Commitments and Contingencies (Notes) | 6 Months Ended |
Jun. 30, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Litigation |
IP Matters |
Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. On February 22, 2011, Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. (“Bear Creek”) filed a lawsuit against Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., Vonage Marketing LLC, and Aptela Inc. (a subsidiary of Vocalocity, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company which was acquired on November 15, 2013 pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 9, 2013) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk Division) alleging that Vonage’s and Aptela’s products and services are covered by United States Patent No. 7,889,722, entitled “System for Interconnecting Standard Telephony Communications Equipment to Internet Protocol Networks” (the “722 Patent”). The suit also named numerous other defendants, including Verizon Communications, Inc., Comcast Corporation, Time-Warner Cable, Inc., AT&T, Inc., and T-Mobile USA Inc. On August 17, 2011, the Court dismissed Bear Creek’s case against the Vonage entities and Aptela, as well as all the other defendants, except for one defendant. Later, on August 17, 2011, Bear Creek re-filed its complaint concerning the ‘722 Patent in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the same Vonage entities; and also re-filed a separate complaint concerning the ‘722 Patent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Aptela. In each complaint, Bear Creek alleges that Vonage and Aptela, respectively, are infringing one or more claims of the ‘722 Patent. In addition, Bear Creek alleges that each party is contributing to and inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ‘722 Patent. On January 25, 2012, Bear Creek filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to transfer and consolidate its litigations against Vonage and Aptela with twelve other separate actions Bear Creek filed in the U.S. District Courts for Delaware and the Eastern District of Virginia. On May 2, 2012, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel granted Bear Creek’s motion and ordered the coordination or consolidation for pretrial proceedings of all fourteen actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On October 11, 2012, Vonage filed an answer to Bear Creek’s complaint, including counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘722 patent. Aptela, which filed a motion to dismiss Bear Creek’s complaint on September 27, 2011, has not yet answered, as its motion remains pending and awaiting disposition by the court. On November 5, 2012, Bear Creek filed an answer to Vonage’s counterclaims. On March 1, 2013, several defendants including Vonage moved the Court to stay the case pending resolution of the reexamination of the ‘722 patent requested by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) as described below; the motion was granted on July 17, 2013, and the case is now stayed pending the resolution of the reexamination. On November 8, 2013, the Court granted Bear Creek’s request to terminate and substitute counsel representing it in the litigation. |
A request for reexamination of the ‘722 Patent was filed on September 12, 2012 by Cisco, challenging the validity of the ‘722 Patent. Cisco’s request was granted by the USPTO on November 28, 2012. On March 24, 2014, the Patent Office issued an Action Closing Prosecution, confirming its rejection of all claims of the ‘722 patent on multiple independent grounds. Bear Creek filed comments to the Action Closing Prosecution on April 24, 2014. Cisco filed responsive comments on May 22, 2014. |
OpinionLab, Inc. On July 18, 2012, OpinionLab, Inc. (“OpinionLab”) filed a lawsuit against IPerceptions, Inc. and IPerceptions US, Inc. (collectively, “IPerceptions”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) alleging claims of patent infringement, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with business expectancy. On August 16, 2012, OpinionLab filed an amended complaint, adding Vonage Marketing LLC and Vonage Holdings Corp. as defendants, and alleging that Vonage’s products and services are covered by United States Patent Nos. 6,421,724, 6,606,581, 6,928,392, 7,085,820, 7,370,285, 8,024,668, and 8,041,805. OpinionLab alleged direct, indirect and willful infringement by Vonage. IPerceptions, the supplier to Vonage of the accused product in this lawsuit, has agreed to fully defend and indemnify Vonage in this lawsuit. On September 11, 2012, IPerceptions and Vonage each moved to dismiss OpinionLab’s indirect and willful patent infringement claims. The motions were denied on November 8, 2012. Vonage answered the complaint on December 7, 2012. On July 11, 2013, the Court issued an order setting the case schedule. On September 6, 2013, OpinionLab filed a second amended complaint, which defendants answered on September 23, 2013. On October 14, 2013, OpinionLab made an unopposed motion to consolidate the case for pre-trial purposes with Case No. 13-CV-1574, OpinionLab, Inc. v. Qualtrics Labs, Inc., currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The motion was granted October 17, 2013. On February 14, 2014, defendants Vonage and iPerceptions moved to stay the case pending inter partes reviews requested by Qualtrics as to the ‘724, ‘581, ’820, ‘285, ‘668 and ‘805 patents. |
RPost Holdings, Inc. On August 24, 2012, RPost Holdings, Inc., RPost Communications Limited, and RMail Limited (collectively, “RPost”) filed a lawsuit against StrongMail Systems, Inc. (“StrongMail”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) alleging that StrongMail’s products and services, including its electronic mail marketing services, are covered by United States Patent Nos. 8,224,913, 8,209,389, 8,161,104, 7,966,372, and 6,182,219. On January 16, 2013, StrongMail moved the Court to transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the Northern District of California. That motion was denied by the Court on August 19, 2013. On February 11, 2013, RPost filed an amended complaint, adding 27 new defendants, including Vonage America Inc. RPost’s amended complaint alleges willful infringement of the RPost patents by Vonage and each of the other new defendants because they are customers of StrongMail. StrongMail has agreed to fully defend and indemnify Vonage in this lawsuit. Vonage answered the complaint on May 7, 2013. On January 30, 2014, RPost informed the Court that it is ready for a scheduling conference; the Court has not yet scheduled a conference. |
Straight Path IP Group Inc. On November 4, 2013, Straight Path IP Group Inc. (“Straight Path”), a subsidiary of Straight Path Communications Inc., filed a lawsuit against Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., and Vonage Marketing LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk Division) alleging that Vonage’s products and services are covered by United States Patent Nos. 6,009,469, 6,131,121, 6,513,066, and 6,701,365. Straight Path alleged direct and indirect infringement by Vonage. On December 20, 2013, Vonage moved to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey and that motion was granted by the court on January 17, 2014. On December 30, 2013, Vonage answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss Straight Path’s claims for induced and contributory infringement. In response, Straight Path amended its complaint on January 7, 2014. On February 7, 2014, Vonage answered the amended complaint and moved to dismiss Straight Path's claims for indirect infringement. On March 26, 2014, the Court granted Vonage’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing Straight Path’s induced and contributory infringement claims without prejudice. Straight Path filed a second amended complaint on April 23, 2014. Vonage answered the second amended complaint on May 27, 2014 and again moved to dismiss Straight Path’s amended claims for indirect infringement. On July 7, 2014, the Court granted Vonage’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, this time dismissing Straight Path’s induced and contributory infringement claims with prejudice. |
Previously, on August 2, 2013, Straight Path filed a lawsuit against Vocalocity, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division) alleging that Vocalocity’s products and services are covered by the ‘066 and ‘365 patents. On September 11, 2013, the lawsuit was ordered consolidated with two other lawsuits by Straight Path filed in early August 2013 against Bandwidth.com, Inc. and Telesphere Networks Ltd., relating to the same patents. Pursuant to a settlement agreement entered between Straight Path and Vocalocity, on June 19, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims asserted in the case. The Court granted the joint motion on July 2, 2014, dismissing the case in its entirety. The costs associated with the litigation, including the settlement, are fully-indemnified under the terms of the acquisition of Vocalocity. |
AIP Acquisition LLC. On January 3, 2014, AIP Acquisition LLC (“AIP”), filed a lawsuit against Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., and Vonage Marketing LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Norfolk Division) alleging that Vonage’s products and services are covered by United States Patent No. 7,269,247. Vonage filed an answer and counterclaims on February 25, 2014. AIP filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2014, which Vonage answered on April 4, 2014. On April 8, 2014, the Court ordered a stay of the case pending final resolution of non-party Level 3’s inter partes review request of United States Patent No. 7,724,879, which is a continuation of the ‘247 patent. |
Spansion. On April 28, 2014, Spansion LLC (“Spansion”), filed a lawsuit against Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., Vonage Marketing LLC, and 20 other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Macronix’s flash memory chips and products containing those chips, including Vonage analog telephone adapter products, each are covered by one or more Spansion patents. On April 29, 2014, Spansion filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission containing substantially similar allegations, requesting that the ITC institute an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against the respondents, including Vonage. Spansion’s complaints allege that Vonage’s telephone adapters are covered by United States Patent No. 6,246,611. Macronix has agreed to fully defend and indemnify Vonage in the district court and ITC proceedings. On June 25, 2014, the Northern District granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of the ITC case. On June 30, 2014, Vonage responded to the ITC complaint. |
Commercial Litigation |
Merkin & Smith, et als. On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that Vonage violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On February 4, 2014, the Court denied Vonage’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the decision denying Vonage’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March 6, 2014, Vonage moved to stay the district court proceedings pending its appeal; the Court granted Vonage’s stay motion on March 26, 2014. Vonage’s appellate brief is due on September 24, 2014. |
From time to time, in addition to those identified above, we are subject to legal proceedings, claims, investigations, and proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third-party patents and other intellectual property rights, commercial, employment, and other matters. From time to time we receive letters or other communications from third parties inviting us to obtain patent licenses that might be relevant to our business or alleging that our services infringe upon third party patents or other intellectual property. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, we make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions, if any, are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. We believe that we have valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against us and are vigorously defending these matters. Given the uncertainty surrounding litigation and our inability to assess the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in the above noted matters and our inability to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, it is possible that the resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations. |
Regulation |
Telephony services are subject to a broad spectrum of state and federal regulations. Because of the uncertainty over whether Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) should be treated as a telecommunications or information service, we have been involved in a substantial amount of state and federal regulatory activity. Implementation and interpretation of the existing laws and regulations is ongoing and is subject to litigation by various federal and state agencies and courts. Due to the uncertainty over the regulatory classification of VoIP service, there can be no assurance that we will not be subject to new regulations or existing regulations under new interpretations, and that such change would not introduce material additional costs to our business. |
Federal - Net Neutrality |
Clear and enforceable net neutrality rules would make it more difficult for broadband Internet service providers to block or discriminate against Vonage service. Also explicitly applying net neutrality rules to wireless broadband Internet service could create greater opportunities for VoIP applications that run on wireless broadband Internet service. In October 2009, the FCC proposed the adoption of enforceable net neutrality rules for both wired and wireless broadband Internet service providers. The proposed rules would prohibit wired and wireless broadband Internet service providers from blocking or hindering lawful content, applications, or services and from unreasonably discriminating when transmitting lawful network traffic. In addition, broadband Internet service providers would have to publicly disclose certain information about their network management practices. In December 2010, the FCC adopted enforceable net neutrality rules based on its October 2009 proposal. All of the proposed rules in the October 2009 proposal applied to wired broadband Internet providers. The FCC applied some but not all of the proposed rules to wireless broadband service. Wireless broadband Internet services providers are prohibited from blocking or hindering voice or video applications that compete with the broadband Internet service provider's voice or video services. Wireless providers are also subject to transparency requirements, but they are not subject to the prohibition on unreasonable discrimination that applies to wired broadband Internet services providers. A number of parties filed appeals of the rules. On January 14, 2014, the D.C. Circuit vacated the anti-blocking and the unreasonable discrimination provisions of the rules. The D.C. Circuit decision did not foreclose the FCC from adopting anti-blocking or non-discrimination rules. On February 19, 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced that the FCC would not appeal the D.C. Circuit decision, electing to pursue restoration of the vacated provisions using the authority that the FCC has over broadband services, as recognized by the D.C. Circuit. The FCC adopted a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on net neutrality rules at its May 15, 2014 meeting. Opening comments on the NPRM were due July 18, 2014 and reply comments are due September 10, 2014. |
Federal - Intercarrier Compensation |
On February 9, 2011, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on reforming universal service and the intercarrier compensation (“ICC”) system that governs payments between telecommunications carriers primarily for terminating traffic. In particular, the FCC indicated that it has never determined the ICC obligations for VoIP service and sought comment on a number of proposals for how VoIP should be treated in the ICC system. The FCC's adoption of an ICC proposal will impact Vonage's costs for telecommunications services. On October 27, 2011, the FCC adopted an order reforming universal service and ICC. The FCC order provides that VoIP originated calls will be subject to interstate access charges for long distance calls and reciprocal compensation for local calls that terminate to the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”). It also subjected PSTN originated traffic directed to VoIP subscribers to similar ICC obligations. The termination charges for all traffic, including VoIP originated traffic, will transition over several years to a bill and keep arrangement (i.e., no termination charges). Numerous parties filed appeals of the FCC order in multiple federal circuit courts of appeal. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was selected by lottery to decide the appeals. On May 23, 2014, the 10th Circuit upheld the FCC’s order. |
Federal - Universal Service Contribution Reform |
On April 30, 2012, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on reforming federal universal service fund (“USF”) contributions. Currently USF contributions are assessed on the interstate and international revenue of traditional telephone carriers and interconnected VoIP providers like Vonage. The level of USF assessments on these providers has been going up over time because of decreases in the revenue subject to assessment due to substitution of non-assessable services such as non-interconnected VoIP services. If the FCC does reform USF contributions, it is likely that Vonage's contribution burden will decline. |
Federal - Rural Call Completion Issues |
On February 7, 2013, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on rural call completion issues. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed new detailed reporting requirements to gauge rural call completion performance. Rural carriers have argued that VoIP provider call completion performance to rural areas is generally poor. On October 28, 2013, the FCC adopted an order on rural call completion that imposes new reporting obligations and restricts certain call signaling practices. The call signaling rules went into effect on January 31, 2014. We filed for extensions that the FCC granted on January 30, 2014 and February 28, 2014 and as of April 17, 2014, we are compliant with the new FCC call signaling rules. We could be subject to an FCC enforcement action in the future in the event the FCC took the position that our rural call completion performance is inadequate or we were not compliant with the FCC’s order. |
Federal - Numbering Rights |
On April 18, 2013, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposing to modify FCC rules to allow VoIP providers to directly access telephone numbers. In addition, the FCC granted a waiver from its existing rules to allow Vonage to conduct a trial of direct access to telephone numbers. The trial would allow the FCC to obtain real-world data on direct access to telephone numbers by VoIP providers to inform consideration of the NPRM. Direct access to telephone numbers would facilitate IP to IP interconnection, which may allow VoIP providers to provide higher quality, lower cost services, promote the deployment of innovative new voice services, and experience reductions in the cost of telephony services. Vonage successfully completed the trial in certain markets and filed the required reports on the trial with the FCC. On January 31, 2014, the FCC Wireline Competition Bureau issued a positive report on the trial, concluding that Vonage's successful trial confirmed the technical feasibility of interconnected VoIP providers obtaining telephone numbers directly from the numbering administrators. Given the positive report, the FCC may adopt its proposed rule to allow VoIP providers to directly access telephone numbers. |
Pakistan Termination Rate Increase |
On October 1, 2012, Pakistani carriers formed the International Clearing House (ICH). This cartel subsequently took action to increase the cost to terminate international calls to Pakistan by approximately 500 percent. As a result of the implementation of higher termination costs, Vonage was forced to remove Pakistan from unlimited calling in its Vonage World plan. Vonage filed a petition at the FCC, shortly after the ICH rates became effective, seeking an order prohibiting U.S. carriers from paying the new higher ICH rates. On March 5, 2013, the FCC issued an order that prohibits U.S. carriers from paying more than the prevailing termination rate prior to the implementation of the ICH rates. In addition to the Vonage challenge in the U.S., a Pakistani carrier challenged the ICH action under Pakistani competition law. After the trial court found that the ICH violated Pakistani competition law, the Supreme Court of Pakistan overturned the trial court decision and remanded the case to the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP). On April 30, 2013, the CCP issued an order that holds that the ICH violates Pakistani competition law. On May 9, 2013, the Sindh High Court temporarily suspended the CCP order while the court considers constitutional challenges to the order made by several Pakistani carriers. On June 17, 2014, the Pakistan Ministry of Information Technology withdrew its policy directing formation of the ICH as of August 1, 2014. Pakistani carriers challenged the Ministry’s order at the Sindh High Court and obtained a temporary injunction against the Ministry’s order. Despite favorable action by both U.S. and Pakistani authorities, it is currently unclear whether, or with what timing, international termination rates in Pakistan will return to a more competitive level. |
State Telecommunications Regulation |
In general, the focus of interconnected VoIP telecommunications regulation is at the federal level. On November 12, 2004, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling providing that our service is subject to federal regulation and preempted the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission from imposing certain of its regulations on us. The FCC's decision was based on its conclusion that our service is interstate in nature and cannot be separated into interstate and intrastate components. On March 21, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the FCC's declaratory ruling preempting state regulation of our service. The 8th Circuit found that it is impossible for us to separate our interstate traffic from our intrastate traffic because of the nomadic nature of the service. As a result, the 8th Circuit held that it was reasonable for the FCC to preempt state regulation of our service. The 8th Circuit was clear, however, that the preemptive effect of the FCC's declaratory ruling may be reexamined if technological advances allow for the separation of interstate and intrastate components of the nomadic VoIP service. Therefore, the preemption of state authority over our service under this ruling generally hinges on the inability to separate the interstate and intrastate components of the service. |
While this ruling does not exempt us from all state oversight of our service, it effectively prevents state telecommunications regulators from imposing certain burdensome and inconsistent market entry requirements and certain other state utility rules and regulations on our service. State regulators continue to probe the limits of federal preemption in their attempts to apply state telecommunications regulation to interconnected VoIP service. On July 16, 2009, the Nebraska Public Service Commission and the Kansas Corporation Commission filed a petition with the FCC seeking a declaratory ruling or, alternatively, adoption of a rule declaring that state authorities may apply universal service funding requirements to nomadic VoIP providers. We participated in the FCC proceedings on the petition. On November 5, 2010, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling that allowed states to assess state USF on nomadic VoIP providers on a going forward basis provided that the states comply with certain conditions to ensure that imposing state USF does not conflict with federal law or policy. We expect that state public utility commissions and state legislators will continue their attempts to apply state telecommunications regulations to nomadic VoIP service. |
Stand-by Letters of Credit |
We had stand-by letters of credit totaling $3,308 and $4,306, as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. |
End-User Commitments |
We are obligated to provide telephone services to our registered end-users. The costs related to the potential utilization of minutes sold are expensed as incurred. Our obligation to provide this service is dependent on the proper functioning of systems controlled by third-party service providers. We do not have a contractual service relationship with some of these providers. |
Vendor Commitments |
We have committed to purchase software licenses. We have committed to pay approximately $500 in 2014, $1,000 in 2015 and 2016, and $100 in 2017. |
We have committed to lease office space from a vendor. We have committed to pay this vendor approximately $100 in 2014, $900 in 2015, $1,500 in 2016 through 2019, and $1,100 in 2020. |
State and Municipal Taxes |
In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, we make a provision for a liability for taxes when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability or range of liability can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. For a period of time, we did not collect or remit state or municipal taxes (such as sales, excise, utility, use, and ad valorem taxes), fees or surcharges (“Taxes”) on the charges to our customers for our services, except that we historically complied with the New Jersey sales tax. We have received inquiries or demands from a number of state and municipal taxing and 911 agencies seeking payment of Taxes that are applied to or collected from customers of providers of traditional public switched telephone network services. Although we have consistently maintained that these Taxes do not apply to our service for a variety of reasons depending on the statute or rule that establishes such obligations, we are now collecting and remitting sales taxes in certain of those states including a number of states that have changed their statutes to expressly include VoIP. In addition, many states address how VoIP providers should contribute to support public safety agencies, and in those states we remit fees to the appropriate state agencies. We could also be contacted by state or municipal taxing and 911 agencies regarding Taxes that do explicitly apply to VoIP and these agencies could seek retroactive payment of Taxes. As such, we have a reserve of $5,708 as of June 30, 2014 as our best estimate of the potential tax exposure for any retroactive assessment. We believe the maximum estimated exposure for retroactive assessments is approximately $7,000 as of June 30, 2014. |