Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Letters of Credit In connection with certain office leasehold interests in real property located in San Francisco (350 Treat Ave and, 2741 16th Street) and in Paris, the Company obtained letters of credit from certain banks as required by the lease agreements. If the Company defaults under the terms of the applicable lease, the lessor will be entitled to draw upon the letters of credit in the amount necessary to cure the default. The amounts covered by the letters of credit are collateralized by certificates of deposit, which are included in restricted cash on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022. The outstanding amount of the letters of credit was $1.4 million and $1.3 million as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively. Non-Cancelable Purchase Commitments As of June 30, 2023, the Company had non-cancelable purchase commitments to third-party contract manufacturers for approximately $25.3 million and other vendors for approximately $4.8 million. Litigation The Company is involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. The Company has identified certain claims as a result of which a loss may be incurred, but in the aggregate any loss is expected to be immaterial. This assessment is based on our current understanding of relevant facts and circumstances. As such, our view of these matters is subject to inherent uncertainties and may change in the future. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether an exposure is reasonably estimable. Actual outcomes of these legal and regulatory proceedings may materially differ from our current estimates. The Company has recorded immaterial accruals with respect to the following because a loss is not considered probable or cannot be reasonably estimated: Velodyne Legacy Litigation On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne, Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, entitled Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al. , No. 3:21-cv01486-SI. The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the Company’s business, operations and prospects, including with respect to David Hall’s role with Velodyne and removal as Chairman of Velodyne’s Board of Directors. The complaint alleged that purported class members have suffered losses and sought, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne’s securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled Reese v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al. , No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed against Velodyne, Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Hamer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class action and seeking recovery on behalf of the same putative class. On March 19, 2021, another putative class action entitled Nick v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al. , No. 4:21-cv-01950-JST, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against Velodyne, Mr. Gopalan, Mr. Hamer, two current or former directors, and three other entities. The complaint was based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class actions and sought, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne’s securities between July 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021. The class actions have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been appointed and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 1, 2021, based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class actions. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on February 11, 2022. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it relates to the claims related to David Hall’s role with Velodyne, but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims. The case is proceeding with discovery with trial set for August 4, 2025. The Company does not believe the claims are meritorious and intends to defend the actions vigorously. On March 12, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit entitled D’Arcy v. Gopalan, et al. , No. 1:21-cv-00369-MN, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against current and former directors and/or officers Anand Gopalan, Andrew Hamer, David S. Hall, Marta Thoma Hall, Joseph B. Culkin, Michael E. Dee, James A. Graf, Barbara Samardzich, and Christopher A. Thomas, and names Velodyne as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against all of the individual defendants, and asserted a contribution claim under the federal securities laws against Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Hamer. On March 16, 2021, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit entitled Kondner, et al. v. Culkin, et al. , No. 1:21cv-00391-MN, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against most of the same defendants named in the earlier derivative complaint, and asserted claims against the individual defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets. Both derivative actions are based on allegations similar to those in the class actions discussed above, and have now been consolidated. On January 3, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The case is stayed pending the outcome of the Moradpour lawsuit. The Company does not believe the claims are meritorious and intends to defend the actions vigorously. On January 18, 2022, David and Marta Hall filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, against current and former officers and directors of Velodyne, as well as Jeff Vetter, Velodyne’s outside counsel. The Halls are seeking to recover damages for financial and other injuries they allegedly sustained as a result of the merger between Graf and Velodyne. On May 3, 2022, certain defendants filed motions to compel arbitration and other defendants filed motions to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court conducted a hearing on the motions on July 20, 2022. On August 30, 2022, the court granted the motion to quash service with respect the out of state defendants. On October 3, 2022, the court granted the motion to compel Mr. Hall to arbitrate his claims, and stayed proceedings on Ms. Hall’s claims pending arbitration of Mr. Hall’s claims. On October 20, 2022, David and Marta voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. On January 3, 2023, the Halls filed an arbitration demand with the same allegations as the prior lawsuit. The arbitrator has not yet set a schedule. The Company does not believe the claims are meritorious and intends to defend the action vigorously. On December 8, 2021, Velodyne received a subpoena for documents related to Wei Weng’s trading in stock of Graf Acquisition Corp. (Velodyne’s predecessor) stock during 2020, prior to the announcement that Velodyne was planning to merge into Graf Acquisition Corp. Velodyne has complied with the SEC’s requests to date; however, the SEC may request additional documents or information. No such follow up requests have been received to date. On December 1, 2022 and December 20, 2022, purported stockholders of Velodyne filed the following lawsuits against Velodyne and certain of its directors in the Southern District of New York for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9 : O’Dell v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al. , Civil Action No. 22-cv-10211, Carlisle v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al ., Civil Action No. 22-cv-10720. On December 29, 2022, a complaint alleging generally the same claims was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Wheeler v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al ., Civil Action No. 22-cv-01641-UNA. All of the lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the respective Plaintiffs. They have agreed to settle in principle the mootness fees and the Company has recorded a related immaterial accrual. Ouster Litigation On June 10, 2021, the Company received a letter from the SEC notifying us of an investigation and document subpoena. The subpoena seeks documents regarding projected financial information in CLA’s Form S-4 registration statement filed on December 22, 2020. The Company has complied with the SEC’s requests to date; however, the SEC may request additional documents or information. No such follow up requests have been received to date. On April 11, 2023, the Company filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). The complaint requests that the Commission institute an investigation relating to the unlawful importation, sale for importation, and/or sale after importation into the United States by Hesai Group, Hesai Technology Co., Ltd., and Hesai Inc. (collectively “Hesai”) of certain LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) systems and/or components thereof. The complaint alleges that Hesai’s LiDAR products infringe certain claims of the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 11,175,405, 11,178,381, 11,190,750, 11,287,515 and/or 11,422,236. The complaint seeks the issuance of a permanent exclusion order and cease and desist order. On May 11, 2023, the Commission decided to institute an investigation based on the Company’s complaint as In the Matter of Certain LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1363. On May 25, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge issued a procedural schedule whereby the evidentiary hearing is set to begin on January 4, 2024, with a target date for completion of the Investigation by the Commission on October 17, 2024. On June 7, 2023, Hesai responded to the complaint and denied all allegations. On June 22, 2023, Hesai filed a motion to terminate or alternatively stay the Investigation in light of the settlement agreement signed in 2020 by Velodyne Lidar Inc. and Hesai. Ouster filed its opposition, including disputing any obligations to arbitrate as non-signatory to the 2020 agreement. This motion is pending. On April 11, 2023, the Company also filed a complaint in the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement of the same patents as in the aforestated Section 337 proceeding against Hesai Group and Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. The complaint seeks monetary damages as well as the issuance of a permanent injunction. On May 30, 2023, the Court granted stay the case pending the resolution of In the Matter of Certain LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1363. On May 17, 2023, Hesai Photonics Technology Co. Ltd. and Hesai Group (collectively “Hesai Photonics”) filed a request for arbitration with JAMS against Ouster, Inc. (“Ouster”), Velodyne Lidar, Inc., Velodyne, LLC, and Oban Merger Sub II LLC (collectively “Velodyne”). Hesai Photonics alleges that Ouster is bound by the terms and conditions, including an obligation to arbitrate disputes, of a Settlement Agreement signed in 2020 between Hesai Photonics and Velodyne as a result of Ouster’s 2023 merger with Velodyne. On June 13, 2023, Ouster and Velodyne denied all allegations and intends to defend the action vigorously. Arbitration has not set a schedule. Other than as set forth above, as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022 there were no material litigation matters. Indemnification From time to time, the Company enters into agreements in the ordinary course of business that include indemnification provisions. Generally, in these provisions the Company agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the indemnified parties for claims and losses suffered or incurred by such indemnified parties for which the Company is responsible under the applicable indemnification provisions. The terms of the indemnification provisions vary depending upon negotiations between the Company and its counterpart; however, typically, these indemnification obligations survive the term of the contract and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make pursuant to these provisions are uncapped. To date, the Company has never incurred costs to settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. |