Commitments and Contingencies | Note 5. Commitments and Contingencies For information on our commitments and contingencies, see Part II, Item 8 (Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies) of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. There have been no material changes to our commitments and contingencies, outside of the ordinary course of our business, as previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, except for “Obligations with Third-Parties” and “Litigation” as discussed below. Obligations with Third Parties We have certain non-cancelable obligations, which include obligations with third-party manufacturers who manufacture our products. We are committed to purchase $ 47.1 million of inventory as of September 30, 2022. Litigation From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. As of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 , we did no t have material accrued contingency liabilities. The following is a description of our significant legal proceedings. Although we believe that resolving these claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP in California On June 6, 2019, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of NXP Semiconductors N.V., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the Court. The original complaint alleged that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringe 26 of our U.S. patents. At the order of the Court, we filed an amended complaint limited to eight of the original 26 patents. We subsequently elected to go forward with asserting infringement of six of those eight patents. We are seeking, among other things, past damages, including lost profits, but no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for infringement of the asserted patents. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP USA making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing its UCODE 8 and UCODE 9 ICs. Defendants responded to our complaint on September 30, 2019 citing numerous defenses including denying infringement, claiming our asserted patents are invalid, and that the infringed patents were licensed on a royalty-free basis under Impinj’s commitments to GS1 EPCglobal. In February 2020, NXP filed inter partes review, or IPR, petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTAB, against 12 of the originally asserted 26 patents, including the six patents asserted in the amended complaint. In August and September of 2020, the PTAB declined to institute review of four of the six patents at issue. On October 27, 2020, we filed a second amended complaint removing without prejudice the two of the six patents against which the PTAB instituted IPRs, leaving four patents in suit. On September 24, 2020, the Court lifted the stay on two of the four patents in suit, and on July 23, 2021, the Court held a claim construction hearing for those two patents. On September 3, 2021, the Court lifted the stay on the other two of the four patents in suit, and on March 4, 2022, the Court held a claim construction hearing for those two patents. The Court has issued a schedule that provides for, among other things, a trial for all four patents in suit beginning on June 5, 2023. The Court has also scheduled a summary judgment hearing on January 31, 2023, for any summary judgment motions filed by the parties. NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj in Washington On October 4, 2019, NXP USA, Inc. and NXP B.V., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that certain of our products infringe eight U.S. patents owned by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, past damages adequate to compensate them for our alleged infringement of each of the patents-in-suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit. We have denied that we are infringing any of the patents, and we have asserted that our supplier is licensed under four of them and that all eight are invalid. On September 23, 2020, the District of Delaware granted Impinj’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. On December 11, 2020, we also moved to stay the case with respect to six of the eight patents in suit pending final resolution of petitions that we filed for IPR review by the PTAB. On February 12, 2021, the Court granted our motion to stay the case as to these six patents. The PTAB instituted IPRs on two of the six challenged patents, and ultimately issued final decisions rejecting all claims of those two patents but denied them on the other four . The Court subsequently removed the stay on the four against which IPRs were not instituted so six patents remain in suit, including three to which we claim a license through our supplier. We filed and on July 8, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted a reexamination of one of the remaining six patents and has issued an initial office action rejecting all claims. On March 9, 2021, we moved for summary judgment of noninfringement on the four patents to which we assert a license, including three of the remaining six patents. On July 28, 2021, the Court deferred ruling on our motion for summary judgment pending further discovery. On September 17, 2021, the Court struck all scheduled dates for the case pending reassignment to a new judge. On May 17, 2022, the case was reassigned to Judge John Chun. The Court held a hearing on our summary judgment motion, which pertains to three of the remaining six patents, on October 4, 2022, and also conducted a claim construction hearing on that date. The Court also issued a revised schedule that provides for, among other things, a trial date of April 10, 2023. On October 20, 2022, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment, leaving three patents remaining in suit. Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP in Texas On May 25, 2021, we filed a new patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco), asserting that NXP has infringed nine of our patents, including seven that were originally asserted in the Northern California case. We are seeking among other things, past damages, including lost profits, but no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for infringement of the asserted patents. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing its UCODE 7, 8 and 9 endpoint ICs. On July 26, 2021, NXP USA filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaimed that we infringe nine patents, one of which NXP USA owns and eight of which NXP USA recently exclusively licensed from a third party. The Court issued a claim construction order on February 10, 2022. The Court has also ordered that that the initial trial will involve three patents from each side, with up to two additional trials if necessary. The current schedule sets, among other things, a deadline of March 21, 2023, for the parties to select the first set of patents for the initial trial, with that trial to begin on September 25, 2023. On July 11, 2022, the Court granted our motion to file an amended complaint adding NXP B.V. and NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V. as defendants. In addition, we filed petitions for reexamination on five of the patents NXP asserted in its counterclaim and all five were instituted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj in China On December 7, 2020, Impinj Radio Frequency Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Impinj Shanghai, was served with patent infringement lawsuits filed in the Intellectual Property Court in Shanghai, China, or Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, in which NXP asserts that certain of our products infringe three Chinese patents owned by NXP, which closely correspond to three of the eight U.S. patents NXP has already asserted in U.S. District Court described above. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, past damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit. Impinj Shanghai objected to the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court and filed a motion to stay the proceedings. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected by the Shanghai court in March 2021; a subsequent appeal filed by Impinj Shanghai was denied before the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court in third-quarter 2021. Impinj, Inc. was formally served in July 2021, officially adding Impinj, Inc. to the suit. Impinj Shanghai also filed invalidity requests against all three Chinese patents before the China National Intellectual Property Administration, or CNIPA. In July 2021, the CNIPA issued decisions upholding the validity of the three Chinese patents. In October 2021, Impinj Shanghai filed for review of all of the CNIPA decisions by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. T rials for all three patents, originally scheduled for May 22, 2022, were deferred by the Court and no new trial date has yet been set. |