Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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 June 30, 2026, 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. A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena and Carlos Pena Action On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence’s Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence’s Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative defenses, a motion to certify the Court’s order on Cerence’s motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay. Thereafter, in exchange for Cerence withdrawing its motions to certify and stay, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both the Circuit Court and Federal Court, which 1) dismissed some plaintiffs and 2) amended the class definition to include Illinois individuals who owned, leased, and/or created user profiles for vehicles with Cerence’s “voice recognition technology” (rather than anyone in Illinois whose “voiceprint” was collected or stored by Cerence). Cerence filed its answers in both and the parties concluded fact discovery. On June 1, 2026, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay that action pending the Circuit Court proceedings. On July 17, 2026, the Circuit Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Additional pending motions include: (i) Cerence’s summary judgment motion as to plaintiff Vincenzo Allan; (ii) Cerence’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ class certification expert (denied by the Circuit Court; federal ruling pending); (iii) plaintiffs' motion for class certification (denied by the Circuit Court; federal ruling pending); and (iv) plaintiffs' motion to strike Cerence's witness declaration (denied by the federal court Magistrate Judge, plaintiffs' objections to that denial and Circuit Court ruling pending). Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. 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. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. On October 13, 2023, Cerence filed its first patent infringement complaint against Samsung alleging infringement of five Cerence patents (“Samsung I”). On March 15, 2024, Cerence filed its second patent infringement complaint against Samsung alleging infringement of four additional Cerence patents (“Samsung II”). In its responsive pleading to Samsung II on July 10, 2024, Samsung asserted counterclaims, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,395,657; 10,720,162; 11,823,682; and 9,583,103 against the Cerence Assistant. Samsung sought damages, including trebled damages, and its costs and fees. On October 28, 2025, Samsung and Cerence resolved these disputes by entering into a cross-license agreement, which, among other things, resulted in Samsung agreeing to pay Cerence a one-time lump sum payment in the total amount of $49.5 million, which payment was received, net of tax, during the three months ended December 31, 2025. The lump-sum payment represents fixed consideration for a right-to-use intellectual property license. The related performance obligation was satisfied upon execution of the cross-license agreement. Accordingly, the full amount was recognized as license revenue during the three months ended December 31, 2025, consistent with the Company’s revenue recognition policy (see Note 3) and ASC 606. The cross-license agreement requires that each party is responsible for bearing their own costs for any associated legal fees incurred as a result of the alleged complaints and negotiations resulting in the dispute resolution. As a result, our final receipt of the one-time lump-sum payment resulted in us incurring approximately $20.7 million in legal fees, included in General and administrative expenses, which were paid in full during the three months ended December 31, 2025. 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 June 30, 2026, our letters of credit in connection with security deposits for facility leases totaled $0.6 million in the aggregate. These letters of credit have various terms and expiration dates that align with the underlying facilities for which they relate.

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 June 30, 2026, 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.

On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence’s Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence’s Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative defenses, a motion to certify the Court’s order on Cerence’s motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay. Thereafter, in exchange for Cerence withdrawing its motions to certify and stay, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both the Circuit Court and Federal Court, which 1) dismissed some plaintiffs and 2) amended the class definition to include Illinois individuals who owned, leased, and/or created user profiles for vehicles with Cerence’s “voice recognition technology” (rather than anyone in Illinois whose “voiceprint” was collected or stored by Cerence). Cerence filed its answers in both and the parties concluded fact discovery. On June 1, 2026, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay that action pending the Circuit Court proceedings. On July 17, 2026, the Circuit Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Additional pending motions include: (i) Cerence’s summary judgment motion as to plaintiff Vincenzo Allan; (ii) Cerence’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ class certification expert (denied by the Circuit Court; federal ruling pending); (iii) plaintiffs' motion for class certification (denied by the Circuit Court; federal ruling pending); and (iv) plaintiffs' motion to strike Cerence's witness declaration (denied by the federal court Magistrate Judge, plaintiffs' objections to that denial and Circuit Court ruling pending). Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. 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.

complaint against Samsung alleging infringement of four additional Cerence patents (“Samsung II”). In its responsive pleading to Samsung II on July 10, 2024, Samsung asserted counterclaims, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,395,657; 10,720,162; 11,823,682; and 9,583,103 against the Cerence Assistant. Samsung sought damages, including trebled damages, and its costs and fees. On October 28, 2025, Samsung and Cerence resolved these disputes by entering into a cross-license agreement, which, among other things, resulted in Samsung agreeing to pay Cerence a one-time lump sum payment in the total amount of $49.5 million, which payment was received, net of tax, during the three months ended December 31, 2025. The lump-sum payment represents fixed consideration for a right-to-use intellectual property license. The related performance obligation was satisfied upon execution of the cross-license agreement. Accordingly, the full amount was recognized as license revenue during the three months ended December 31, 2025, consistent with the Company’s revenue recognition policy (see Note 3) and ASC 606. The cross-license agreement requires that each party is responsible for bearing their own costs for any associated legal fees incurred as a result of the alleged complaints and negotiations resulting in the dispute resolution. As a result, our final receipt of the one-time lump-sum payment resulted in us incurring approximately $20.7 million in legal fees, included in General and administrative expenses, which were paid in full during the three months ended December 31, 2025.

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.