NOTE 11— COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 sought 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 is not opposing.

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.

On January 25, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), BIOLASE entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with CAO. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, CAO agreed to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuits filed by CAO against the Company in April 2012 and January 2018. In addition, CAO granted to the Company and its affiliates a non-exclusive, non-transferable (except as provided in the Settlement Agreement), royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to the licensed patents for use in the licensed products and agreed not to sue the Company, its affiliates or any of its manufacturers, distributors, suppliers or customers for use of the licensed patents in the licensed products, and the parties agreed to a mutual release of claims. The Company agreed (i) to pay to CAO, within five days of the Effective Date, $500,000 in cash, (ii) to issue to CAO, within 30 days of the Effective Date, 500,000 restricted shares of common stock of the Company (the “Stock Consideration”), and (iii) to pay to CAO, within 30 days of December 31, 2021, an amount in cash equal to the difference (if positive) between $1,000,000 and the value of the Stock Consideration on December 31, 2021. The Stock Consideration vests and becomes transferrable on December 31, 2021, subject to the terms of a restricted stock agreement to be entered into between the parties. The Company considered this a Type I subsequent event and recognized a $1.5 million contingent loss on patent litigation settlement in its statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2018. In January 2019, the Company paid CAO $500,000 in cash. On January 31, 2019, the case was dismissed with prejudice. During the three-month period ended March 31, 2019, the Company recorded an additional loss on patent litigation of $0.2 million which represented the change in fair value of the restricted stock to be issued to CAO at March 31, 2019. Subsequent to March 31,2019, the Company reversed the additional loss commensurate with the fluctuations in the Company’s share price. In August 2020, the Company signed a Letter Agreement to terminate the Manufacturing Agreement and purchase from CAO raw materials and other inventory held by CAO as part of the original Settlement Agreement. As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the accrued liability relating to this agreement was $1.0 million and is included in Other liabilities.