| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies (a) 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 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 inventory purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers relate to arrangements to secure supply and 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 inventory purchase commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers by period (in millions): January 29, July 31, Less than 1 year $ 9,224 $ 6,903 1 to 3 years 1,879 1,806 3 to 5 years 1,159 1,545 Total $ 12,262 $ 10,254 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 January 29, 2022 and July 31, 2021, the liability for these purchase commitments was $199 million and $151 million, respectively, and was included in other current liabilities. For further discussion around the Supply Constraints Impacts and Risks, see Result of Operations—Product Gross Margin and Liquidity and Capital Resources—Inventory Supply Chain. (b) 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): Three Months Ended Six Months Ended January 29, 2022 January 23, 2021 January 29, 2022 January 23, 2021 Compensation expense related to acquisitions $ 75 $ 59 $ 164 $ 116 As of January 29, 2022, we estimated that future cash compensation expense of up to $600 million may be required to be recognized pursuant to the applicable business combination agreements. We also have certain funding commitments, primarily related to our privately held investments, some of which are based on the achievement of certain agreed-upon milestones or are required to be funded on demand. The funding commitments were $0.4 billion and $0.2 billion as of January 29, 2022 and July 31, 2021, respectively. (c) Product Warranties The following table summarizes the activity related to the product warranty liability (in millions): Six Months Ended January 29, January 23, Balance at beginning of period $ 336 $ 331 Provisions for warranties issued 218 247 Adjustments for pre-existing warranties 2 4 Settlements (222) (249) Balance at end of period $ 334 $ 333 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. (d) 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, with payment terms generally 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 $6.8 billion and $6.7 billion for the second quarter of fiscal 2022 and 2021, respectively, and was $13.4 billion and $12.8 billion for the first six months of fiscal 2022 and 2021, respectively. The balance of the channel partner financing subject to guarantees was $1.4 billion and $1.3 billion as of January 29, 2022 and July 31, 2021, 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 $4 million and $3 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2022 and 2021, respectively, and was $6 million and $8 million for the first six months of fiscal 2022 and 2021, respectively. Financing Guarantee Summary The aggregate amounts of financing guarantees outstanding at January 29, 2022 and July 31, 2021, 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): January 29, July 31, Maximum potential future payments relating to financing guarantees: Channel partner $ 162 $ 155 End user 4 5 Total $ 166 $ 160 Deferred revenue associated with financing guarantees: Channel partner $ (5) $ (16) End user (4) (5) Total $ (9) $ (21) Total $ 157 $ 139 (e) Indemnifications In the normal course of business, we have indemnification obligations to 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 or circumstances within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount for claims made under the indemnification obligations discussed in this section (e) due to uncertainties in the litigation process, coordination with and contributions by other parties and the defendants in these cases, and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular case and agreement. We are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of the cases discussed below in this section (e), but we do not believe that any potential indemnity liability would be material, and historically, indemnity payments made by us have not had a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. We were asked by seven of our customers to indemnify them in connection with patent infringement claims asserted against them by Estech Systems, Inc. (“Estech”) in the Eastern District of Texas (“E.D. Tex.”) court and the Western District of Texas court between April 24, 2020 and August 25, 2020. Estech alleged that the customer defendants infringe three patents generally related to IP telephony by using collaboration technology from us and other providers. Estech was seeking monetary damages from the customer defendants. Estech and the customer defendants resolved Estech’s claims, and we resolved the customer defendants’ indemnity claims for an amount that did not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. 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. (f) Legal Proceedings Brazil Brazilian authorities have investigated our Brazilian subsidiary and certain of its 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 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 $151 million for the alleged evasion of import and other taxes, $764 million for interest, and $373 million for various penalties, all determined using an exchange rate as of January 29, 2022. 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. China We have completed our investigation into allegations of a self-enrichment scheme involving now-former employees in China, and shared the results of the investigation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Based on the investigation results, both the SEC and the DOJ have informed the Company that they do not plan to take any action against the Company in connection with these allegations. SRI International On September 4, 2013, SRI International, Inc. (“SRI”) asserted claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“D. Del.”), accusing our products and services related to network intrusion detection of infringing two patents. After a trial, SRI obtained a verdict against us, and we appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) which was ultimately unsuccessful. In resolution of this matter, we have paid SRI judgments, including attorneys’ fees and post-judgment royalties and interest, in the aggregate amount of approximately $60 million. The only remaining potential liability for this matter involves a small portion of post-judgment interest. The amounts that we paid to date and any potential additional interest we may have to pay involve amounts, individually or in the aggregate, that did not or will not, as applicable, have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Centripetal On February 13, 2018, Centripetal Networks, Inc. (“Centripetal”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that several of our products and services (including our Catalyst switches, ASR and ISR series routers, ASAs with FirePOWER services, and Stealthwatch products) infringe eleven Centripetal U.S. patents. We thereafter petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to review the validity of nine of the asserted patents. The PTAB instituted inter partes review proceedings (“IPR Proceedings”) on six asserted patents and certain claims of another asserted patent. The PTAB has issued Final Written Decisions for seven patents in the instituted IPR Proceedings, and all claims of five patents have been found unpatentable and several of the claims of the other two patents have been found unpatentable. Centripetal appealed the PTAB’s findings of unpatentability to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s findings of unpatentability as to three of the patents on March 10, 2021, and affirmed the PTAB’s findings of unpatentability as to the remaining four patents on May 11, 2021. On August 9, 2021, Centripetal filed a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of several of the PTAB’s unpatentability findings, which the U.S. Supreme Court denied on October 4, 2021. For the five asserted U.S. patents not subject to the IPR Proceedings, the district court conducted a bench trial by videoconference from May 6, 2020 to June 25, 2020. On October 5, 2020, the district court issued a judgment finding validity and willful infringement of four of the asserted patents and non-infringement of the fifth patent. The district court awarded Centripetal $1.9 billion, comprised of $756 million in damages, $1.1 billion in enhanced damages for willful infringement, and pre-judgment interest in the amount of $14 million. The district court declined to issue an injunction but, instead, awarded Centripetal a running royalty against revenue from the products found to infringe for an initial three-year term at a rate of 10%, with a minimum annual royalty of $168 million and a maximum annual royalty of $300 million, and for a second three-year term at a rate of 5%, with a minimum annual royalty of $84 million and a maximum annual royalty of $150 million. We believe that the district court’s findings of validity, infringement, and willful infringement, its award of damages, including enhanced damages, and its award of an ongoing royalty are not supported by either the law or the evidence presented at trial. We have appealed the district court’s judgment as to the four patents found valid and infringed to the Federal Circuit. On October 28, 2020, by agreement of the parties, the district court stayed execution of the judgment until after resolution of any appeal in the matter and waived the requirement of any bond or security; accordingly, no money is currently due under the judgment. On April 29, 2020 and April 30, 2020, Centripetal submitted complaints in the District Court of Dusseldorf in Germany against Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc., asserting three European patents seeking both injunctive relief and damages. Two of the three European patents are counterparts to two U.S. patents Centripetal asserted against us in the U.S. district court proceedings, one of which has been invalidated by the PTAB. On June 22, 2021, Centripetal amended one of its complaints to assert one additional European patent and one additional German Utility Model patent. Centripetal seeks both injunctive relief and damages on these newly added patents. On December 10, 2021, the District Court of Dusseldorf issued its findings on two of the patents, rejecting Centripetal’s patent complaints. Centripetal has appealed. On December 21, 2021, the District Court of Dusseldorf stayed its decision on infringement of the third patent pending a decision by the Federal Patent Court in a related nullity proceeding. The proceedings on Centripetal’s amended complaint remain pending. Due to uncertainty surrounding patent litigation processes in the U.S. and Europe, however, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of either litigation at this time. If we do not prevail in either litigation, we believe that any damages ultimately assessed would not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Ramot On June 12, 2019, Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. (“Ramot”) asserted patent infringement claims against us in E.D. Tex., seeking damages, including enhanced damages for allegations of willful infringement, and a running royalty on future sales. Ramot alleges that certain Cisco optical transceiver modules and line cards infringe three patents. As of November 27, 2020, the PTO preliminarily found all asserted claims unpatentable in ex parte reexamination proceedings. On January 13, 2021, the court entered an order staying the case pending the conclusion of the ex parte reexamination proceedings (“Reexamination Proceedings”). While we believe that we have strong non-infringement and invalidity arguments, and that Ramot’s damages theories are not supported by prevailing law, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of this litigation at this time due to uncertainties in the litigation processes. If we do not prevail in court, we believe that any damages ultimately assessed would not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. On February 26, 2021, Ramot asserted patent infringement claims against Acacia Communications, Inc. (“Acacia”) (which we subsequently acquired) in D. Del, seeking damages, including enhanced damages for allegations of willful infringement, and a running royalty on future sales. Ramot alleges that certain Acacia optical transceiver modules and integrated circuits infringe two of the three patents that Ramot has asserted in its E.D. Tex. case. On September 3, 2021, the court stayed the case pending the ultimate resolution of the Reexamination Proceedings. Due to the early stage of the litigation as well as uncertainties in the litigation processes, we are unable, at this time, to reasonably estimate a potential range of loss, if any, or the ultimate outcome of this litigation. Viasat On January 21, 2016, Viasat, Inc. (“Viasat”) filed suit against Acacia (which we subsequently acquired) in the California Superior Court for San Diego County (“SDSC”) seeking unpaid royalties for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and damages for trade secret misappropriation for certain products (“Viasat 1”). Acacia counterclaimed for patent and trade secret misappropriation, contract, and unfair competition claims. On July 17, 2019, the jury found for Viasat on its contract claims, and awarded Viasat $49 million for unpaid royalties through 2018. The jury further found that Acacia willfully misappropriated Viasat’s trade secrets and awarded Viasat $1. On Acacia’s counterclaims, the jury found for Acacia on its contract and trade secret claims and awarded Acacia $1. Both Acacia and Viasat have pending appeals to the California Court of Appeal. On November 6, 2019, Viasat filed a second suit in SDSC, alleging contract and trade secret claims for Acacia products sold from January 1, 2019 forward (“Viasat 2”). On February 28, 2020, the court stayed Viasat 2 pending the appeal in Viasat 1. On June 9, 2020, Viasat filed a third suit in SDSC (“Viasat 3”). In Viasat 3, Viasat alleges contract and trade secrets claims for sales of additional Acacia products. On August 11, 2020, the court stayed Viasat 3 pending the appeal in Viasat 1. On July 28, 2017, Acacia filed suit in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court - Business Litigation Session against ViaSat alleging claims for defamation, unfair competition, business torts, and declaratory judgment of no trade secret misappropriation. On April 5, 2018, ViaSat counterclaimed with contract, trade secret, and unfair competition claims (collectively, with Viasat 1, Viasat 2 and Viasat 3, the “Viasat Cases”). On December 13, 2018, the Massachusetts court entered an order staying the Massachusetts litigation, which has been extended to June 30, 2022. While we believe Acacia has strong defenses in each of the Viasat Cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of any of the Viasat Cases at this time due to uncertainties in the litigation processes. If Acacia does not prevail, we believe that any relief ultimately assessed in any of the Viasat Cases would not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, we are subject to other 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 believe that the |
