Debt, Commitments and Contingencies | Debt, Commitments and Contingencies The debt, commitments and contingencies described below would require us, or our subsidiaries, to make payments to third parties under certain circumstances. Debt On October 6, 2017, we entered into a $125.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility, or the 2017 Facility, with Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, as administrative agent, PNC Bank, National Association, as documentation agent, and a syndicate of lenders. Upon entry into the 2017 Facility, we borrowed $72.0 million, which was used to repay the previously outstanding balance under our previous credit facility. The 2017 Facility matures in October 2022 and includes an option to further increase the borrowing capacity to $175.0 million with the consent of the lenders. Costs incurred in connection with the 2017 Facility were capitalized and are being amortized as interest expense over the term of the 2017 Facility. The 2017 Facility is secured by substantially all of our assets, including our intelle ctual property. On March 25, 2020, we borrowed $50.0 million under the 2017 Facility as a precautionary measure in order to provide financial flexibility in light of current uncertainty in the financial markets resulting from the COVID- 19 pandemic. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, we repaid $1.0 million and $2.0 million of the outstanding balance of the 2017 Facility, respectively. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, we repaid $1.0 million and $3.0 million of the outstanding balance of the 2017 Facility, respectively. The outstanding principal balance on the 2017 Facility accrues interest at a rate equal to, at our option, either (1) LIBOR, plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio, or (2) the highest of (a) the Wall Street Journal prime rate, (b) the Federal Funds rate plus 0.50%, or (c) LIBOR plus 1.00% plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio. For each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, we elected for the outstanding principal balance to accrue interest at LIBOR plus 1.50%, LIBOR plus 1.75%, LIBOR plus 2.00%, and LIBOR plus 2.50% when our consolidated leverage ratio is less than 1.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 1.00:1.00 but less than 2.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 2.00:1.00 but less than 3.00:1.00 and greater than or equal to 3.00:1.00, respectively. The 2017 Facility also carries an unused line commitment fee of 0.20%. For the nine months ended September 30, 2020, the effective interest rate on the 2017 Facility was 2.92%, as compared to 4.61% for the same period in the prior year. The carrying value of the 2017 Facility was $111.0 million and $63.0 million as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. The 2017 Facility includes a variable interest rate that approximates market rates and, as such, we classified the liability as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy and determined that the carrying amount of the 2017 Facility approximated its fair value as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. The 2017 Facility contains various financial and other covenants that require us to maintain a maximum consolidated leverage ratio not to exceed 3.25:1.00 and a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.25:1.00. As of September 30, 2020, we were in compliance with all financial and non-financial covenants and there were no events of default. On November 30, 2018, we amended the 2017 Facility to incorporate the parameters that must be met for us to repurchase our outstanding common stock under the stock repurchase program authorized by our board of directors on November 29, 2018. Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Consideration On October 21, 2019, we acquired 85% of the issued and outstanding capital stock of OpenEye. Certain stockholders of OpenEye have the right to receive an earn-out payment of up to an additional $11.0 million based upon satisfaction of certain calendar 2020 revenue targets. As of October 21, 2019, the fair value of the contingent consideration liability was $2.8 million. At each reporting date until the payment date in 2021, we will remeasure the liability, using the same valuation approach. Changes in the fair value resulting from information that existed subsequent to the acquisition date are recorded in the condensed consolidated statements of operations . During the nine months ended September 30, 2020, the contingent consideration liability decreased $2.6 million from December 31, 2019 to less than $0.1 million, primarily due to a change to OpenEye's 2020 projected revenue. The contingent consideration liab ility is included in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2020, and included in other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2019 (see Note 9). Indemnification Agreements We have various agreements that may obligate us to indemnify the other party to the agreement with respect to certain matters. Generally, these indemnification provisions are included in contracts arising in the normal course of business. Although we cannot predict the maximum potential amount of future payments that may become due under these indemnification agreements, we do not believe any potential liability that might arise from such indemnity provisions is probable or material. Letters of Credit As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had no outstanding letters of credit under the 2017 Facility. Legal Proceedings On June 2, 2015, Vivint, Inc., or Vivint, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Utah, alleging that our technology directly and indirectly infringes six patents that Vivint purchased. Vivint is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. We answered the complaint on July 23, 2015. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. On August 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court, District of Utah stayed the litigation pending inter partes review by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of five of the patents in suit. In March 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to two patents finding all challenged claims unpatentable. In May 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to the remaining three patents that found certain claims unpatentable, while certain other claims were not found to be unpatentable. Vivint appealed the decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit, and we cross-appealed. In July 2018, the Federal Circuit issued orders affirming the PTAB’s March 2017 decisions that invalidated all challenged claims of two patents. The U.S. District Court, District of Utah lifted the stay on the litigation on June 26, 2017, with Vivint proceeding with its case on four of the six patents in its complaint. No trial date has been set. In September 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, ordered ex parte reexaminations of certain claims of two of the remaining patents in suit, at our request. On October 30, 2018 and November 5, 2018, the PTO issued final office actions in the pending reexaminations rejecting all claims being examined as unpatentable over the prior art. Nine claims asserted in the litigation were found unpatentable in the PTO rejections. Vivint appealed these rejections to the PTAB on March 29, 2019 and April 4, 2019. The PTAB issued decisions affirming the rejections on February 28, 2020 and May 4, 2020. Vivint appealed one of these decisions to the Federal Circuit on July 1, 2020, and requested rehearing from the PTAB on the other decision. On December 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued an order regarding the inter partes review of three of the remaining patents in suit that vacated, reversed and remanded the PTAB’s ruling with regard to the construction of a term (“communication device identification code”) as requested by Alarm.com and affirmed the PTAB’s May 2017 rulings invalidating certain of the Vivint patents in all other respects. On July 24, 2019, the PTAB issued further decisions with respect to two of the remaining patents in suit, finding additional claims unpatentable in view of the Federal Circuit’s December 20, 2018 decision. One of the claims asserted in the litigation was found unpatentable in the July 14, 2019 decisions. Vivint appealed the July 24, 2019 decisions to the Federal Circuit on September 25, 2019. Oral argument of the appeal is scheduled for December 8, 2020. Should Vivint prevail in proving Alarm.com infringes one or more of its patent claims, we could be required to pay damages of Vivint’s lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution. Since all remaining patent claims in the litigation have expired, Vivint shall not be entitled to injunctive relief as a remedy in this matter. While we believe we have valid defenses to Vivint’s claims, any of these outcomes could result in a material adverse effect on our business. Based on currently available information, we have determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On October 22, 2019, EcoFactor, Inc., or EcoFactor, filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or ITC, naming Alarm.com Incorporated and Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., among others, as proposed respondents. The complaint alleges that Alarm.com’s smart thermostats infringe three U.S. patents owned by EcoFactor. EcoFactor is seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order. On November 22, 2019, the ITC instituted an investigation into EcoFactor’s allegations naming Alarm.com Incorporated, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. and others as respondents. We answered the complaint on December 19, 2019. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. The administrative law judge presiding over the investigation scheduled an evidentiary hearing to begin on November 16, 2020 and set March 15, 2021 as the target date for completion of the investigation. On November 11, 2019, EcoFactor filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of the same three patents asserted against us in the ITC. EcoFactor is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. On December 26, 2019, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit pending the conclusion of the related ITC investigation. On May 26, 2020, EcoFactor filed a second lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, alleging Alarm.com’s products and services infringe four additional U.S. patents owned by EcoFactor. EcoFactor is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. On October 27, 2020, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until January 25, 2021 in light of the related ITC investigation. Should EcoFactor prevail in the ITC investigation, Alarm.com thermostats manufactured abroad could be excluded from importation into the United States. Should EcoFactor prevail in its district court lawsuits we could be required to pay damages and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution, we could be enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling such elements is not made available to us, and we could be required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us. While we believe we have valid defenses to EcoFactor’s claims, the outcome of these legal claims cannot be predicted with certainty and any of these outcomes could result in an adverse effect on our business. Based on currently available information, we have determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On May 8, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us by Craig Hicks in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or the TCPA, and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act, or the VTPPA. The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA and VTPPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorneys' fees. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 2, 2020, and plaintiff filed his response on July 16, 2020. We filed our reply on July 22, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On July 29, 2020, a putative class action was filed against Alarm.com Incorporated d/b/a ICN Acquisition, among other defendants, by Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and Sidney Naiman in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the TCPA. The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief. We have agreed to waive service of the complaint, and our response is due November 20, 2020. Based on currently available information, we have determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. In addition to the matters described above, we may be required to provide indemnification to certain of our service provider partners for certain claims regarding our solutions. For example, we are incurring costs associated with the indemnification of our service provider ADT, LLC in ongoing patent infringement suits. On July 13, 2016, Applied Capital, Inc., or Applied Capital, filed a lawsuit against ADT, LLC, the ADT Corporation, and Icontrol Networks, Inc. in U.S. District Court, the District of New Mexico. Applied Capital, Inc v. The ADT Corporation et al. , D. New Mexico Case No. 1-16-cv-00815. Icontrol was dismissed without prejudice on May 22, 2017. Applied Capital alleges that ADT’s sales of ADT Pulse directly and indirectly infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,378,817 and 9,728,082, which were allegedly purchased by Applied Capital. Applied Capital is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. ADT answered Applied Capital’s amended complaint on July 16, 2018. Among other things, ADT has asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. On April 5, 2019, Applied Capital filed a lawsuit for breach of contract against Rodney Fox, the inventor of the patents-in-suit, in the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo in New Mexico State Court (No. D-202-CV-2019-02841). Mr. Fox counterclaimed, alleging that he is the rightful owner of the patents-in-suit. Based on the dispute of ownership, on October 15, 2019, ADT filed a motion to stay in this matter pending its resolution. Applied Capital and Mr. Fox reached settlement and stipulated to dismissal of the New Mexico State Court action on October 31, 2019. Applied Capital filed its Second Amended Complaint on January 27, 2020 and ADT answered, adding a claim of inequitable conduct, on February 10, 2020. The court issued its claim construction order on August 12, 2019, fact discovery closed on November 12, 2019, expert discovery closed on March 9, 2020, and summary judgment and Daubert motions briefing closed on June 3, 2020 and are pending. The pretrial conference is scheduled for March 22, 2021, and trial is set for April 5, 2021. On July 2, 2020, Port us Singapore Pte. Ltd. and Portus Pty. Ltd., or Portus, sued ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Portus alle ges that ADT’s sales of ADT Pulse directly and indirectly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,914,526 and 9,961,097, which were assigned to Portus. Portus is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. ADT answered the complaint on August 31, 2020. The claim construction hearing is set for March 19, 2021. The court has not yet otherwise entered a schedule. Should the plaintiffs prevail on the claims that one or more elements of ADT’s products infringe, we could be required to indemnify ADT for damages in the form of a reasonable royalty or ADT could be enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling our technology is not made available to us or we are unable to design around such patents, and required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us. The outcome of these legal claims cannot be predicted with certainty. We believe there are valid defenses to the claims made by Applied Capital and Portus. Based on currently available information, we have determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. We may also be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business. Other than the preceding matters, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in the opinion of management, is reasonably possible or probable of having a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We reserve for contingent liabilities based on ASC 450, " Contingencies ," when it is determined that a liability, inclusive of defense costs, is probable and reasonably estimable. Litigation is subject to many factors that are difficult to predict, so there can be no assurance that, in the event of a material unfavorable result in one or more claims, we will not incur material costs. |