Commitments and Contingencies | 10. Commitments and Contingencies (a) Lease Commitments The Company entered into various non-cancelable operating lease agreements for its facilities that expire over the next six 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 $2.1 million and $1.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases were as follows (in thousands): Year Ending December 31: As of 2018 (remaining nine months) $ 2019 2020 2021 2022 Thereafter Total minimum lease payments $ Additionally, in the three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company entered into a 22 month non-cancellable agreement with a cloud services vendor for a total commitment of $4.5 million. Except for this new commitment, there have been no material changes to the Company’s principle commitments described in the Company’s most recent Annual Report. (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 Account Security products, its two-factor authentication use case and an API tool to find information about a phone number. The Company petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“U.S. PTO”) for inter partes review of the patents at issue. On July 8, 2016, the PTO denied the Company’s petition for inter partes review of the ‘920 and ‘038 patents, and on June 26, 2017, it upheld the patentability of the ‘034 patent. 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. On March 8, 2017, in response to a petition by the Company, the PTO issued an order instituting the inter partes review for the ‘792 patent. On March 6, 2018, the PTO found all claims challenged by Twilio in the inter partes review unpatentable. On March 15, 2017, Twilio filed a motion to consolidate and stay related cases pending the conclusion of the ‘792 patent inter partes review, which the court granted. The Central District of California court lifted the stay on April 13, 2018. With respect to each of the patents asserted in the now-consolidated Telesign I and Telesign II cases, the complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the Company from allegedly infringing the patents, along with damages for lost profits. The Telesign I/II litigation is currently ongoing. 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 (“021”), United States Patent No. 8,837,465 (“465”), United States Patent No. 8,755,376 (“376”), United States Patent No. 8,736,051 (“051”), United States Patent No. 8,737,962 (“962”), United States Patent No. 9,270,833 (“833”), and United States Patent No. 9,226,217 (“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 August 23, 2017, Telesign petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“U.S. PTO”) for inter partes review of the ‘021, ‘465, and ‘376 patents. On March 9, 2018, the PTO denied Telesign’s petition for inter partes review of the ‘021 patent and granted Telesign’s petitions for inter partes review of the ‘465 and ‘376 patents. The Northern District of California litigation is currently stayed pending resolution of the inter partes reviews of the ‘465 and ‘376 patents. The Company is seeking a judgment of infringement, a judgment of willful infringement, monetary and injunctive relief, enhanced damages, and an award of costs and expenses against Telesign. 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. Following a period of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on September 20, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s class certification motion. The court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications involving the accounts of three of the Company’s customers that were recorded. The court has not yet finalized a schedule for notice to potential class members, additional discovery, summary judgment motions, or trial. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against 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. Legal fees and other costs related to litigation and other legal proceedings are expensed as incurred and are included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements 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, 2018 and December 31, 2017, no amounts were 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. Prior to March 2017, the Company had not billed nor collected these taxes from its customers and, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, recorded a provision for its tax exposure in these jurisdictions when it was both probable that a liability had been incurred and the amount of the exposure could be reasonably estimated. These estimates included 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. Starting in March 2017, the Company began collecting these taxes from customers in certain jurisdictions, and since then, has expanded the number of jurisdictions where these taxes are being collected. Effective January 2018, the Company began to collect taxes in one additional jurisdiction and accordingly, the Company is no longer recording a provision for its exposure in that jurisdiction. The Company expects to continue to expand the number of jurisdictions where these taxes will be collected in the future. Simultaneously, the Company was and continues to be in discussions with certain states regarding its prior state sales and other taxes, if any, that the Company may owe. During 2017, the Company revised its estimates of its tax exposure based on settlements reached with various states indicating that certain revisions to the key assumptions including, but not limited to, the sourcing of revenue and the taxability of the Company’s services were appropriate in the current period. In the year ended December 31, 2017, the total impact of these changes on the net loss attributable to common stockholders was a reduction of $13.4 million. As of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the liability recorded for these taxes was $21.2 million and $20.9 million, respectively. In the event other jurisdictions challenge management’s assumptions and analysis, the actual exposure could differ materially from the current estimates. |