Commitments and Contingencies
|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 31, 2017
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
NOTE 8—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company leases its 57,000 square foot corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility located at 4 Cromwell, Irvine, California. In March 2015, the corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility lease was amended to extend the term through April 30, 2020, modify provisions for a tenant improvement allowance of up to $398,000, and adjust the basic rent terms. Future minimum rental commitments under operating lease agreements with non-cancelable terms greater than one year for the years ending December 31 are listed below. The Company also leases certain office equipment and automobiles under various operating lease arrangements.
In February 2015, the Company entered into a 30-month capital lease agreement for information technology equipment. Future minimum lease payments (using a 1.6% interest rate) under the capital lease, together with the present value of the net minimum lease payments, for the year ending December 31, 2017 is $117,000. The current obligation with respect to the present value of net minimum lease payments of $117,000 is reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets classified as an accrued liability, and there was no remaining portion of the present value of net minimum lease payments classified as a long-term obligation within capital lease obligations as of March 31, 2017.
Future minimum rental commitments under lease agreements, including both operating and capital leases (principle and interest), with non-cancelable terms greater than one year for each of the years ending December 31 are as follows (in thousands):
Employee arrangements and other compensation
Certain members of management are entitled to severance benefits payable upon termination following a change in control, which would approximate $1.8 million, in the aggregate, at March 31, 2017. The Company also has agreements with certain employees to pay bonuses based on targeted performance criteria. As of March 31, 2017, approximately $67,000 was accrued for performance bonuses, which is included in accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The Company generally purchases components and subassemblies for its products from a limited group of third-party suppliers through purchase orders. As of March 31, 2017, the Company had $15.2 million of purchase commitments for which the Company has not received certain goods or services that are expected to be purchased within one year. These purchase commitments were made to secure better pricing and to ensure the Company will have the necessary parts to meet anticipated near-term demand. Although open purchase orders are considered enforceable and legally binding, the Company may be able to cancel, reschedule or adjust requirements prior to supplier fulfillment.
The Company discloses material loss contingencies deemed to be reasonably possible and accrues for loss contingencies when, in consultation with its legal advisors, management concludes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates, and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management’s estimates.
Intellectual Property Litigation
On April 24, 2012, CAO Group, Inc. (“CAO”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the District of Utah for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,485,116 (the “116 Patent”) regarding the Company’s ezlase dental laser. On September 9, 2012, CAO filed its First Amended Complaint, which added claims for (1) business disparagement/injurious falsehood under common law and (2) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a). The additional claims stem from a press release that the Company issued on April 30, 2012, which CAO claims contained false statements that are disparaging to CAO and its diode product. The First Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and interest. On November 13, 2012, the Court stayed the lawsuit for 120 days to allow the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) to consider the Company’s request for reexamination of the patent-in-suit. The USPTO granted the request to reexamine the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit and on February 28, 2013, the Court stayed the lawsuit until the termination of the reexamination proceedings. On April 23, 2013, the USPTO issued an office action rejecting all of the asserted claims over the prior art, and CAO responded to the office action. On August 28, 2013, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Procedure, rejecting all of CAO’s patent claims. CAO responded to the USPTO’s ruling and on December 10, 2013, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice, finally rejecting some claims of the 116 Patent while finding that other claims appeared to be patentable. The Company appealed the USPTO’s findings on January 9, 2014 and on January 27, 2014, the USPTO declined to reconsider the finding of certain claims as patentable and instructed the parties to proceed to appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Patent Board”). On March 17, 2014, the Company filed its brief in support of its appeal of the USPTO’s decision not to reject certain claims of the 116 Patent. On March 24, 2014, CAO filed its brief in support of its appeal of the USPTO’s decision to reject certain claims of the 116 patent. On April 18, 2014, the Company filed a respondent brief in opposition to the CAO’s appeal arguments. On May 30, 2014, both parties filed rebuttal briefs in support of their appeals. On June 30, 2014, the Company requested an oral hearing before the Patent Board. On July 1, 2014, the Patent Board noted that request and docketed the case for consideration. A hearing on reconsideration was held in November 2014. On July 1, 2015, the Patent Board issued a decision that was generally favorable to the Company. On July 31, 2015, CAO requested a rehearing of the decision. On November 27, 2015, the Patent Board issued its decision regarding CAO’s request for rehearing, partially granting CAO’s request. On January 27, 2016, CAO filed its Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for review of the Patent Board’s decision dated July 1, 2015 and the Patent Board’s decision regarding CAO’s request for rehearing. CAO filed its opening appeal brief on June 1, 2016, and BIOLASE filed its responsive brief on July 25, 2016. CAO filed its reply brief on August 11, 2016. Oral argument before the Federal Circuit was held on January 11, 2017 and, on January 27, 2017, an order was entered by the Federal Circuit affirming all of the Patent Board’s findings. On February 9, 2017, the parties jointly filed a document with the court in the Utah litigation notifying it of the Federal Circuit’s decision and requesting that the stay remain in place until a reexamination certificate issues. The reexamination certificate is expected to issue in the next few months.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef