NOTE 10—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

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 $0.4 million, 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. In February 2018, the Company extended the agreement for information technology equipment for an additional lease term of 18 months. In accordance with relevant accounting guidance, the renewal of this lease constituted a new lease and is classified by the Company as an operating lease.

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 $1.7 million, in the aggregate, at March 31, 2018. The Company also has agreements with certain employees to pay bonuses based on targeted performance criteria. As of March 31, 2018, approximately $0.1 million was accrued for performance bonuses, which is included in accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Purchase commitments

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, 2018, the Company had $13.2 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.

Litigation

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 BIOLASE in the District of Utah alleging that BIOLASE’s ezlase dental laser infringes on U.S. Patent No. 7,485,116 (the “116 Patent”). On September 9, 2012, CAO amended its complaint, adding 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 BIOLASE issued on April 30, 2012, which CAO claims contained false statements that are disparaging to CAO and its diode product. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and interest. Until January 24, 2018, this lawsuit was stayed in connection with United States Patent and Trademark Office proceedings relating to the 116 Patent, which proceedings ultimately culminated in a January 27, 2017 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming the findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which were generally favorable to the Company.  On January 25, 2018, CAO moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to add certain claims, which filing the Company did not oppose. The Utah matter has since been transferred to the Central District of California and the two matters have been consolidated with the matter described below.

On January 23, 2018, CAO filed a lawsuit against BIOLASE in the Central District of California alleging that BIOLASE’s diode lasers infringe on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,337,097, 8,834,497, 8,961,040 and 8,967,883. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and interest.