Commitments and Contingencies | 6. Commitments and Contingencies Operating Leases As of June 30, 2016 , the Company sub ‑lease s office facilities under non ‑cancelable operating lease agreements. The Company occupies approximately 88,000 square feet of laboratory and office space at its corporate headquarters in San Carlos , California pur suant to two separate subleases. One sublease covers approximately 61,000 square feet (the “First Space”) and expires in October 2016 , and the other sublease covers approximately 27,000 square feet (the “Second Space”) and expires in January 2017. In connection with an amendment to the sublease agreement for the First Space in January 2013 , th e Company executed a letter of credit in favor of the lessors for $0.8 million, which is secured with a restricted cash account. In connection with its entry into the sublease for the Second Space in March 2014, the Company executed a letter of credit in April 2015 in favor of the lessors for $0.3 million, which is secured with a restricted cash account. I n October 2015, the Company entered into a lease agreement directly with the landlord of the First Space and the Second Space, the term of which (i) will begin in October 2016 with respect to the First Space and (ii) is expected to begin in January 2017 with respect to the Second Space, subject to the existing primary lessee of the Second Space not exercising its right to renew its existing lease for that space. The initial term of the lease will expire in October 2023, and may be extend ed for an additional five years . Upon the expir y of the current subleases , the lease agreement commences in October 2016 at a monthly rent of $0.2 million per month , increasing each year thereafter to a maximum of $0.4 million in the final year of the initial term of the lease. The Company is entitled to a tenant improvement allowance of $0.4 million, to be expended prior to April 1, 2018, for the costs related to the design and construction of improvements to the facilities. The terms of the lease include a $0.5 million security deposit. As of June 30, 2016, the Company has a total of 86,504 square feet under lease at its San Carlos, California location. In April 2015, the Company entered into a sub-lease agreement for additional office space in Redwood City, California. The additional space carries a base rent of $62,700 per month. The lease period beg an in June 2015 and will terminate in August 2016 with no option to extend the lease . In addition, the Company has paid a security deposit of $125,500 . As of June 30, 2016, the Company has a total of 23,245 square feet under sublease at its Redwood City, California location. In September 2015, the Company’s subsidiary entered into a long-term lease agreement for la boratory and office space totaling approximately 94,000 square feet in Austin, Texas . The lease term is 132 months beginning in December 2015 with monthly payments beginning in December 2016, increasing from $133,000 to $207,500 . Per the terms of the lease, the subsidiary has paid a security deposit of $375,000 , and the landlord has allotted the subsidiary a n allowance for leasehold improvements of up to $7.8 million. In October 2015, the Company’s subsidiary entered into a one -y ear lease agreement for additional temporary office space in Austin, Texas. The property carries a monthly rent of $12,900 per month for the 12 months of the lease and $12,900 per month on a month to month basis following the 12th month. The terms of the lease include a $12,900 security deposit . As of June 30, 2016, the Company has a total of 101,912 square feet under lease at its Austin, Texas location. The future annual minimum lease payments under all non-cancelable operating leases as of June 30, 2016 are as follows: Operating Leases (in thousands) Year ended December 31: 2016 (six months) $ 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 and thereafter Total future minimum lease payments $ Rent expense for the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 was $1.3 million and $0.5 million, respectively. Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 was $2.6 million an d $ 1.1 million, respectively. The Company is also required to pay its share of facility operating expenses with respect to the facilities in which it operates. Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions. The Company is aggressively defending its current litigation matters, and while there can be no assurances and the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could adversely affect gross margins in future periods. If this were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, if any, which could result in the need to record or adjust a liability and record additional expenses. During the periods presented, the Company has not recorded any accrual for loss contingencies associated with such legal proceedings, determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible, or determined that the amount or range of any possible loss is reasonably estimable. On March 4, 2016, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego seeking compensatory damages , patient alleging that the Company failed to perform a carrier screen test that was ordered for a patient who subsequently gave birth to a child with an inherited condition . The Company has notified its insurer, who is providing a defense under a reservation of rights. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims in this lawsuit, but it cannot be certain of the outcome . On February 17, 2016 , March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the “San Mateo Superior Court”) , against the Company , its directors and certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of its July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company’s IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company’s business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company has removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; a motion to remand the actions to the San Mateo Superior Court is pending . The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously , but it cannot be certain of the outcome . On January 6, 2012, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 licensed by Sequenom, Inc. ("Sequenom") from Isis Innovation Limited, Inc. ("Isis") (the '540 patent), is invalid, unenforceable and not infringed by the Company. The '540 patent relates to non-invasive prenatal diagnosis methods. This case was consolidated in the Northern District of California with a case that Sequenom, an affiliate of Sequenom, and Isis brought on January 24, 2012 in the Southern District of California alleging infringement by the Company and DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., the Company's licensee, and at the time, the distributor of its non-invasive paternity test, of certain claims of the '540 patent. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. ("Ariosa") and Verinata Health, Inc. ("Verinata"), now a division of Illumina, Inc., also filed declaratory judgment actions regarding the '540 patent against Sequenom in the Northern District. Sequenom asserted counterclaims of infringement of the '540 patent against both Ariosa and Verinata in those respective cases. All of these cases were designated related cases. On October 30, 2013, the District Court issued an order granting Ariosa's motion for summary judgment in its case against Sequenom, finding that the claims asserted against Ariosa are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 for reciting non-patentable subject matter. Many of the claims of the '540 patent asserted against the Company were invalidated by this order. Subsequently, Sequenom entered into stipulations with Verinata and the Company conditionally agreeing that the remaining asserted claims of the '540 Patent should be deemed invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Court then entered judgment in favor of Verinata and the Company in their respective cases in November 2013. Sequenom has appealed all three judgments to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"). The CAFC has consolidated the Ariosa, Verinata and the Company's cases for purposes of appeal, such that the CAFC can make a single ruling on the '540 patent claims that apply to all parties involved. The appellate arguments were heard on November 7, 2014. On December 2, 2014, Sequenom and Verinata settled the pending claims between them. On June 12, 2015, the CAFC affirmed the district court's finding of invalidity with respect to the Company and Ariosa. On August 13, 2015, Sequenom requested a rehearing en banc by the full panel of the CAFC, and on October 19, 2015, the Company and Ariosa each filed a response to Sequenom’s request. On December 2, 2015, Sequenom’s petition for a rehearing en banc was denied. On March 21, 2016, Sequenom filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. Sequenom’s petition was denied on June 27, 2016, ending the litigation. Third-Party Payer Reimbursement Audits In November 2014, a third-party payer sought information as part of an investigative audit of claims that it had paid for certain genetic testing. The Company complied with the request and provided responsive information. In a letter dated June 2, 2015, the third-party payer alleged that it had overpaid $1.9 million to the Company , which it claimed was an overpayment reflecting the difference between what it paid to the Company and what it contended it should have paid based on its fee schedule and coverage determinations . In August 2015, the Company reached an agreement for a settlement payment of $1.2 million as part of a complete settlement of this matter. This charge was recorded against “revenue” in the second qua rter of 2015 . Contractual Commitment As of Ju n e 30, 2016, the Company has contractual commitments with a supplier for approximately $ 8.7 million and other material supplier commitments for approximately $3.2 million for inventory material used in the laboratory testing process. In January 2015, the Company entered into a laboratory services agreement. As of June 30, 2016, there was a total remaining minimum payment owed under the agreement of approximately $2.2 m illion through October 2016 . |