Commitments and Contingencies | (11) Commitments and Contingencies Clinical Trials The Company has ongoing commitments under the pre-approval ReCharge and post-approval ReNew clinical trials related to its ReShape vBloc product which are expected to be completed in 2019 and 2022, respectively. The Company is required to pay for patient follow up visits only to the extent they occur. In the event a patient does not attend a follow up visit, the Company has no financial obligation. The Company is also required to pay for explants or revisions, including potential conversions of ReCharge control devices to active devices, should a patient request or be required to have one during the course of the clinical trials. The Company has no financial obligation unless an explant, revision or conversion is requested or required. The Company recognizes expense when incurred with respect to these clinical trials. Litigation Fulfillium. On April 20, 2017, Fulfillium, Inc. filed a complaint against ReShape Medical, Inc. (which the Company acquired in October 2017 and which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement of two U.S. Patents (“Fulfillium I”). On July 28, 2017, ReShape Medical moved to dismiss both the trade secret claim and certain aspects of the patent infringement claim, and to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On October 16, 2017, the Court granted ReShape Medical’s motion to dismiss the trade secret and willful infringement claims, and ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Fulfillium twice amended its complaint, narrowing its original trade secret claim and adding further patent infringement claims and additional parties. On June 4, 2018, ReShape Medical filed a motion to dismiss the patent infringement claims for lack of standing, which the Court granted on July 5, 2018. On August 10, 2018, the Court dismissed without prejudice the trade secret claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and terminated the case. Fulfillium has appealed these dismissals and ReShape Medical has appealed the grant and denial of certain attorney fee awards. On July 20, 2018, Fulfillium filed a new complaint against ReShape Lifesciences, Inc. (and its wholly owned subsidiary ReShape Medical LLC) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“Fulfillium II”) reasserting the patent infringement claims asserted in Fulfillium I. On August 15, 2018, Fulfillium amended its complaint in Fulfillium II to reassert the trade secret misappropriation claim asserted in Fulfillium I against ReShape Medical LLC and others. On September 7, 2018, Fulfillium filed a complaint in California state court alleging the same trade secret misappropriation claim asserted in both Fulfillium I and Fulfillium II. On November 7, 2018, the Court dismissed the non-Company parties from Fulfillium II. On April 20, 2018, ReShape Medical filed Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTAB”) to have all claims of both of the originally asserted Fulfillium patents canceled as unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. On November 6, 2018, the PTAB denied those petitions. The parties held a mediation on April 9, 2019, but were unable to resolve the matter. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against Fulfillium’s claims. We currently are unable to estimate the losses or range of loss for these two matters. Alpha and Iroquois. On July 12, 2018, Alpha Capital Anstalt (“Alpha”) filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2017, Alpha acquired shares of the Company’s series B convertible preferred stock and warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock in an underwritten public offering. Pursuant to the terms of the series B convertible preferred stock and warrants, the conversion price of the series B convertible preferred stock and exercise price of the warrants was subject to adjustment in the case of, among other things, dilutive issuances of securities by the Company. The complaint alleges breach of contract, claiming that the Company should have adjusted the conversion price of the series B convertible preferred stock and exercise price of the warrants to not less than $420.00 per share, rather than the $1,575.00 per share to which the Company actually adjusted such conversion price and exercise price, in connection with its registered direct offering of series D convertible preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock that it completed and announced in April 2018. Alpha seeks declaratory relief, damages of not less than approximately $3.6 million (less the proceeds of actual sales of the Company’s common stock made by Alpha) and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the claims alleged are without merit and intends to vigorously protect and defend itself. However, we are currently unable to estimate a loss or range of loss for this matter. On July 26, 2018, Iroquois Capital Investment Group, LLC and Iroquois Master Fund, Ltd. filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with substantially the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as Alpha’s complaint described above, except that Iroquois claims that the conversion price of the series D convertible preferred stock and exercise price of the warrants should have been adjusted to $189.00 per share, and Iroquois is claiming damages estimated to exceed $5 million. The Company believes the claims alleged are without merit and intends to vigorously protect and defend itself. However, we are currently unable to estimate a loss or range of loss for this matter. Except as disclosed in the foregoing paragraphs, the Company is not currently a party to any litigation and the Company is not aware of any pending or threatened litigation against it that is reasonably possible to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results or financial condition. The medical device industry in which the Company operates is characterized by frequent claims and litigation, including claims regarding patent and other intellectual property rights as well as improper hiring practices. As a result, the Company may be involved in various legal proceedings from time to time. Product Liability Claims The Company is exposed to product liability claims that are inherent in the testing, production, marketing and sale of medical devices. Management believes any losses that may occur from these matters are adequately covered by insurance, and the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. The Company is not currently a party to any product liability litigation and is not aware of any pending or threatened product liability litigation that is reasonably possible to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results or financial condition. |