Commitments And Contingencies | NOTE 7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases In December 2009, we entered into a lease agreement for a manufacturing and office facility in Menlo Park. For the facility to meet our needs and operating requirements, substantial tenant improvements, including improvements to the structural elements and principal operating systems of the facility, were necessary. The lessor provided a tenant improvement allowance of $1.8 million to apply towards the necessary improvements and we remained obligated for additional amounts over the afforded allowance. Due to our involvement in and the nature of the renovations made to the facility and our obligations to fund the costs of renovations exceeding the incentives afforded to us, we account for the facility as if we are the owner. Accordingly, we recorded $3.0 million of building and leasehold improvement assets, reflecting the $1.2 million fair value of the facility prior to commencing renovations and the $1.8 million of landlord incentives within property and equipment, net and a corresponding liability recorded to facility financing obligation. As a result of the lease amendment agreement described below, future rent expense associated with our prior Menlo Park facility leases was reduced to zero . The remaining long-term facility financing obligations associated with these leases, presented as “Other liabilities, non-current” on the condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, were $0 million and $1.7 million, respectively. Lease Amendment Agreement On July 23, 2015, we entered into a Lease Amendment Agreement (the “Lease Amendment Agreement”) with Peninsula Innovation Partners, LLC (the “Prior Landlord”), which amends the terms and conditions of certain of our prior Menlo Park facility real property leases. The Lease Amendment Agreement provides for, among other things, amendments of the term for certain of the leases with the Prior Landlord, the termination of all renewal, expansion and extension rights contained in any of the existing leases with the Prior Landlord (including our options to extend the terms for certain of the existing leases for two consecutive five-year periods), as well as rent abatement for a specified period of time. As consideration for our agreement to amend the existing leases pursuant to the Lease Amendment Agreement, and subject to the terms and conditions contained therein, we became eligible to receive up to four payments of $5.0 million each from the Prior Landlord over time (the “Landlord Payments”), and rent abatement for the remainder of the lease. In the event that we breach any of the leases and fail to cure such breach within the time permitted, the Prior Landlord would have no obligation to make the final $5.0 million payment. On September 1, 2015, the permit process related to an architectural approval and a change of use permit with respect to our new premises at 1305 O’Brien Drive (formerly 1315 O’Brien Drive), Menlo Park, California (the “O’Brien Premises”) was completed, which satisfied the contingencies under the Lease Amendment Agreement. As a result, we recorded $23.0 million in “Gain on lease amendments” in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the three-month period ended September 30, 2015, reflecting that our rent payments were reduced to zero for the remaining term of our existing Menlo Park facility real property leases, and the aggregate of $20.0 million in Landlord Payments became receivable and any associated financing obligation was revalued. Of the $20.0 million remaining Landlord Payments, the first $5.0 million Landlord Payment was received in September 2015, the second $5.0 million Landlord Payment was received in February 2016 and the third $5.0 million Landlord Payment was received in August 2016. In June 2016, we entered into a Second Lease Amendment Agreement with the Prior Landlord that modified the payment schedule for the final $5.0 million. At December 31, 2016, the final $5.0 million of Landlord Payments were recorded in “Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets” in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. In January 2017, we entered into a Third Lease Amendment Agreement with the Prior Landlord that increased the amount of the final $5.0 million Landlord Payments by $65,000 . During the first quarter of 2017, we received Landlord Payments totaling $2,628,000 . In May 2017, we entered into a Fourth Lease Amendment Agreement with the Prior Landlord, based on which we turned over the 940 Hamilton and 1010 Hamilton buildings to the Prior Landlord. Accordingly, in June 2017 we received $1,682,000 in Landlord Payments, resulting in a remaining balance of $755,000 in “Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets” in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2017. The 940 Hamilton building was a capital lease with a long-term facility financing obligation associated with this lease included in “Other liabilities, non-current” and the corresponding building and related leasehold improvements were included in “Property and equipment, net” of the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Upon turning over the building to the Prior Landlord, the capital lease was terminated, resulting in the extinguishment of the facility financing obligation. O’Brien Lease Agreement On July 22, 2015, we entered into a new lease agreement (the “O’Brien Lease”) with respect to the O’Brien Premises. The term of the O’Brien Lease is one hundred thirty-two (132) months, commencing on the date that is the later of April 15, 2016 or the date on which the O’Brien Premises landlord has substantially completed certain shell improvements and tenant improvements. In December 2016, we entered into an amendment to the O’Brien Lease which defined the commencement date of the lease to be October 25, 2016, notwithstanding that such substantial completion did not occur until the first quarter of 2017. Base monthly rent was abated for the first six (6) months of the lease term and thereafter is $540,000 per month during the first year of the lease term, with specified annual increases thereafter until reaching $711,000 per month during the last twelve (12) months of the lease term. We were required to pay $2.2 million in prepaid rent which was applied to the monthly rent installments due for the first to fourth months after the rent abatement period; and, as such, $2.2 million was recorded in “Prepaid expense and other current assets” in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of both Mach 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. As of June 30, 2017, $1.1 million was recorded in “Prepaid expense and other current assets” in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. We were required to establish a deposit of $4.5 million in the form of a letter of credit in October 2015; and, as such, $4.5 million was recorded in “Long-term restricted cash” in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of both June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. The landlord was obligated to construct certain warm shell improvements at the landlord’s cost and expense and provide us with a tenant improvement allowance in the amount of $12.6 million. Construction was completed in phases and we began moving into the O’Brien Premises during January 2017. By the end of the first quarter of 2017, improvements associated with the entire O’Brien Premises were substantially completed. As a result, during the first quarter of 2017 we capitalized $28.9 million of tenant improvements, of which $12.6 million was paid by the landlord as a tenant improvement allowance. As the $12.6 million tenant improvement allowance is accounted for as a lease incentive, $12.6 million was recorded to “Deferred rent, non-current”, which will be amortized over the lease term of approximately 11 years. In addition, as the premises were completed in phases during the first half of 2017, tenant improvements were placed into service in phases once construction was substantially complete and the related asset was ready for its intended use. As of June 30, 2017, the future annual minimum lease payments for the O’Brien lease were as follows: Amount Years ending December 31, (in thousands) Remaining of 2017 $ 3,171 2018 6,822 2019 6,930 2020 7,056 2021 7,272 Thereafter 46,710 Total minimum lease payments $ 77,961 Rent expense was $1.6 million and $48,000 for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Rent expense was $3.1 million and $100,200 for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Legal On November 2, 2016, we filed a complaint against Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd., Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. (“ONT Inc.”) and Metrichor, Ltd. (“Metrichor” and, together with ONT Inc., “ONT”) with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) for patent infringement. On December 5, 2016, the USITC provided notice that an investigation had been instituted based on the complaint. We are seeking exclusionary relief with respect to several ONT products, including ONT’s MinION and PromethION devices. The complaint is based on our U.S. Patent No. 9,404,146, entitled “Compositions and methods for nucleic acid sequencing” which covers novel methods for sequencing single nucleic acid molecules using linked double-stranded nucleic acid templates, providing improved sequencing accuracy. On March 1, 2017, we filed an amended complaint to add a second patent in the same patent family, U.S. Patent No. 9,542,527, which was granted on January 10, 2017, to the investigation. We are seeking, among other things, an exclusion order permanently barring entry of infringing ONT products into the United States, and a cease and desist order preventing ONT from advertising and selling infringing products in the United States. On May 23, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) assigned to the matter issued an order construing certain claim terms of the asserted patents. On June 8, 2017, ONT filed a summary determination motion to terminate the proceedings based on the ALJ’s claim construction decision, which motion was not opposed by us. The ALJ granted the motion on July 19, 2017, and, on July 31, 2017, we filed a petition to review with the USITC to correct what we believe was an incorrect construction of the claims. On February 2, 2017, we filed a claim in the High Court of England and Wales against Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. (“ONT Ltd.”) and Metrichor for infringement of Patent EP(UK) 3 025 542, which is in the same patent family as the patents asserted in the USITC action referred to above. We are seeking remedies including injunctive relief, damages, and costs. On March 27, 2017, the defendants in the case filed their defense and counterclaim, denying infringement and seeking a declaration that the asserted patent is invalid. We filed our reply and defense to counterclaim on April 12, 2017. On March 15, 2017, we filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against ONT Inc. for patent infringement. The complaint is based on our U.S. Patent No. 9,546,400, entitled “Nanopore sequencing using n-mers” which covers novel methods for nanopore sequencing of nucleic acid molecules using the signals from multiple monomeric units. This patent was granted on January 17, 2017. We are seeking remedies including injunctive relief, damages and costs. On May 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the asserted patent claims recite patent ineligible subject matter. We filed our response on June 5, 2017. On April 21, 2017, ONT Ltd. and Harvard University filed a claim against us in the High Court of England and Wales for infringement of Patent EP(UK) 1 192 453, a patent owned by Harvard University and entitled “Molecular and atomic scale evaluation of biopolymers,” and for which ONT Ltd. alleges it holds an exclusive license. ONT Ltd. and Harvard University are seeking remedies including injunctive relief, damages, and costs. On April 25, 2017, ONT Ltd. announced that it also had filed a claim against us in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, for infringement of the German version of the patent. We received service in this matter on July 11, 2017. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is too early in the proceedings to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any impact they may have on us. As such, the estimated financial effect associated with these complaints cannot be made as of this 10-Q filing time. From time to time, we may also be involved in a variety of other claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, patent infringement, contract disputes, employment and other matters that arise in the normal course of our business. In addition, third parties may, from time to time, assert claims against us in the form of letters and other communications. We record a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We currently do not believe that the ultimate outcome of any of the matters described above is probable or reasonably estimable, or that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business; however, the results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of litigation and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. |