NOTE 9—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases its corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility in Irvine, California and also leases certain other facilities, office equipment, and automobiles under various operating lease arrangements. Future minimum rental commitments under operating lease agreements with non-cancelable terms greater than one year for the years ending December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 and thereafter, is $400,000, $659,000, $192,000, and $0, respectively.

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 $958,000 at June 30, 2013. The Company also has agreements with certain employees to pay bonuses based on targeted performance criteria. No amount was required to be accrued at June 30, 2013.

Purchase Commitments

The Company generally purchases components and subassemblies for its products from a limited group of third party suppliers through purchase orders. The Company had $13.0 million of purchase commitments as of June 30, 2013, for which the Company has not received the goods or services and which is 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.

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 the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,485,116 involving the Company’s ezLase diode laser. On September 12, 2012, CAO filed a First Amended Complaint, which added claims for (1) business disparagement/injurious falsehood and (2) unfair competition. The new claims are based on a press release that the Company issued on or about April 30, 2012, which CAO alleges contain statements that are factually inaccurate and falsities that are disparaging to CAO and its diode product. The First Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. On September 14, 2012, the Company filed an inter partes reexamination request with respect to the asserted patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Court then entered a stay of the lawsuit pending the request for reexamination, which reexamination request was subsequently granted. The USPTO issued an office action in a reexamination proceeding rejecting all of the claims of CAO that were subject to reexamination. Because all of the pertinent patent claims being asserted by CAO against the Company in the lawsuit have been reexamined by the USPTO, the District Court has stayed CAO’s lawsuit pending the final outcome of the reexamination. Management plans to vigorously defend against the allegations.

Other Matters

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings, lawsuits, and other claims. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of probable monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters is subject to many uncertainties and is therefore not predictable with assurance, the Company’s management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters, individually and in the aggregate, would not be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from those projected.