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, 2020. 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, 2020, 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 $14.9 million of inventory as of June 30, 2021. 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 June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, 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. New York State Securities Class Action As previously disclosed, a consolidated federal securities class action was filed in 2018 and was settled and dismissed in 2020. On January 31, 2019, a related 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. 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 November 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order finally approving the settlement, and the action pending in Washington federal court has been dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties in this action filed stipulation discontinuing this action with prejudice. On April 28, 2021, after a long delay due to the impact of Covid-19 on the New York State court, the court signed and entered the stipulation discontinuing the action with prejudice. The matter is now closed. 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. On February 26, 2021, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On May 11, 2021, the court held a final approval hearing. The court has not yet entered a final order with respect to the proposed settlement. 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., 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 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 endpoint IC 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 July 23, 2021 (extended by the Court from March 24, 2021). Also, on October 22, 2020, the Court continued the stay on infringement claims for two additional patents pending determinations on IPRs and on two allegedly related patents. On October 27, 2020, we removed without prejudice the two patents against which the PTAB instituted IPRs by filing a second amended complaint, and, on January 5, 2021 we stipulated to dismiss the two of the eight patents that we had elected not to go forward with. NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj in Washington 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 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. On December 3, 2020, we moved to amend our answer to include counterclaims that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringe eight of our U.S. patents, all of which were initially included in our California litigation and are therefore beyond the statutory period for any further IPR review at the PTAB. 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 denied our motion to amend our answer to include counterclaims but granted our motion to stay the case as to the six patents with respect to which we filed for IPR review. On February 25, 2021, the Court entered a case schedule setting initial contentions and claim construction deadlines, including a claim construction hearing for October 12, 2021 on the two remaining patents. On March 9, 2021, we moved for summary judgment of noninfringement on the four patents to which we assert a license, including the two patents that were not subject to a stay. That motion was fully briefed and is pending. The PTAB instituted IPRs on two of the six challenged patents but denied them on the other four. A motion for re-hearing is pending on one of the four. The Court subsequently removed the stay on four. The current schedule contemplates a claim construction hearing on August 12, 2021, and trial on June 13, 2022. Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP in Texas On May 25, 2021, we filed a new patent infringement lawsuit against NXP 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. There is no other schedule yet in the case. On July 26, 2021, NXP filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaimed that we infringe nine patents, one of which NXP owns and eight of which NXP exclusively licensed. 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 is pending before the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court. 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. Impinj Shanghai retains the option to file for review of some or all of the CNIPA decisions by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. |