CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES Commercial Litigation ZAGG Inc and mophie, Inc. v. Anker Technology Co. Ltd. and Fantasia Trading LLC, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:17-CV-2193-DOC-DFM (the “Anker Lawsuit”). On December 15, 2017, ZAGG and mophie filed the Anker Lawsuit alleging that Anker Technology Co. Ltd. (“Anker”) and Fantasia Trading LLC (“Fantasia”) infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,971,039, 9,077,013, 9,088,028, 9,088,029, 9,172,070, and 9,406,913 in connection with protective battery cases for smartphones. The Anker products accused of infringement include Anker’s Ultra Slim Extended Battery Case for iPhone® 6 / 6s (4.7 inch) with 2850mAh capacity; Premium Extended Battery Case for iPhone 6 / 6s (4.7 inch) with 3100mAh Capacity; PowerCore Case for iPhone 7 (4.7 inch), 80% Extra Battery; PowerCore Case for iPhone 7 (4.7 inch), 95% Extra Battery; and 2400mAh MFI Certified Rubber-Feel Premium Rechargeable Extended Battery Case for iPhone 5s, 5. The complaint filed by ZAGG and mophie seeks monetary damages and an injunction against Anker. On March 12, 2018, Anker and Fantasia filed answers and counterclaims in the lawsuit. In their answers, Anker and Fantasia denied infringement of any valid claim and asserted counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue. The parties have reached a confidential settlement, and Anker and Fantasia have ceased sales of the battery cases accused of infringement. The Anker Lawsuit was dismissed in June 2019. Best Case and Accessories, Inc. v. Zagg, Inc. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-CV-04048-LDH-RML (the “ New York Best Case Lawsuit ” ) . On July 13, 2018, Best Case and Accessories, Inc. (“Best Case”) filed a complaint against the Company. The Company had previously sent a letter to Best Case alleging that it was using product packaging and display trade dress that is confusingly similar to the Company's trade dress. In the complaint, Best Case alleged that it does not infringe the Company's trade dress and that the Company interfered with Best Case's business relationships, which the Company disputes. To respond to these allegations and defend against the claims of the New York Best Case Lawsuit, the Company filed a complaint for trade dress infringement against Best Case on February 8, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2:19-CV-00090-PMW (the “Utah Best Case Lawsuit”). In October 2019, t he parties reached a settlement in which Best Case agreed to make changes to its packaging and display trade dress, as well as dismiss with prejudice the tortious interference claim. Both the New York Best Case Lawsuit and the Utah Best Case Lawsuit were dismissed in October 2019. Dan Dolar, an individual and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mophie Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County, Case No. 30-2019-01066228-CU-BT-CXC . On April 25, 2019, Dolar filed a complaint against mophie inc. (“mophie”) alleging, among other things, violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of California Unfair Competition Law, and violation of state Consumer Protection Statutes. The complaint alleged that mophie mischaracterizes the mAh ratings of the batteries in its products, and asked the court to certify a class of Californians who purchased mophie battery-enabled products. On June 14, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice at Dolar’s request so that Dolar’s claims could be pursued in the United States District Court in the case of Young v. Mophie Inc. , Case No. 8:19-cv-00827-JVS-DFM, discussed below. Michael Young and Dan Dolar, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Mophie Inc., Defendant, United States District Court, Central District of California , Case No. 8:19-cv-00827-JVS-DFM. This action started with a complaint filed by Young against mophie on May 2, 2019. On June 13, 2019, Young and Dolar joined together as plaintiffs and filed a first amended complaint (the “FAC”). In the FAC, Young and Dolar allege, among other things, that mophie has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s False Advertising Law, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of purportedly material identical state consumer protection statutes in various other states, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The FAC is based on Young’s and Dolar’s allegation that mophie mischaracterizes the mAh ratings of the batteries in certain of its products. Young and Dolar seek to certify a class of consumer nationwide and in various states who purchased mophie battery-enabled products. The FAC does not specify an amount of damages claimed, but alleges that damages will be in excess of $5,000. On July 11, 2019, mophie filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims asserted in the action. On October 9, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part mophie's motion to dismiss. In its order, the court dismissed Young’s and Dolar’s Multi-State class of claims brought under the laws of states other than California and Florida, and the court denied the other relief requested in mophie’s motion to dismiss. mophie denies that it has engaged in the alleged practices, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Enchanted IP v. mophie, Inc., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:19-cv-1648. On August 27, 2019, Enchanted IP LLC filed an action for patent infringement against mophie in the Central District of California, asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,194,871. This patent generally relates to a charge and discharge control circuit for an external secondary battery. The complaint identifies mophie’s juice pack reserve micro product as an accused product and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Enchanted IP does not appear to make or sell any products, and the asserted ‘871 patent expires in April 2020. On October 21, 2019, ZAGG responded to the Complaint, formally asserting its defenses and counterclaims. No schedule for the case has been set. Shenzhen CN-iMX Technology Co., Ltd. v. Apple Electronic Products Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and ZAGG (Shenzhen) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (2019) Yue 03 Pre-docketing Mediation No. 3234. On or about August 29, 2019, Shenzhen CN-iMX Technology Co., Ltd. filed an action in Shenzhen Intermediate Court against ZAGG China and Apple, asserting infringement of Chinese Patent No. ZL 2012 1 0335618.4 relating to a method of wireless charging. The action identifies mophie’s powerStation wireless XL charger as an accused product and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Because the infringement action has not yet been formally docketed, the Company has not yet filed a substantive response. On or about September 16, 2019, the Company filed a separate invalidation request (Case No. 4W9507) to challenge the validity of the patent, and that action is currently pending. SEC Investigation The Company previously disclosed an investigation by the SEC related to facts and circumstances surrounding former Chief Executive Officer Robert Pedersen’s pledge and subsequent sale of Company shares and the fact that such pledges and sales were not disclosed in the Company’s 2011 10-K filed on March 15, 2012, or 2012 Proxy filed on April 27, 2012. On March 7, 2019, the Staff of the SEC informed the Company that, after additional consideration and analysis, it decided to terminate the investigation and dismiss the matter. Other Litigation The Company is not a party to any other material litigation or claims at this time. While the Company currently believes that the amount of any ultimate probable loss for known matters would not be material to the Company’s financial condition, the outcome of these actions is inherently difficult to predict. In the event of an adverse outcome, the ultimate potential loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations in a particular period. The Company records a liability when a particular contingency is probable and estimable. The Company has not accrued for any losses in the condensed consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2019, due to the fact that either the losses are immaterial or the losses are not considered probable or estimable. The Company faces contingencies that are reasonably possible to occur; however, the reasonably possible exposure to losses cannot currently be estimated. |