overland

On June 28, 2012, Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Quantum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that certain of its automated tape libraries fall within the scope of patents 6,328,766 and 6,353,581. Overland is seeking injunctive relief, as well as the recovery of unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages for willful infringement. We do not believe we infringe the Overland patents and we will defend ourselves vigorously. We do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that we will pay material damages related to this lawsuit.

On August 28, 2012, we filed a lawsuit against Overland in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, for patent infringements of our patents 6,542,787; 6,498,771; 5,925,119 and 5,491,812 by the products in Overland’s NEO tape library and SnapServer product lines. We are seeking injunctive relief and the recovery of monetary damages.

On April 12, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Overland in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, for patent infringements of our patent 7,263,596 by the products in Overland’s SnapScale product lines. We are seeking injunctive relief and the recovery of monetary damages.

Compression Technology Solutions

On September 12, 2011, Compression Technology Solutions LLC (“CTS”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a group of companies, consisting of Quantum, CA., Inc., EMC Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, International Business Machines Corp., NetApp, Inc. and Quest Software, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that certain unspecified products of the defendants, characterized as “deduplication software systems,” and, in the case of Quantum, including Quantum’s “DXi Series Deduplication software,” fall within the scope of patent 5,414,650. CTS was seeking injunctive relief, as well as the recovery of monetary damages, including treble damages for willful infringement. We do not believe we infringe the CTS patent; we believe that the CTS patent is invalid, and we defended ourselves vigorously. In April 2012, our motion to transfer venue was granted and the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 29, 2013, our motion for summary judgment was granted, with all of the asserted claims held invalid by the District Court, and the lawsuit against Quantum and the other defendants has been dismissed with prejudice.

Indemnifications

We have certain financial guarantees, both express and implied, related to product liability and potential infringement of intellectual property. Other than certain product liabilities recorded as of March 31, 2013 and 2012, we did not record a liability associated with these guarantees, as we have little or no history of costs associated with such indemnification requirements. Contingent liabilities associated with product liability may be mitigated by insurance coverage that we maintain.

In the normal course of business to facilitate transactions of our services and products, we indemnify certain parties with respect to certain matters. We have agreed to hold certain parties harmless 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. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers and directors, and our bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to our agents.

It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of our 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 impact on our operating results, financial position or cash flows.