Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Other Claims Similar to many companies in the software industry, we are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including at times actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, employment, benefits and securities matters. At each balance sheet date, we evaluate contingent liabilities associated with these matters in accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies.” If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a liability for the estimated loss. Significant judgments are required for the determination of probability and the range of the outcomes, and estimates are based only on the best information available at the time. Due to the inherent uncertainties involved in claims and legal proceedings and in estimating losses that may arise, actual outcomes may differ from our estimates. Contingencies deemed not probable or for which losses were not estimable in one period may become probable, or losses may become estimable in later periods, which may have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. As of December 31, 2022, accrued losses were not material to our condensed consolidated financial statements, and we do not expect any pending matter to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements. City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust Action On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters’ And Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc. et al. (the "Securities Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court's selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 16, 2020 and February 4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. We intend to defend the claims vigorously. Cerence has filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Derivative Actions On May 10 and 12, 2022, respectively, plaintiffs William Shafer and Peter Morse filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Cerence Inc. against defendants (and former officers) Sanjay Dwahan and Mark J. Gallenberger as well as board members Arun Sarin, Thomas Beaudoin, Marianne Budnik, Sanjay Jha, Kristi Ann Matus, Alfred Nietzel and current CEO and board member Stefan Ortmanns. These actions contain substantially similar factual and legal contentions and, as such, on June 13, 2022, at the parties' request, the court consolidated these derivative actions into a single action (the "Consolidated Derivative Action") and appointed Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs. In addition, the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action, and the court has ordered that stay. On October 19, 2022, plaintiff Melinda Hipp filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of Cerence Inc. against the defendants named in the Consolidated Derivative Action and board member Douglas Davis. This complaint makes factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those made in the Consolidated Derivative Actions. This case has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, derivative standing and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these derivative action Guarantees and Other We include indemnification provisions in the contracts we enter with customers and business partners. Generally, these provisions require us to defend claims arising out of our products’ infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, breach of contractual obligations and/or unlawful or otherwise culpable conduct. The indemnity obligations generally cover damages, costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of such claims. In most, but not all cases, our total liability under such provisions is limited to either the value of the contract or a specified, agreed-upon amount. In some cases, our total liability under such provisions is unlimited. In many, but not all cases, the term of the indemnity provision is perpetual. While the maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under all the indemnification provisions is unlimited, we believe the estimated fair value of these provisions is minimal due to the low frequency with which these provisions have been triggered. We indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, which provides among other things, indemnification to directors and officers for expenses, judgments, fines, penalties and settlement amounts incurred by such persons in their capacity as a director or officer of the Company, regardless of whether the individual is serving in any such capacity at the time the liability or expense is incurred. Additionally, in connection with certain acquisitions, we agreed to indemnify the former officers and members of the boards of directors of those companies, on similar terms as described above, for a period of six years from the acquisition date. In certain cases, we purchase director and officer insurance policies related to these obligations, which fully cover the six-year period. To the extent that we do not purchase a director and officer insurance policy for the full period of any contractual indemnification, and such directors and officers do not have coverage under separate insurance policies, we would be required to pay for costs incurred, if any, as described above. As of December 31, 2022, we have a $0.9 million letter of credit that is used as a security deposit in connection with our leased Bellevue, Washington office space. In the event of default on the underlying lease, the landlord would be eligible to draw against the letter of credit. The letter of credit is subject to aggregate reductions, provided that we are not in default under the underlying lease. We also have letters of credit in connection with security deposits for other facility leases totaling $0.5 million in the aggregate. These letters of credit have various terms and expire during fiscal year 2023 and beyond, while some of the letters of credit may automatically renew based on the terms of the underlying agreements.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and Other Claims

Similar to many companies in the software industry, we are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including at times actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, employment, benefits and securities matters. At each balance sheet date, we evaluate contingent liabilities associated with these matters in accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies.” If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a liability for the estimated loss. Significant judgments are required for the determination of probability and the range of the outcomes, and estimates are based only on the best information available at the time. Due to the inherent uncertainties involved in claims and legal proceedings and in estimating losses that may arise, actual outcomes may differ from our estimates. Contingencies deemed not probable or for which losses were not estimable in one period may become probable, or losses may become estimable in later periods, which may have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. As of December 31, 2022, accrued losses were not material to our condensed consolidated financial statements, and we do not expect any pending matter to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust Action

On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters’ And Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc. et al. (the "Securities Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court's selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 16, 2020 and February 4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. We intend to defend the claims vigorously. Cerence has filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Derivative Actions

On May 10 and 12, 2022, respectively, plaintiffs William Shafer and Peter Morse filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Cerence Inc. against defendants (and former officers) Sanjay Dwahan and Mark J. Gallenberger as well as board members Arun Sarin, Thomas Beaudoin, Marianne Budnik, Sanjay Jha, Kristi Ann Matus, Alfred Nietzel and current CEO and board member Stefan Ortmanns. These actions contain substantially similar factual and legal contentions and, as such, on June 13, 2022, at the parties' request, the court consolidated these derivative actions into a single action (the "Consolidated Derivative Action") and appointed Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs. In addition, the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action, and the court has ordered that stay.

On October 19, 2022, plaintiff Melinda Hipp filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of Cerence Inc. against the defendants named in the Consolidated Derivative Action and board member Douglas Davis. This complaint makes factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those made in the Consolidated Derivative Actions. This case has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action.

Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, derivative standing and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these derivative action

Guarantees and Other

We include indemnification provisions in the contracts we enter with customers and business partners. Generally, these provisions require us to defend claims arising out of our products’ infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, breach of contractual obligations and/or unlawful or otherwise culpable conduct. The indemnity obligations generally cover damages, costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of such claims. In most, but not all cases, our total liability under such provisions is limited to either the value of the contract or a specified, agreed-upon amount. In some cases, our total liability under such provisions is unlimited. In many, but not all cases, the term of the indemnity provision is perpetual. While the maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under all the indemnification provisions is unlimited, we believe the estimated fair value of these provisions is minimal due to the low frequency with which these provisions have been triggered.

We indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, which provides among other things, indemnification to directors and officers for expenses, judgments, fines, penalties and settlement amounts incurred by such persons in their capacity as a director or officer of the Company, regardless of whether the individual is serving in any such capacity at the time the liability or expense is incurred. Additionally, in connection with certain acquisitions, we agreed to indemnify the former officers and members of the boards of directors of those companies, on similar terms as described above, for a period of six years from the acquisition date. In certain cases, we purchase director and officer insurance policies related to these obligations, which fully cover the six-year period. To the extent that we do not purchase a director and officer insurance policy for the full period of any contractual indemnification, and such directors and officers do not have coverage under separate insurance policies, we would be required to pay for costs incurred, if any, as described above.

As of December 31, 2022, we have a $0.9 million letter of credit that is used as a security deposit in connection with our leased Bellevue, Washington office space. In the event of default on the underlying lease, the landlord would be eligible to draw against the letter of credit. The letter of credit is subject to aggregate reductions, provided that we are not in default under the underlying lease. We also have letters of credit in connection with security deposits for other facility leases totaling $0.5 million in the aggregate. These letters of credit have various terms and expire during fiscal year 2023 and beyond, while some of the letters of credit may automatically renew based on the terms of the underlying agreements.