Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Operating Leases The Company primarily leases office space, with various expiration dates through June 2029. Some of the leases include options to extend such leases for up to five years, and some include options to terminate such leases within one year. The terms of certain leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception. Operating leases are included in operating lease right-of-use (“ROU”) assets, accrued liabilities Supplemental cash flow information related to operating leases for the nine months ended October 2, 2022 and October 3, 2021 was as follows: October 2, 2022 October 3, 2021 (in thousands) Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities Operating cash flows from operating leases $ 5,208 $ 4,939 Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease liabilities Operating leases $ 2,670 $ 1,429 Weighted average remaining lease term and weighted average discount rate related to operating leases were as follows: As of October 2, 2022 December 31, 2021 Weighted average remaining lease term 5.1 years 6.1 years Weighted average discount rate 5.71 % 5.77 % The Company's future minimum undiscounted lease payments under operating leases and future non-cancelable rent payments from its subtenants for each of the next five years and thereafter as of October 2, 2022 were as follows: Operating Lease Payments Sublease Payments Net (In thousands) 2022 (Remaining three months) $ 1,166 $ (502) $ 664 2023 6,050 (1,891) 4,159 2024 5,433 (1,947) 3,486 2025 3,753 (2,006) 1,747 2026 3,872 (2,066) 1,806 Thereafter 8,794 (5,942) 2,852 Total future lease payments 29,068 $ (14,354) $ 14,714 Less: interest (4,322) Present value of future minimum lease payments $ 24,746 Accrued liabilities $ 4,507 Non-current operating lease liabilities 20,239 Total lease liabilities $ 24,746 Letters of Credit In connection with the lease agreement for the office space located in San Jose, California, the Company executed a letter of credit with the landlord as the beneficiary. As of October 2, 2022, the Company had approximately $3.6 million of unused letters of credit outstanding, of which $3.1 million pertains to the lease arrangement in San Jose, California. Purchase Obligations The Company has entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. As of October 2, 2022, the Company had approximately $42.5 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. As of October 2, 2022, a further $37.7 million of purchase orders beyond contractual termination periods have been issued to supply chain partners in anticipation of demand requirements. Consequently, the Company may incur expenses for materials and components, such as chipsets purchased by the supplier to fulfill the purchase order if the purchase order is cancelled. Expenses incurred in respect of cancelled purchase orders has historically not been significant relative to the original order value. Warranty Obligations Changes in the Company’s warranty liability, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, were as follows: Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended October 2, October 3, October 2, October 3, (In thousands) Balance at the beginning of the period $ 1,285 $ 1,805 $ 1,330 $ 2,451 Provision for (release of) warranty obligation (88) (53) 25 (438) Settlements (76) (107) (234) (368) Balance at the end of the period $ 1,121 $ 1,645 $ 1,121 $ 1,645 Litigation and Other Legal Matters Securities Class Action Lawsuits and Derivative Suit The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, the Company accrues for the amount or, if a range, the Company accrues the low end of the range, only if there is not a better estimate than any other amount within the range, as a component of legal expense within litigation reserves, net. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate the Company had previously accrued. In relation to such matters, 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 within the next 12 months, or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. 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 have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events 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, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses. On March 2, 2022, the Company filed its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 which disclosed the status of certain securities class action lawsuits. In summary, on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (the "State Action"), and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Federal Action") against the Company and certain of its executives and directors. The plaintiffs in the State Action allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales trends ahead of the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO"), violating the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Company common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO. In the Federal Action, the court appointed a shareholder named Matis Nayman as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff alleged violations of the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s sales trends and products. In the amended complaint, lead plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock (i) during the period between August 3, 2018 through December 3, 2018 and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Lead plaintiff sought class certification, an award of unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On August 6, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The federal court granted that motion, and lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On June 12, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement for $1.25 million, which was also the amount that the Company had accrued for loss contingency. In October 2020, the Company made a $1.25 million payment to an escrow account administered by the court and plaintiff’s counsel (the “Settlement Fund”). The Settlement Fund was deemed to be in the custody of the court and remained subject to the jurisdiction of the court until such time as the Settlement Fund was distributed pursuant to the settlement agreement and/or further order of the court. On February 5, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. In advance of the final approval hearing, three of the named plaintiffs in the State Action requested exclusion from the settlement. The court held a final approval hearing on March 11, 2021, and, on March 25, 2021, entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement and, among other things, dismissed with prejudice all claims of lead plaintiff and the Settlement Class (as defined in the settlement agreement). The Federal Action is now closed. In the State Action, on May 5, 2021, the court held a status conference and instructed plaintiffs Perros, Patel, and Pham (“Plaintiffs”), who were the only Arlo stockholders to opt out of the federal settlement, to file an amended complaint by June 4, 2021. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, asserting their individual Securities Act claims, but also purporting to represent a new class of Arlo stockholders who purchased Arlo shares between December 3, 2018 and February 22, 2019. On June 21, 2021, the Arlo defendants filed a motion to dismiss the State Action (for forum non conveniens) based on the federal forum provision in Arlo’s certificate of incorporation. Plaintiffs opposed on July 28, 2021, and the Arlo defendants replied on August 13, 2021. On September 9, 2021, the court issued an order granting the Arlo defendants’ forum non conveniens motion, and on September 17, 2021, the court issued a final judgment dismissing the State Action in its entirety. On November 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The appeal is pending before the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief on May 20, 2022. Defendants-Respondents filed their responding brief on August 18, 2022, and Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief on September 7, 2022. The court has not yet set a date for oral argument. Leonard R. Pinto v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., et al. In addition to the State Action and the Federal Action, a purported stockholder named Leonard Pinto filed a tagalong derivative action on June 13, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Pinto v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al. , No. 19-CV-03354 (the “Derivative Action”). The Derivative Action is brought on behalf of the Company against the majority of the Company’s current directors. The complaint is based on the same alleged misconduct as the securities class actions but asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On August 20, 2019, the court stayed the Derivative Action in deference to the Federal Action. On April 8, 2021, because it had granted final approval of the settlement in the Federal Action, the court lifted the stay in the Derivative Action and asked the parties to file a joint status report by April 22, 2021. In their status report, the parties stipulated to a schedule for plaintiff to file an amended complaint and for the parties to brief a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on May 24, 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 9, 2021. On August 23, 2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 17, 2021. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 31, 2022, and defendants filed their reply on March 2, 2022. On July 28, 2022, the Court heard defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the Court informed the parties that it was inclined to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court’s corresponding written order dismissing the case followed on August 8, 2022. Skybell Technologies, Inc. v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. On December 18, 2020, Skybell Technologies, Inc., SB IP Holdings, LLC, and Eyetalk365, LLC (collectively, “Skybell”) filed a Section 337 complaint against the Company, Vivint Smart Home, Inc. and SimpliSafe, Inc. (collectively “Respondents”) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The action alleges that the Company’s cameras and video doorbell cameras infringe certain patents (the Asserted Patents"). On September 15, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) hearing the case at the ITC issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) ruling that all the Asserted Patents are invalid. Skybell appealed the ID by submitting its Petition for Review to the ITC on September 27, 2021, and the Respondents submitted their Response to the Petition to Review on October 4, 2021. On November 10, 2021, The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling and did not grant any review of the ID, meaning that there is no trial on the ITC docket since there are no valid patents remaining, and the case is concluded at the ITC level. On January 9, 2022, Skybell filed its Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit to appeal the ITC’s rulings invalidating the Asserted Patents. On June 23, 2022, Skybell and the Respondents stipulated to the dismissal of the Skybell’s appeal, and on June 27, 2022, the Federal Circuit correspondingly dismissed the appeal. There was no material financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Indemnification Agreements In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to customers, distributors, resellers, vendors, lessors, business partners, and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising from breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and certain of its executive officers that require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. As of October 2, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such indemnifications and is not currently aware of any indemnification claims. |