CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES Commercial Litigation 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 the Company's subsidiary, 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 (the measure of energy capacity of a battery) 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 (the measure of energy capacity of a battery) 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. In October 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. The Court subsequently bifurcated discovery, permitting mophie to obtain discovery of plaintiffs’ individual claims. Plaintiffs have not obtained any class-wide discovery. mophie denies that it has engaged in the alleged practices, and continues 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 expired in April 2020. ZAGG responded to the complaint on October 21, 2019 to formally assert its defenses and counterclaims. On April 21, 2020, the parties finalized a confidential settlement and are in the process of dismissing the pending proceeding. 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. In August 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. In September 2019, ZAGG filed a separate invalidation request (Case No. 4W9507) to challenge the validity of the patent, and the action was scheduled for an oral hearing on April 23, 2020. On April 8, 2020, the parties finalized a confidential settlement and are in the process of dismissing the pending proceedings. 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 establishes reserves when a particular contingency is probable and estimable. The Company has accrued estimated liabilities of $750 and $750 in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively. |