11.	Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases — The Company has operating lease agreements for offices in Massachusetts, Hungary, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and India that expire through 2023.

In April 2012, the Company entered into a lease for a new corporate headquarters located in Boston, Massachusetts. The landlord was obligated to rehabilitate the existing building and the lease term began in April 2013 and extends through July 2023. The aggregate amount of minimum lease payments to be made over the term of the lease is approximately $41.3 million. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for making certain improvements to the leased space up to an agreed upon cost to the landlord. Any excess costs for these improvements were billed by the landlord to the Company as additional rent. These costs totaled $5.6 million, all of which were paid as of December 31, 2013, and have been classified in Other assets and are being amortized over the lease term. The lease required a security deposit of approximately $3.3 million in the form of an irrevocable standby letter of credit which is collateralized by a bank deposit in the amount of approximately $3.5 million or 105 percent of the security deposit. The security deposit is classified as restricted cash. The lease includes an option to extend the original term of the lease for two successive five year periods.

In October 2012, the Company entered into a lease for new office space in Dublin, Ireland. The term of the new office space began in October 2012 and extends through October 2022. The approximate annual lease payments for the new office space are $168,000 (EUR 122,000). The lease agreement required a security deposit of approximately $257,000 (EUR 187,000) and contains a termination option which allows the Company to terminate the lease pursuant to certain lease provisions.

In September 2013, the Company entered into a lease for new office space in Sydney, Australia. The term of the new office space began in December 2013 and extends through May 2017. The aggregate amount of minimum lease payments to be made over the term of the lease is approximately $663,000 (AUD 711,000). The lease agreement required a bank guarantee of approximately $115,000 (AUD 123,000). The bank guarantee is classified as restricted cash.

 

Rent expense under all leases was approximately $2.9 million, $3.2 million and $6.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively. The Company records rent expense on a straight-line basis for leases with scheduled escalation clauses or free rent periods.

The Company also enters into hosting services agreements with third-party data centers and internet service providers that are subject to annual renewal. Hosting fees incurred under these arrangements aggregated approximately $1.9 million, $3.2 million and $4.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively.

On July 2, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement to purchase a software asset. On November 6, 2013, the Company paid $11.5 million for the software asset upon its acceptance. The agreement also included a $0.5 million statement of work, which is to be completed in the first quarter of 2014. Payment is expected to be made in the first quarter of 2014 once the work is completed and accepted by the Company.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases including one year commitments associated with the Company’s hosting services arrangements are approximately as follows at December 31, 2013 (in thousands):

 

Years Ending December 31(1)
2014		$	9,094
2015			6,043
2016			5,870
2017			4,495
2018			4,515
Thereafter			20,816
Total minimum lease payments		$	50,833

 

(1)

Excluded from the table above is $304,000 related to uncertain tax positions as the Company is uncertain as to when a cash settlement for these liabilities will occur.

Litigation — On September 8, 2010, 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc., or 01, filed a complaint that named the Company as a defendant in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Civil Action No. 1:10cv1007) alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479, or the ‘479 Patent, which is owned by 01 and has claims directed to a particular application or system for providing a private communication portal from one computer to a second computer. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On April 1, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court issued a written order regarding this decision on May 4, 2011. On May 13, 2011, 01 filed a notice of appeal appealing the court’s ruling granting summary judgment. On July 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court’s summary judgment of non-infringement ruling and remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia with revised claim construction. The trial commenced on March 18, 2013 and on March 26, 2013, a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia found that the Company’s products do not infringe the ‘479 Patent as previously asserted by 01. The court issued a written order regarding this decision on April 2, 2013. On June 26, 2013, the court issued a written opinion denying all pending post-trial motions, thereby preserving the jury’s non-infringement verdict. On June 26, 2013, 01 filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the jury’s non-infringement verdict and on July 18, 2013, the Company filed a notice of cross appeal seeking to appeal the jury’s decisions regarding invalidity and inequitable conduct. A hearing date has not been scheduled at this time. At this time the Company does not believe that a loss is probable and remains unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss associated with this litigation.

On November 3, 2010, Gemini IP LLC, or Gemini, filed a complaint that named the Company as a defendant in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:07-cv-521) alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,117,932, which allegedly is owned by Gemini and has claims related to a system for operating an IT helpdesk. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On April 25, 2011, the Company and Gemini entered into a License Agreement which granted the Company a fully-paid license that covers the patent at issue in the action and mutually released each party from all claims. The Company paid Gemini a one-time licensing fee of $1.3 million in connection with the License Agreement. As a result, the action was dismissed by the court on May 23, 2011.

On November 21, 2012, the Company filed suit against Pragmatus Telecom LLC, or Pragmatus, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 12-1507) seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company’s products do not infringe three patents allegedly owned by Pragmatus after certain of the Company’s customers received letters from Pragmatus claiming that their use of certain LogMeIn services infringed upon those patents. On March 29, 2013, the Company and Pragmatus entered into a License Agreement, which granted the Company a fully-paid license covering the patents at issue. The Company paid Pragmatus a one-time license fee in connection with the License Agreement in April 2013. As a result, the Company’s declaratory judgment action was dismissed by the court on May 3, 2013.

The Company is from time to time subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company routinely assesses its current litigation and/or threatened litigation as to the probability of ultimately incurring a liability, and records its best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where the Company assesses the likelihood of loss as probable. While the outcome of these other claims cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe that the outcome of any of these other legal matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Other Contingencies — In 2011, the Company was contacted by a representative from a state tax assessor’s office requesting remittance of uncollected sales taxes due for the period from 2005 to the present. While the Company does not believe it was responsible for collecting sales taxes in this state, after vigorously defending its position and exhausting all defenses against this claim, in September 2011, the Company agreed to make a settlement payment of $1.3 million with the state tax assessor’s office. The Company recorded the amount in general and administrative expense. The Company paid the settlement in December 2011.