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, 2019. 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, 2019, 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 $8.3 million of inventory as of September 30, 2020. 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. For the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we recorded $5.4 million of our estimated settlement of the federal securities class action to general and administrative expenses described further below. As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we did not have 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. Federal Securities Class Actions On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us, our chief executive officer and former chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, we made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of our products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. On March 19, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against our former chief operating officer, dismissed product-capability-related allegations against our former chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to first-quarter 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants. On July 9, 2020, following a private settlement mediation with the lead plaintiff in the federal securities class actions and plaintiff in the New York State securities class action discussed below, the parties in both actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims asserted in both actions. The settlement provided for a payment to the plaintiff class of $20.0 million. Our insurers contributed $14.6 million to the settlement, and we contributed the remaining settlement amount of $5.4 million. Accordingly, we recorded a provision of $5.4 million related to our estimated settlement amount to general and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2020, which was paid during the three months ended September 30, 2020. On July 29, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, and set a final settlement approval hearing for November 19, 2020. New York State Securities Class Action On January 31, 2019, a fourth class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer, members of our board of directors and the underwriters of our July 2016 initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO. Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al. As discussed above in connection with the Federal Securities Class Action, on July 9, 2020, the parties in both this action and the federal securities class actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims in both actions. On July 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, and set a final settlement approval hearing for November 19, 2020. Once the settlement is finally approved by the federal court, plaintiffs will dismiss this action with prejudice. Shareholder Derivative Actions On October 26, 2018, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer and certain of our directors. We were a nominal defendant. On November 8, 2018, a third shareholder derivative action was filed in this same court against the same defendants. Captioned Weiss v. Diorio, et al Fotouhi v. Diorio, et al and De la Fuente v. Diorio, et al. On July 10, 2020, following a private settlement mediation, the parties in this action executed a stipulation of settlement to settle and resolve the claims asserted in this consolidated derivative action. The settlement required us to implement certain corporate governance changes and the payment of up to $900,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses. Our insurers have agreed to contribute up to $900,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and, following notice to shareholders, final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On August 5, 2020, at the court’s request, the parties filed supplemental briefing in respect of their joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has not yet entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims Patent Infringement Claims On June 6, 2019, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of NXP Semiconductors N.V., or NXP, 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 infringed and continue to 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 making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing the RAIN RFID integrated circuit product NXP introduced in 2017. 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 On September 24, 2020, the Court lifted the stay on two of the patents in suit, and based on a schedule set by the Court on October 22, 2020, the case is proceeding with a claim construction hearing scheduled for March 24, 2021. Also on October 22, 2020, the Court continued the stay on infringement claims on two additional patents pending determinations on IPRs on two allegedly related patents not at issue, and we removed without prejudice the two patents against which the PTAB instituted IPRs. Patent Infringement Counterclaims On October 4, 2019, NXP USA, Inc. and NXP, 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 infringed and continue to infringe eight U.S. patents owned by NXP or NXP USA, Inc. 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 we are licensed under four of them and that all eight are invalid. We have also filed IPR petitions with the PTAB against six of the eight patents. 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. As of the date of this report, there is no schedule in this case. |