Revenue Recognition for Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables.  On November 1, 2010, we adopted accounting update regarding revenue recognition for multiple deliverable arrangements and accounting update for certain revenue arrangements that include software elements.

 

We adopted the above accounting updates on a prospective basis for applicable transactions originating or materially modified after November 1, 2010. The amended update for multiple deliverable arrangements did not change the units of accounting for our revenue transactions, and most products and services qualify as separate units of accounting. Under the previous guidance for multiple deliverable arrangements with software elements, we typically applied the residual method to allocate revenue if we were unable to determine vendor specific objective evidence of fair value or verifiable objective evidence of fair value for the delivered element but were able to obtain fair value for any undelivered elements.

The adoption of the amended revenue recognition rules did not significantly change the timing of revenue recognition and did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements for the three and six months ended April 30, 2011. We cannot reasonably estimate the effect of adopting these standards on future financial periods as the impact will vary depending on the nature and volume of new or materially modified sales arrangements in any given period.

 

Our multiple-element arrangements are generally comprised of a combination of measurement instruments, installation or other start-up services and/or software and/or support or services. Hardware and software elements are typically delivered at the same time and revenue is recognized upon delivery once title and risk of loss pass to the customer. Delivery of installation, start-up services and other services varies based on the complexity of the equipment, staffing levels in a geographic location and customer preferences, and can range from a few days to a few months. Service revenue is deferred and recognized over the contractual period or as services are rendered and accepted by the customer. Revenue from the sale of software products that are not required to deliver the tangible product's essential functionality are accounted for under software revenue recognition rules which require vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) of fair value to allocate revenue in a multiple element arrangement. Our arrangements generally do not include any provisions for cancellation, termination, or refunds that would significantly impact recognized revenue.

 

We have evaluated the deliverables in our multiple-element arrangements and concluded that they are separate units of accounting if the delivered item or items have value to the customer on a standalone basis and for an arrangement that includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item(s), delivery or performance of the undelivered item(s) is considered probable and substantially in our control. We allocate revenue to each element in our multiple-element arrangements based upon their relative selling prices. We determine the selling price for each deliverable based on a selling price hierarchy. The selling price for a deliverable is based on VSOE if available, third-party evidence (TPE) if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price (ESP) if neither VSOE nor TPE is available. Revenue allocated to each element is then recognized when the basic revenue recognition criteria for that element have been met.

 

We use VSOE of selling price in the selling price allocation in all instances where it exists. VSOE of selling price for products and services is determined when a substantial majority of the selling prices fall within a reasonable range when sold separately.  TPE of selling price can be established by evaluating largely interchangeable competitor products or services in standalone sales to similarly situated customers. As our products contain a significant element of proprietary technology and the solution offered differs substantially from that of competitors, it is difficult to obtain the reliable standalone competitive pricing necessary to establish TPE. ESP represents the best estimate of the price at which we would transact a sale if the product or service were sold on a standalone basis. We determine ESP for a product or service by using historical selling prices which reflect multiple factors including, but not limited to customer type, geography, market conditions, competitive landscape, gross margin objectives and pricing practices. The determination of ESP is made through consultation with and approval by management.  We may modify or develop new pricing practices and strategies in the future. As these pricing strategies evolve, we may modify our pricing practices in the future, which may result in changes in ESP. The aforementioned factors may result in a different allocation of revenue to the deliverables in multiple element arrangements from the current fiscal quarter, which may change the pattern and timing of revenue recognition for these elements but will not change the total revenue recognized for the arrangement.

 

Goodwill and Purchased Intangible Assets. We review goodwill for impairment annually as of September 30 and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable in accordance with the authoritative guidance. The circumstances that could trigger a goodwill impairment could include, but are not limited to, the following items to the extent that management believes the occurrence of one or more would make it more likely than not that we would fail the first step of the goodwill impairment test (as described in the next paragraph): significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate, an adverse action or assessment by a regulator, unanticipated competition, a loss of key personnel, a more-likely-than-not expectation that a reporting unit or a significant portion of a reporting unit will be sold or otherwise disposed of, a portion of a reporting unit's goodwill has been included in the carrying amounts of a business that will be disposed or if our market capitalization is below our net book value.

The provisions of authoritative guidance require that we perform a two-step impairment test on goodwill. In the first step, we compare the fair value of each reporting unit to its carrying value. The second step (if necessary) measures the amount of impairment by applying fair-value-based tests to the individual assets and liabilities within each reporting unit. As defined in the authoritative guidance, a reporting unit is an operating segment, or one level below an operating segment. Accordingly, we have aggregated components of an operating segment that have similar economic characteristics into our reporting units. At the time of an acquisition, we assign goodwill to the reporting unit that is expected to benefit from the synergies of the combination. Agilent has three reporting units, which are the same as our operating segments: life sciences, chemical analysis and electronic measurement.

 

The process of evaluating the potential impairment of goodwill is highly subjective and requires significant judgment, as our businesses operate in a number of markets and geographical regions. We determine the fair value of our reporting units based on an income approach, whereby we calculate the fair value of each reporting unit based on the present value of estimated future cash flows, which are formed by evaluating historical trends, current budgets, operating plans and industry data. We evaluate the reasonableness of the fair value calculations of our reporting units by reconciling the total of the fair values of all of our reporting units to our total market capitalization, taking into account an appropriate control premium. We then compare the carrying value of our reporting units to the fair value calculations based on the income approach noted above.

 

If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is not impaired and the second step of the impairment test is not necessary. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its estimated fair value, then the second step of the goodwill impairment test must be performed. The second step of the goodwill impairment test compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit's goodwill with its goodwill carrying amount to measure the amount of impairment, if any. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined by allocating the fair value of the reporting unit's assets and liabilities in a manner similar to a purchase price allocation, with any residual fair value allocated to goodwill. If the carrying value of a reporting unit's goodwill exceeds its implied fair value, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess. Estimates of the future cash flows associated with the businesses are critical to these assessments. Changes in these estimates based on changed economic conditions or business strategies could result in material impairment charges in future periods.

 

Purchased intangible assets consist primarily of acquired developed technologies, proprietary know-how, trademarks, and customer relationships and are amortized using the straight-line method over estimated useful lives ranging from 6 months to 15 years. In process research and development (“IPR&D”) is initially capitalized at fair value as an intangible asset with an indefinite life and assessed for impairment thereafter. When the IPR&D project is complete, it is reclassified as an amortizable purchased intangible asset and is amortized over its estimated useful life. If an IPR&D project is abandoned, Agilent will record a charge for the value of the related intangible asset to Agilent's consolidated statement of operations in the period it is abandoned.