Commitments and Contingencies | 11. Commitments and Contingencies (a) Lease Commitments The Company entered into various non-cancelable operating lease agreements for its facilities over the next eight years. Certain operating leases contain provisions under which monthly rent escalates over time. When lease agreements contain escalating rent clauses or free rent periods, the Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. Rent expense was $1.9 million and $1.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases were as follows (in thousands): Year Ending December 31: As of 2017 (remaining nine months) $ 2018 2019 2020 2021 Thereafter Total minimum lease payments $ (b) Legal Matters On April 30, 2015, Telesign Corporation, or Telesign, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court, Central District of California (“Telesign I”). Telesign alleges that the Company is infringing three U.S. patents that it holds: U.S. Patent No. 8,462,920 (“‘920”), U.S. Patent No. 8,687,038 (“‘038”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,945,034 (“‘034”). The patent infringement allegations in the lawsuit relate to the Company’s Programmable Authentication products, its two-factor authentication use case and an API tool to find information about a phone number. The Company has petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“U.S. PTO”) for inter partes review of the patents at issue. On March 9, 2016, the District Court stayed the court case pending the resolution of those proceedings. On June 28, 2016, the U.S. PTO instituted the inter partes review of the ‘034 patent, briefing on which has now begun, including Telesign’s contingent motion to amend the ‘034 patent. On July 8, 2016, the U.S. PTO denied the Company’s petition for inter partes review of the ‘920 and ‘038 patents. The Company subsequently petitioned for rehearing on this decision, and the request for rehearing was fully briefed by both parties on October 11, 2016. On July 20, 2016, Telesign applied to the court to lift the stay on Telesign I. The Company opposed the request, and on September 15, 2016, the court denied the request to lift the stay on Telesign I. On November 15, 2016, the U.S. PTO denied the Company’s request for rehearing on the denied petitions for inter partes review. On December 20, 2016, the Company filed a reply to Telesign’s opposition to the ‘034 inter partes review and simultaneously filed an opposition to Telesign’s motion to amend the ‘034 patent. On January 23, 2017 Telesign filed its reply to the Company’s opposition to the motion to amend. On March 27, 2017, the U.S. PTO held its hearing on the ‘034 patent inter partes review. A ruling is expected in June 2017. On March 28, 2016, Telesign filed a second lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court, Central District of California (“Telesign II”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,300,792 (“‘792”) held by Telesign. The ‘792 patent is in the same patent family as the ‘920 and ‘038 patents asserted in Telesign I, and the infringement allegations in Telesign II relate to the Company’s Programmable Authentication products and its two-factor authentication use case. On May 23, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint in Telesign II. On August 3, 2016, the United States District Court, Central District of California, issued an order granting Twilio’s motion to dismiss Telesign’s complaint with leave to amend. Telesign filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2016 and the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16, 2016. On November 7, 2016, the Company’s motion to dismiss was denied, and the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on November 21, 2016. On February 27, 2017, Twilio’s petition for review of the Covered Business Method of the ‘792 patent was denied. On March 8, 2017 the U.S. PTO issued an order instituting the inter partes review for the ‘792 patent. On March 15, 2017, Twilio filed a motion to consolidate and stay related cases pending the conclusion of the now instituted ‘792 patent inter partes review. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for May 22, 2017. With respect to each of the patents asserted in Telesign I and Telesign II, the complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the Company from allegedly infringing the patents, along with damages for lost profits. On December 1, 2016, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Telesign in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, alleging indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 8,306,021, United States Patent No. 8,837,465, United States Patent No. 8,755,376, United States Patent No. 8,736,051, United States Patent No. 8,737,962, United States Patent No. 9,270,833, and United States Patent No. 9,226,217. Telesign filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 25, 2017. In two orders, issued on March 31, 2017 and April 17, 2017, the Court granted Telesign’s motion to dismiss with respect to the ‘962, ‘833, ‘051 and ‘217 patents, but denied Telesign’s motion to dismiss as to the ‘021, ‘465 and ‘376 patents. On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company’s products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a customer’s request and are in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On May 27, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On August 2, 2016, the court issued an order denying the demurrer in part and granted it in part, with leave to amend by August 18, 2016 to address any claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff opted not to amend the complaint. Discovery has already begun, and will continue until August 2017, when the plaintiff must file its motion for class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits and believes it has meritorious defenses to each matter in which it is a defendant. It is too early in these matters to reasonably predict the probability of the outcomes or to estimate ranges of possible losses. In addition to the litigation matters discussed above, from time to time, the Company is a party to legal action and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The claims are investigated as they arise and loss estimates are accrued, when probable and reasonably estimable. While it is not feasible to predict or determine the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company believes that these legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. (c) Indemnification Agreements The Company has signed indemnification agreements with all of its board members and executive officers. The agreements indemnify the board members and executive officers from claims and expenses on actions brought against the individuals separately or jointly with the Company for certain indemnifiable events. Indemnifiable Events generally mean any event or occurrence related to the fact that the board member or the executive officer was or is acting in his or her capacity as a board member or an executive officer for the Company or was or is acting or representing the interests of the Company. In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contractual arrangements under which it agrees to provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the breach of such agreements, intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties and other liabilities relating to or arising from the Company’s various products, or its acts or omissions. In these circumstances, payment may be conditional on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract. Further, the Company’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances, the Company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments. The terms of such obligations may vary. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, no amounts had been accrued. (d) Other taxes The Company conducts operations in many tax jurisdictions throughout the United States. In many of these jurisdictions, non-income-based taxes, such as sales and use and telecommunications taxes are assessed on the Company’s operations. Historically, the Company has not billed or collected these taxes and, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, has recorded a provision for its tax exposure in these jurisdictions when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the exposure can be reasonably estimated. As a result, the Company recorded a liability of $29.0 million and $28.8 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. These estimates include several key assumptions including, but not limited to, the taxability of the Company’s services, the jurisdictions in which its management believes it has nexus, and the sourcing of revenues to those jurisdictions. In the event these jurisdictions challenge management’s assumptions and analysis, the actual exposure could differ materially from the current estimates. |