Note 10 Contingencies The Company is subject to patent lawsuits brought by Raytheon Company (Raytheon). A first suit was brought by Raytheon on September 25, 2015 in the Eastern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1554) asserting infringement of four patents owned by Raytheon (First Action). Two of the originally asserted patents relate to computer hardware alleged to be encompassed by Crays current and past products (the Hardware Patents), and the two remaining asserted patents relate to features alleged to be performed by certain third-party software that Cray optionally includes as part of its product offerings (the Software Patents). A second suit was brought by Raytheon on April 22, 2016 in the Eastern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-423) asserting infringement of five patents owned by Raytheon (Second Action. In the Second Action, all five asserted patents relate to features alleged to be performed by certain third-party software that Cray optionally includes as part of its product offerings. On September 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Crays petition for writ of mandamus and overturned the trial courts determination that venue in the First Action was proper in the Eastern District of Texas. Accordingly on April 5, 2018, the trial court ordered that the First Action should be transferred to the Western District of Wisconsin, as had been requested by Cray, which was effective on April 30, 2018 (Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00318-wmc). After transfer, Raytheon indicated its desire to withdraw its claims for infringement of the Hardware Patents. The Wisconsin court, upon joint motion of the parties, dismissed with prejudice the counts related to the Hardware Patents, and Raytheon has served on the Company and filed with the court covenants not to sue for infringement of the Hardware Patents. The Texas court, upon joint motion of the parties, transferred the Second Action to the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-03388-RS). Per joint motion of the parties, the California court has stayed the Second Action pending resolution of the First Action. In the First Action, the Wisconsin court held a summary judgment hearing on January 10, 2019. Respecting Crays contentions that Raytheons claims of infringement of the Software Patents fail as a matter of law, on April 15, 2019, the Wisconsin court, by opinion and order, granted Crays motion for summary judgment and directed judgment in favor of Cray regarding Raytheons claims of infringement of the Software Patents. On May 15, 2019, Cray filed a motion seeking attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C.  285 which provides that the Court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. That motion is currently pending. On May 24, 2019, Raytheon filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the Wisconsin courts April 15, 2019 order granting Crays motion for summary judgment that the Software Patents were not infringed. No decision on the appeal is expected until 2020. The Company will continue to vigorously defend these actions including the appeal of the favorable decision by the Wisconsin court in the First Action. The probable outcome of the described litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss (or gain from a potential recovery of attorneys fees). Based on its review of the matters to date, the Company notes that its defenses have to date prevailed in the First Action, and the Company believes that it has valid defenses in the Second Action. As a result, the Company considers the likelihood of a material loss related to these matters to be remote. The Company is also subject to putative shareholder class action lawsuits in connection with the Merger Agreement. On June 19, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County against Cray and the individual members of Crays Board of Directors, captioned Keith v. Cray Inc., et al. , Case No. 19-2-16273-2 SEA (the Keith Complaint), asserting that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction with HPE by, among other things, allegedly conducting a flawed and conflicted sales process and by causing to be disseminated a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement. On June 24, 2019, a similar putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Snohomish County against Cray and the individual members of Crays Board of Directors, captioned Delman v. Ungaro, et al. , Case No. 19-2-05756-31 (the Delman Complaint). On July 10, 2019, another similar putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County against Cray and the individual members of Crays Board of Directors, captioned Rapacki v. Cray, et al. , Case No. 19-2-18093-5 SEA (the Rapacki Complaint and together with the Keith Complaint and the Delman Complaint, the State Court Actions). On June 20, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, against Cray, the individual members of Crays Board of Directors, HPE and Merger Sub, captioned Davie v. Cray Inc. et al. , Case No. 1:19-cv-01148-UNA (the Davie Complaint). On June 21, 2019, another putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the same court against Cray, the individual members of Crays Board of Directors, HPE and Merger Sub, captioned Kent v. Cray Inc. et al. , Case No. 1:19-cv-01157-UNA (the Kent Complaint), and on June 24, 2019, an individual action was filed in the same court against the same defendants, captioned Stein v. Cray Inc. et al. , Case No. 1:19-cv-01188-UNA (the Stein Complaint and together with the Davie Complaint and Kent Complaint, the Delaware Complaints). On July 2, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Cray and the individual members of Crays Board of Directors, captioned Epstein v. Cray Inc., et al. , Case No. [2:19-cv-01026] (the Epstein Complaint and together with the Delaware Complaints, the Federal Court Actions). The Federal Court Actions each assert that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making untrue statements of material fact and omitting certain material facts related to the contemplated merger in the proxy statement. The State Court Actions and the Federal Court Actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the Merger, money damages and an award of attorneys and experts fees. The probable outcome of the State Court Actions and the Federal Court Actions cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend those actions. As a result, the Company considers the likelihood of a material loss related to these matters to be remote.