Contractual Commitments and Contingencies | Contractual Commitments and Contingencies Contractual Commitments In addition to the capital leases noted above in Note 5, the Company has entered into operating lease agreements for facility space and equipment. These leases expire over the next seven years and generally contain renewal options. The Company anticipates that most of these leases will be renewed or replaced upon expiration. The Company also has commitments for meeting space. The estimated annual lease payments, meeting space commitments are as follows (in thousands): 12-month period ended June 30, 2018 $ 2,918 2019 2,133 2020 1,907 2021 1,618 2022 1,600 Thereafter 1,170 $ 11,346 Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , was approximately $842,000 and $859,000 , respectively, and was approximately $407,000 and $436,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively, and is allocated among cost of sales, research and development and selling, general and administrative expenses. Letters of Credit As a condition of the lease for the Company's main facility, the Company is obligated under standby letters of credit in the amount of approximately $52,000 . FDA Untitled Letter and Draft Guidance On August 28, 2013, the FDA issued an Untitled Letter alleging that the Company's micronized allografts do not meet the criteria for regulation solely under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and that, as a result, the Company would need a biologics license to lawfully market those micronized products. Since the issuance of the Untitled Letter, the Company has been in discussions with the FDA to communicate its disagreement with the FDA's assertion that the Company's micronized allografts are more than minimally manipulated. To date, the FDA has not changed its position that the Company's micronized products are not eligible for marketing solely under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act. The Company continues to market its micronized products but is also pursuing the Biologics License Application (“BLA”) process for certain of its micronized products. On December 22, 2014, the FDA issued for comment “Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Minimal Manipulation of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products.” Essentially the Minimal Manipulation draft guidance takes the same position with respect to micronized amniotic tissue that it took in the Untitled Letter to MiMedx 16 months earlier. The Company submitted comments asserting that the Minimal Manipulation draft guidance represents agency action that goes far beyond the FDA’s statutory authority, is inconsistent with existing HCT/P regulations and the FDA’s prior positions, and is internally inconsistent and scientifically unsound. On October 28, 2015, the FDA issued for comment, "Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Homologous Use of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products." The Company submitted comments on this Homologous Use draft guidance as well. On September 12 and 13, 2016, the FDA held a public hearing to obtain input on the Homologous Use draft guidance and the previously released Minimal Manipulation draft guidance, as well as other recently issued guidance documents on HCT/Ps. The Company awaits further decision from the FDA on the draft guidances, but anticipates this will be a lengthy process. If the FDA does allow the Company to continue to market a micronized form of its sheet allografts without a biologics license either prior to or after finalization of the draft guidance documents, it may impose conditions, such as labeling restrictions and compliance with cGMP. Although the Company is preparing for these requirements in connection with its pursuit of a BLA for certain of its micronized products, earlier compliance with these conditions requires significant additional time and cost investments by the Company. It is also possible that the FDA will not allow the Company to market any form of a micronized product without a biologics license even prior to finalization of the draft guidance documents and could even require the Company to recall its micronized products. Revenues from micronized products comprised approximately 10% of the Company's revenues in 2016. Former Employee Litigation On December 13, 2016, the Company filed lawsuits against former employees Jess Kruchoski (in the lawsuit styled MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Academy Medical, LLC, et. al. in the County Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Florida Action”)) and Luke Tornquist (in the lawsuit styled MiMedx Group, Inc., v. Luke Tornquist in the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Georgia Action”)). Both the Florida and Georgia Actions assert claims against Messrs. Kruchoski and Tornquist that each of them violated their restrictive covenants entered into with the Company, that each of them misappropriated trade secrets of the Company, that each of them tortiously interfered with contracts between the Company and its customers and employees and that each of them breached his duty of loyalty owed to the Company, among other claims. The Company sought injunctive relief against each of Mr. Kruchoski and Tornquist to enforce its restrictive covenants in place with each of them. The Company obtained consent injunctions from each party enforcing those covenants. The Company is also seeking monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial On December 15, 2016, Messrs. Kruchoski and Tornquist filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court of Minnesota (the “Minnesota Action”) against the Company and the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Parker Petit. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit each claimed that their employment with the Company was terminated in retaliation for their complaints about the Company’s alleged business practices in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h), and was an unlawful discharge in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.931 subdivision 1. Mr. Kruchoski also claimed that the termination of his employment with the Company constituted marital status discrimination and familial status discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Messrs. Kruchoski and Tornquist also claimed that Mr. Petit tortiously interfered with their employment relationships with the Company. On January 26, 2017, the Company and Mr. Petit filed motions to dismiss the Minnesota Action. In response, Messrs. Kruchoski and Tornquist voluntarily dismissed the Minnesota Action without prejudice on February 7, 2017. On February 7, 2017, Mr. Tornquist filed his Answer and Counterclaims in the Georgia Action wherein he asserted claims similar to those he had asserted in the Minnesota Action, with the exception that he did not include a claim of tortious interference against Mr. Petit. On February 13, 2017, the Judge in the Georgia Action entered a Consent Order enforcing the restrictive covenants against Mr. Tornquist. On May 5, 2017, Mr. Tornquist filed an amended Answer and Counterclaim, adding claims for breach of contract and violations of O.C.G.A 10-1-702 relating to claims for unpaid commissions and common law defamation claims against the Company and Mr. Petit. The Company and Mr. Petit both filed motions to dismiss the defamation claims, which are currently pending before the Court. On February 27, 2017, the Judge in the Florida Action entered a Consent Order enforcing the restrictive covenants against Mr. Kruchoski. The Defendants in the Florida Action filed motions to dismiss, which were denied on July 10, 2017. The Company filed an Amended Complaint on July 12, 2017 asserting all the same causes of action for the purpose of making non-substantive edits requested by the Court. On February 15, 2017, Mr. Kruchoski filed a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and Mr. Petit, making many of the same allegations in that suit as were made in the Minnesota Action, with the addition of claims against the Company and Mr. Petit for defamation. In March 2017, the Company and Mr. Petit both filed motions to dismiss Mr. Kruchoski’s claims. On June 13, 2017, the Court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that Mr. Kruchoski’s claims are governed by the forum selection clause in his contracts and are compulsory counterclaims and should, therefore, be brought in the Florida Action. On January 15, 2017, the Company initiated a lawsuit against former employee and sales agent Tracy Lucas and his company, BioResolutions LLC d/b/a Halo Wound Solutions ("Halo") in the Iowa state district court for Polk County. The suit alleges breach of a sales agency contract against Mr. Lucas, and alleges conspiracy to breach MiMedx's employees' duties of loyalty, tortious interference with MiMedx's employee and customer relationships, and misappropriation of trade secrets against all defendants relating to the defendants' use of then-current MiMedx employees to sell or market Halo's products to various entities, including MiMedx's customers. Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was denied by the Court on June 27, 2017. The case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company continues to vigorously pursue its claims asserted in all of these actions and also to vigorously defend against the lawsuits and counterclaims asserted against it. Patent Litigation The Company continues to diligently enforce its intellectual property against several entities. Currently, there are four actions pending, as described below: The Liventa Action On April 22, 2014, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Liventa Bioscience, Inc. (formerly known as AFCell Medical, Inc.) ("Liventa"), Medline Industries, Inc. ("Medline") and Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, Inc. ("MTF") for permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages (the "Liventa Action"). In addition to the allegations of infringement of the Company's patents, the lawsuit asserts that Liventa and Medline knowingly and willfully made false and misleading representations about their respective products to providers, patients, and in some cases, prospective investors. Though the terms of the agreement are confidential, the parties have reached a settlement of the false advertising claims for an undisclosed sum. The patent infringement claims are still pending as described below. The Company asserts that Liventa, Medline and MTF infringed and continue to infringe certain of the Company's patents relating to the MiMedx dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane ("dHACM") allografts. MTF is the tissue processor while Liventa and Medline are the distributors of the allegedly infringing products. On May 30, 2014, defendants filed answers to the Complaint, denying the allegations in the Complaint. They also raised affirmative defenses of non-infringement, invalidity, laches and estoppel. MTF and Medline also filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. Defendants filed parallel Inter Partes Review ("IPR") proceedings which are discussed below. The Company expects the case to go to trial in 2017. The Bone Bank Action On May 16, 2014, the Company also filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Transplant Technology, Inc. d/b/a Bone Bank Allografts ("Bone Bank") and Texas Human Biologics, Ltd. ("Biologics") for permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages (the "Bone Bank Action"). The Bone Bank Action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. This lawsuit similarly asserts that Bone Bank and Biologics infringed certain of the Company's patents through the manufacturing and sale of their placental-derived tissue graft products. On July 10, 2014, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint, denying the allegations in the Complaint. They also raised affirmative defenses of non-infringement and invalidity and filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. Defendants also filed parallel IPR proceedings which are further discussed below. The Company expects the case to go to trial in 2017. The NuTech Action On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NuTech Medical, Inc. ("NuTech") and DCI Donor Services, Inc. ("DCI") for permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The lawsuit alleges that NuTech and DCI have infringed and continue to infringe the Company's patents through the manufacture, use, sale, and/or offering of their tissue graft product. The lawsuit also asserts that NuTech knowingly and willfully made false and misleading representations about its products to customers and/or prospective customers. The case is currently in the discovery phase. The Vivex Action On April 1, 2016, the Company also filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Vivex BioMedical (“Vivex”) for permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages (the "Vivex Action"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The patent at issue is the 8,709,494 patent (the "'494" patent). Vivex answered the Company’s complaint and filed counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity. On January 4, 2017, the Court granted a joint motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Bone Bank Action. IPRs In addition to defending the claims in the pending district court litigations, defendants in the Liventa and Bone Bank cases challenged certain of the Company's patents in several IPR proceedings to avoid the high burden of proof of proving invalidity by "clear and convincing evidence" in the district court litigations. An inter partes review (or "IPR") is a request for a specialized group within the United States Patent and Trademark Office to review the validity of a plaintiff's patent claims. The defendants in the Bone Bank Action challenged the validity of the Company's 8,597,687 (the "'687" patent) and the '494 patent, while the defendants in the Liventa Action challenged the validity of the Company's 8,372,437 and 8,323,701 patents (the "'437" and "'701" patents, respectively). On June 29, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") denied the Bone Bank defendants' request for institution of an IPR with respect to the '494 patent (EpiFix) on all seven challenged grounds. On August 18, 2015, the PTAB also denied the Liventa defendants' request for institution of an IPR with respect to the '701 patent (AmnioFix) on all six challenged grounds. That is, the PTAB decided in each case that the defendants failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that defendants would prevail in showing any of the challenged claims of the '494 or the '701 patent were unpatentable. On July 10, 2015, the PTAB issued an opinion allowing a review of the '687 patent to proceed, although on only two of the five challenged grounds. On July 7, 2016, the PTAB issued an opinion finding that the challenged claims, which relate to embossment and not configuration, were invalid for obviousness. The Company decided not to appeal the decision, as it impacted a non-core patent. On August 18, 2015, the PTAB issued an opinion allowing a review of the '437 patent to proceed, although only on one of the seven challenged grounds. On August 16, 2016, the PTAB issued an opinion finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable. MiMedx has filed an appeal of the PTAB’s decision regarding the '437 patent. Further, on March 31, 2017, Vivex filed a petition to initiate a new IPR with respect to the ‘494 patent, which the Company intends to vigorously oppose. |