Commitments and Contingencies | 6. Commitments and Contingencies Leases On December 4, 2019, the Company entered into a new lease agreement for a new headquarters location which will consist of 121,541 square feet of office, engineering, and research and development space in Carlsbad, California. The term of the new lease is currently anticipated to commence November 15, 2020 and terminate November 30, 2030. The Company will recognize a right-of-use (“ROU”) asset and liability upon taking control of the premises, currently anticipated to be the lease commencement date. Operating Lease The Company leases its buildings and certain equipment under operating leases which expire on various dates through 2021. Upon the Company’s adoption of ASU 2016-02 , Leases (Topic 842), as of January 1, 2019 the Company recognized a ROU asset and lease liability for its building lease, assuming a 10.5% discount rate. Any short-term leases defined as 12 months or less or month-to-month leases were excluded and continue to be expensed each month. Total costs associated with these leases for the three months ended March 31, 2020 was immaterial. The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception. The Company has operating leases for its buildings and certain equipment with lease terms of one year to 5.5 years, some of which include options to extend and/or terminate the lease. The exercise of lease renewal options is at the Company’s sole discretion and were not included in the calculation of the Company’s lease liability as the Company is not able to determine without uncertainty if the renewal option will be exercised. The depreciable life of assets and leasehold improvements are limited to the expected term unless there is a transfer of title or purchase option reasonably certain of exercise. The Company’s lease agreements do not contain any variable lease payments, residual value guarantees or any restrictive covenants. The Company’s ROU asset represents the right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent the obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Operating lease ROU assets and liabilities are recognized at commencement date of the lease or the ASC 842 adoption date, whichever is later, based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. When readily determinable, the Company uses the implicit rate in determining the present value of lease payments, or 10.5% as of the adoption date. When leases do not provide an implicit rate, the Company uses its incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at the lease commencement date or adoption date, including the lease term. The operating lease ROU asset also includes any lease payments made and excludes lease incentives. Lease expense for lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Future minimum annual lease payments under such leases are as follows as of March 31, 2020 (in thousands): Undiscounted lease payments: Year Ending December 31, Remainder of 2020 $ 1,114 2021 916 2022 39 Total undiscounted lease payments 2,069 Less: present value adjustment (154 ) Operating lease liability 1,915 Less: current portion of operating lease liability (1,356 ) Operating lease liability, less current portion $ 559 As of March 31, 2020, the Company’s remaining lease term is years The Company paid $0.4 million and $0.3 million on its operating lease agreements Litigation The Company is and may become involved in various legal proceedings arising from its business activities. While management is not aware of any litigation matter that in and of itself would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and depending on the nature and timing of a proceeding, an unfavorable resolution could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period. The Company assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual or disclosure in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating contingencies, the Company may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against the Company may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to reasonably possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of the Company’s potential liability. In February 2018, NuVasive, Inc. filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (NuVasive, Inc. v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.)), alleging that certain of the Company’s products (including components of its Battalion™ Lateral System), infringe, or contribute to the infringement of, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,819,801, 8,355,780, 8,439,832, 8,753,270, 9,833,227 (entitled “Surgical access system and related methods”), U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 (entitled “Systems and methods for spinal fusion”), and U.S. Design Patent Nos. D652,519 (“Dilator”) and D750,252 (“Intervertebral Implant”). NuVasive seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction against future purported infringement. In March 2018, the Company moved to dismiss NuVasive’s claims of infringement of its design patents for failure to state a cognizable legal claim. In May 2018, the Court ruled that NuVasive failed to state a plausible claim for infringement of the asserted design patents and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims to NuVasive’s remaining claims in May 2018. Also in March 2018, NuVasive moved for a preliminary injunction. In March 2018, the Court denied that motion without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s chambers rules. In April 2018, NuVasive again moved for a preliminary injunction. In July 2018, after a hearing on the matter in June 2018, the Court denied that motion on the grounds that NuVasive failed to establish either likelihood of success on the merits of its remaining claims or that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction. In September 2018, NuVasive filed an Amended Complaint, asserting additional infringement claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,924,859, 9,974,531 and 8,187,334. The Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims to these new claims in October 2018. Also in October 2018, NuVasive moved to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims that NuVasive intentionally had misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a means of obtaining certain patents asserted against the Company. In January 2019, the Court denied NuVasive’s motion as to all but one of the Company’s counterclaims, but granted the Company leave to amend its counterclaim to cure the dismissal. The Company amended that counterclaim in February 2019 and, that same month, NuVasive again moved to dismiss it. In March 2019, the Court denied NuVasive’s motion. NuVasive filed its Answer to the amended counterclaim in April 2019. In December 2018, the Company filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of certain claims of the ’156 and ’334 Patents. In February 2019, upon joint motion of the parties, the Court stayed all proceedings in this matter, except as noted above, pending PTAB’s determination of whether to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of the asserted claims of the two patents at issue and vacated the trial date. In July 2019, PTAB instituted IPR of the validity of asserted claims of the two patents at issue and held a hearing on the matter in April 2020. The Company expects PTAB to issue its final decisions regarding the validity of these claims in the second half of 2020. Also in July 2019, the parties submitted a joint statement to the Court regarding PTAB’s decisions and the parties’ respective recommendations regarding the stay of proceedings. In August 2019, the Court vacated the stay as to asserted claims concerning those patents at issue not presently before PTAB and continued the stay as to the ‘156 and ‘334 Patents. In January 2020, NuVasive filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of infringement and validity of the ’832, ’780 and ’270 Patents and the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims and of invalidity of the ’832 Patent and for dismissal of NuVasive’s claim for lost profits and its allegations of assignor estoppel. A hearing on the matters was held on March 13, 2020. On April 10, 2020, the Court granted NuVasive’s Motion as to the alleged infringement of the ’832 Patent only and denied NuVasive’s Motion in all other respects. On April 24, the Court granted the Company’s Motion as to dismissal of the allegations of assignor estoppel and denied the Company’s Motion in all other respects. Trial, which was originally set for April 27, 2020, has been taken off calendar due to increasing uncertainties surrounding the current public health crisis. A new trial date has not been set. The Company believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. A liability is recorded in the consolidated financial statements if it is believed to be probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is impossible at this time to assess whether the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance, the Company has not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with this legal proceeding based on its belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable and any range of potential future charge cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Indemnifications In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements under which it occasionally indemnifies third-parties for intellectual property infringement claims or claims arising from breaches of representations or warranties. In addition, from time to time, the Company provides indemnity protection to third-parties for claims relating to past performance arising from undisclosed liabilities, product liabilities, environmental obligations, representations and warranties, and other claims. In these agreements, the scope and amount of remedy, or the period in which claims can be made, may be limited. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of future payments, if any, due under these indemnities due to the conditional nature of the obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each agreement. In October 2017, NuVasive filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against Mr. Miles, the Company’s Chairman and CEO, who was a former officer and board member of NuVasive. The Company itself was not initially a named defendant in this lawsuit; however, on June 28, 2018, NuVasive amended its complaint to add the Company as a defendant. As of March 31, 2020, the Company has not recorded any liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet related to this matter. On October 12, 2018, the Delaware Court ordered that NuVasive begin advancing a portion of the legal fees for Mr. Miles’ defense in the lawsuit, as well as Mr. Miles’ legal fees incurred in pursuing advancement of his fees, pursuant to an indemnification agreement between NuVasive and Mr. Miles. Royalties The Company has entered into various intellectual property agreements requiring the payment of royalties based on the sale of products that utilize such intellectual property. These royalties primarily relate to products sold by Alphatec Spine and are based on fixed fees or calculated either as a percentage of net sales or on a per-unit sold basis. Royalties are included on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations as a component of cost of revenue. As of March 31, 2020, the Company is obligated to pay guaranteed minimum royalty payments under these agreements of approximately $5.1 million through 2024 and beyond. |