Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Management’s Report on Disclosure Controls

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate disclosure controls as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms and (ii) accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Our management assessed the effectiveness of our disclosure controls as of April 2, 2022. Based on this assessment and those criteria, our management believes that, as of April 2, 2022, our disclosure controls were effective.

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

During the quarter ended April 2, 2022, there have been no changes in our internal controls that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal controls over financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how

well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within Zebra have been prevented or detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Controls can also be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Projections of any evaluation of controls effectiveness to future periods are subject to risks. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures.

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

In September 2021, Honeywell filed patent infringement lawsuits against Zebra in multiple jurisdictions, including the International Trade Commission and Federal District Court in the Western District of Texas in the United States, as well as foreign courts in the United Kingdom, Germany and China. Honeywell has made substantially similar allegations of patent infringement in all cases filed. The technology addressed in the various actions generally includes aspects of data capture, barcode reading, and scanning. The allegedly infringing Zebra products identified in the actions are described as barcode scanners, mobile computers with barcode scanning capabilities, scan engines, and components thereof. The remedies sought in these lawsuits include damages and injunctive relief. The same Zebra products and technology are implicated in all of the lawsuits. Zebra is vigorously defending against these infringement allegations. In February 2022, Zebra filed patent infringement lawsuits against Honeywell in multiple jurisdictions, including the International Trade Commission and Federal District Court in the Eastern District of New York in the United States, as well as foreign courts in the United Kingdom, Germany and China. Zebra’s allegations against Honeywell in each case vary based on the underlying technology in the Zebra patent that is alleged to have been infringed by Honeywell. The technology addressed in the various actions includes scan engine functionality generally, distance scanning, power management and security. The Honeywell products that are accused of infringing Zebra’s patents in the various actions include scan engines and components thereof, barcode scanners, mobile computers, RFID printers and other wireless devices. The remedies sought in these lawsuits include damages and injunctive relief.

See Note 10, Accrued Liabilities, Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.