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 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 U.S. 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, U.S. 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 California and Florida laws, 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 consumers 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. mophie denies that it has engaged in the alleged practices, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On July 15, 2020, the parties gave joint notice to the court that they had reached a tentative settlement of this action, subject to the parties executing a written settlement agreement, and on July 16, 2020, the court entered an order dismissing the action without prejudice to reopening the case if settlement is not consummated within 45 days. Enchanted IP v. mophie, Inc., U.S. 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 on June 1, 2020, the court dismissed the action with prejudice. Shenzhen CN-iMX Technology Co., Ltd. v. Apple Electronic Products Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and ZAGG (Shenzhen) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (2020) Yue 03 No. 774. 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 identified mophie’s PowerStation wireless XL charger as an accused product and sought damages and injunctive relief. In September 2019, ZAGG filed a separate invalidation request (Case No. 4W9507) with the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration to challenge the validity of the patent. On April 8, 2020, the parties finalized a confidential settlement to resolve the matter. On April 20, 2020, ZAGG’s invalidation request was formally withdrawn. On June 5, 2020, the Shenzhen Intermediate Court issued a Mediation Paper confirming dismissal of the infringement action. 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 $900 and $750 in the consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019, respectively. |