XML 30 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Claim Against ICAR On June 11, 2018, a claim was filed before Court of First Instance 5 (Juzgado de Primera Instancia) of Barcelona, Spain, the first instance court in the Spanish civil procedure system, against ICAR. The claim, also directed towards Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa, the former controlling shareholder of ICAR and its current General Manager at the time the claim was filed, was brought by the Spanish company Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. for an alleged breach by ICAR of a services agreement entered into in the context of the sale of all of the shares in ICAR to Mitek Holding B.V., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. ICAR responded to the claim on September 7, 2018. After several postponements as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 3, 2022 the trial was held. On June 7, 2022, the Court of First Instance 5 of Barcelona issued a judgment which fully upheld the claim and declared that Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa and ICAR had to pay the amount and damages claimed by Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. equal to €0.8 million (or $0.8 million as of September 30, 2022), plus the interest accrued and the legal fees. ICAR and Mr Xavier Codó Grasa submitted an appeal against this judgment on July 13, 2022. Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. filed an opposition to that appeal on September 2, 2022. The next procedural step will be the voting and issuing of the ruling on the appeal. Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. requested the provisional enforcement of the judgment, asking ICAR and Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa to deposit the damages awarded plus 30% to cover the possible interests that may continue to accrue during the appeal (€1.1 million in total) with the Court. According to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement concerning the acquisition of the shares in ICAR, Mitek Holding B.V. is to be indemnified in respect of any damages suffered by ICAR and/or Mitek Holding B.V. in respect of this claim. As a consequence, the escrow (€0.9 million) was liberated pursuant to the provisional enforcement of the judgment, and Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa deposited the remaining €0.2 million. Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. also requested that ICAR and Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa bear the costs of the provisional enforcement, amounting to (i) €16,475 for the accrued interest, and (ii) €10,995 as legal costs. ICAR and Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa opposed this request, but the Court decided in favor of Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. Therefore, the next step will be for ICAR and Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa to comply with this order. Third-Party Claims Against the Company’s Customers The Company receives indemnification demands from end-user customers who received third party patentee offers to license patents and allegations of patent infringement. Some of the offers and allegations have resulted in ongoing litigation. The Company is not a party to any such litigation. License offers to and infringement allegations against the Company’s end-customers were made by Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC; Lupercal, LLC; Pebble Tide, LLC; Dominion Harbor Group, LLC; and IP Edge, LLC, which appear to be non-practicing entities (“NPEs”)—often called “patent trolls”—and not the Company’s competitors. These NPEs may seek to extract settlements from our end-customers, resulting in new or renewed indemnification demands to the Company. At this time, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify any customers or end-customers resulting from license offers or patent infringement allegations by the companies listed above. However, the Company could incur substantial costs if it is determined that it is required to indemnify any customers or end-customers in connection with these offers or allegations. Given the potential for impact to other customers and the industry, the Company is actively monitoring the offers, allegations and any resulting litigation. On July 7, 2018, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Wells Fargo’s remote deposit capture systems (which in part utilize technology provided by the Company to Wells Fargo through a partner) infringe four USAA owned patents related to mobile deposits (the “First Wells Lawsuit”). On August 17, 2018, USAA filed a second lawsuit (the “Second Wells Lawsuit” and together with the First Wells Lawsuit, the “Wells Lawsuits”) against Wells Fargo in the Eastern District of Texas asserting that an additional five patents owned by USAA were infringed by Wells Fargo’s remote deposit capture system. In neither lawsuit was the Company named in the Complaint as an infringer nor at any time did USAA allege specifically that the Company’s products by themselves infringed any of the asserted patents. Subsequently, on November 6, 2019, a jury in the First Wells Lawsuit found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed at least one of the Subject Patents (as defined below) and awarded USAA $200 million in damages. In the Second Wells Lawsuit, USAA dropped two of the patents from the litigation, and the judge in the case found that one of the remaining three patents was invalid. On January 10, 2020, a jury in the Second Wells Lawsuit found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed at least one of the patents at issue in that case and awarded USAA $102 million in damages. No Mitek product was accused of infringing either of the two patents in question in the Second Wells Lawsuit as the litigation involved broad banking processes and not the Company’s specific mobile deposit features. USAA and Wells Fargo subsequently reached a settlement, and on April 1, 2021 the Court granted the parties’ joint motion and stipulation of dismissal of the Wells Lawsuits with prejudice. Wells Fargo filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of the four patents in the First Wells Lawsuit. Three of those four petitions were instituted, while one (relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,818,090 (“the ’090 Patent”)) was denied institution. On November 24, 2020, and January 26, 2021, the PTAB issued final written decisions determining that Wells Fargo had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any claims of the U.S. Patent Nos. 8,977,571 (“the ’571 Patent”), 8,699,779 (“the ’779 Patent”), or 9,336,517 (“the ’517 Patent”) were unpatentable. On September 30, 2020, USAA filed suit against PNC Bank (the “First PNC Lawsuit”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,482,432 (“the ’432 Patent”) and 10,621,559. These two patents are continuations of an asserted patent in the Second Wells Lawsuit and relate to similar subject matter. On October 19, 2020, PNC Bank’s integration partner, NCR Corporation, sent an indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification from all claims related to the First PNC Lawsuit. The complaint against PNC Bank does not claim that any Company product infringes any of the asserted patents. At this time, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify NCR Corporation or end-users of NCR Corporation resulting from the patent infringement allegations by USAA. On December 4, 2020, USAA filed an amended complaint against PNC Bank also asserting two patents at issue in the First Wells Lawsuit—the ’779 Patent and the ’571 Patent. On February 2, 2021, NCR Corporation sent a second indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification of the claims described in the amended complaint. On March 31, 2021, USAA filed another suit against PNC Bank in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of two patents from the Second Wells Lawsuit, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,013,605 (“the ‘605 Patent”) and 10,013,681 (“the ‘681 Patent”) (the “Second PNC Lawsuit”). On July 7, 2021, USAA filed a third lawsuit against PNC Bank (the “Third PNC Lawsuit” and together with the First PNC Lawsuit and the Second PNC Lawsuit, the “PNC Lawsuits”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patents 10,769,598; 10,402,638; and 9,224,136. A jury trial was held in May 2022 on the consolidated First PNC Lawsuit and Second PNC Lawsuit. The jury found that PNC willfully infringed at least one patent claim and awarded USAA $218 million in damages. The Court denied PNC Bank’s equitable defenses and entered a Final Judgment in the consolidated First PNC Lawsuit and Second PNC Lawsuit on August 19, 2022. A jury trial was held in September 2022 on the Third PNC Lawsuit. The jury found that PNC infringed at least one patent claim and awarded USAA $4.3 million in damages. The Court entered a Final Judgment in the Third PNC Lawsuit on February 16, 2023. While neither the Wells Lawsuits nor the PNC Lawsuits name the Company as a defendant, given (among other factors) the Company’s prior history of litigation with USAA and the continued use of the Company’s products by its customers, on November 1, 2019, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe the ’779 Patent, the ’571 Patent, the ’517 Patent, and the ’090 Patent (collectively, the “Subject Patents”). On January 15, 2020, USAA filed motions requesting the dismissal of the declaratory judgement of the Subject Patents and transfer of the case to the Eastern District of Texas, both of which the Company opposed. On April 21, 2020, the Court in the Northern District of California transferred the Company’s declaratory judgement action to the Eastern District of Texas and did not rule on USAA’s motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2021, the Court in the Eastern District of Texas granted USAA’s motion to dismiss the Company’s declaratory judgment action on jurisdictional grounds. The Court’s ruling did not address the merits of the Company’s claim of non-infringement. The Company appealed the ruling on the motion to dismiss and the decision to transfer the declaratory judgment action from California to Texas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on the Company’s appeal on April 4, 2022 and on May 20 2022, issued an opinion vacating and remanding the district court’s order granting USAA’s motion to dismiss. On August 1, 2022, the parties submitted additional briefing to the district court in light of Federal Circuit’s opinion. The court held another hearing on USAA’s motion to dismiss the Company’s declaratory judgment action on jurisdictional grounds, and once again granted USAA’s motion to dismiss on February 23, 2023. The Company timely filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company continues to believe that its products do not infringe the Subject Patents and will vigorously defend the right of its end-users to use its technology. In April, May, and June 2020, the Company filed petitions for IPR with the PTAB of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of the Subject Patents. On November 6 and 17, 2020, the PTAB decided to exercise its discretion and deny institution of the four petitions due to the alleged relationship between the Company and Wells Fargo, who previously filed petitions for IPR on the Subject Patents. The PTAB did not address the merits of the Company’s petitions or the prior art cited in those petitions. The Company continues to believe that the prior art cited in the petitions renders all the claims of the Subject Patents invalid. On each of December 6, 2020, December 17, 2020, and February 23, 2021, the Company filed requests for rehearing and Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) review of the four denied IPR petitions. The Patent Office denied the requests for rehearing and for POP review. In September 2020, the Company filed an additional two petitions for IPR with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of the ‘681 Patent and the ’605 Patent—two of the patents at issue in the Second Wells Lawsuit. In March 2021, the PTAB decided not to institute the two petitions. On July 7, July 14, and July 21 2021, PNC Bank filed six additional petitions for IPR with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of the ’779 Patent, the ’571 Patent, the ‘559 Patent, and the ‘432 Patent. On August 27, 2021, PNC filed two additional petitions for IPR challenging the validity of the ‘681 Patent and the ‘605 Patent. In October and November of 2021, PNC Bank filed four more petitions for IPR challenging the validity of the ‘638 Patent, the ‘136 Patent, and the ‘598 Patent. The Patent Office denied institution with respect to the petitions challenging the ‘432 Patent, the ‘605 Patent, the ‘681 Patent, and the ‘638 Patent, but instituted inter partes review on the petitions relating to the ‘779 Patent, the ‘571 Patent, the ‘559 Patent, and the ‘598 Patent—finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged patent claim was invalid. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office issued a final written decision in each of the IPRs challenging the ‘779 Patent, the ‘571 Patent, and the ‘559 Patent and found all challenged claims of each patent unpatentable. USAA filed requests for rehearing and requests for POP review. The requests for POP review were denied in March 2023; the requests for rehearing were denied in March and April 2023. On August 16, 2021, USAA filed suit against BBVA USA (“BBVA”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the same patents at issue in the PNC Lawsuits. While the Company’s IPR petitions were mentioned in the complaint, the Company was not named as a defendant or mentioned in connection with any alleged infringement. BBVA then sent the Company an indemnification demand on September 7, 2021. For the same reasons discussed above in connection with PNC, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify BBVA. On July 29, 2022, USAA filed another patent infringement lawsuit against Truist Bank (“Truist”) in the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges infringement of the ’090 Patent, the ’432 Patent, and the U.S. Patent No. 11,182,753 (“the ’753 Patent”). The Company was not named as a defendant or mentioned in connection with any alleged infringement. On October 5, 2022, Truist’s integration partner, NCR Corporation, sent an indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification from all claims related to the lawsuit. For the same reasons discussed above in connection with the PNC Lawsuits, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify NCR Corporation or end-users of NCR Corporation resulting from the patent infringement allegations by USAA. On October 7, 2022, Truist filed a motion to transfer venue to the Western District of North Carolina, which was denied. On March 13, 2023, USAA moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, adding an additional allegation of patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,544,944 (“the ’944 Patent”). On April 4, 2023, Truist sent another indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification related to the First Amended Complaint. On May 3, 2023, USAA moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, adding an additional allegation of patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,625,770 (“the ’770 Patent”). On May 30, 2023, Truist sent another indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification related to the Second Amended Complaint. In October and November of 2022, Truist filed a petition for IPR with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of the ’090 Patent, the ’432 Patent, and the ’753 Patent. The Patent Office instituted the petitions directed to the ’090 and ’753 Patents, but denied institution of the petition directed to the ’432 patent. Final written decisions are expected in mid-2024. The Company incurred legal fees of $1.4 million in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 related to third-party claims against our customers. Such fees are included in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income (loss). Claim Against UrbanFT, Inc. On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit against one of its customers, UrbanFT, Inc. (“UrbanFT”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (case No. 19-CV-1432-CAB-DEB). UrbanFT is delinquent in payment and attempted to justify its non-payment by asserting that the Company is or may be infringing on purported UrbanFT patents. The Company filed such lawsuit to collect the delinquent payments and to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of five purported UrbanFT patents. UrbanFT filed an answer and later asserted infringement of two of the five patents-at-issue in the Company’s lawsuit against UrbanFT. The Company thereafter filed counterclaims seeking a declaration that the two patents now asserted by UrbanFT are invalid in addition to being not infringed. During the course of the litigation, the Company learned that a judgment had been entered against UrbanFT’s affiliates and its predecessor owner in which an Oregon court ordered that the patents in issue revert to a prior owner, Mr. Stevens, because UrbanFT’s affiliates did not pay the purchase price owed to the prior owner. On September 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. On September 15, 2020, the district court issued an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction over patent issues in light of the Oregon judgment. On December 17, 2020, the district court dismissed Mitek’s claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and UrbanFT’s counterclaims for patent infringement and related affirmative defenses based on infringement of the patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because UrbanFT does not own the patents. The district court then dismissed the remaining state law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. On December 18, 2020, the Company filed a new suit against UrbanFT in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (case no. 37-2020-00046670-CU-BC-CTL) asserting claims for breach of contract, open book account, and monetary damages. UrbanFT filed an answer and did not assert any cross-claims. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment which was heard on April 15, 2022. The Court granted the Company’s motion and on June 2, 2022, entered a judgment in favor of the Company for $1.7 million in compensatory damages, plus costs, including attorney’s fees. The Court awarded the Company $2,600 in costs plus $0.6 million in attorneys’ fees for a total judgment of $2.3 million. The time for UrbanFT to appeal the $1.7 million in compensatory damage judgment has expired but the time for UrbanFT to appeal the attorneys’ fee and cost award has not. No appeal has been filed. Claim Against Maplebear, Inc (dba Instacart): On December 13, 2021, Mitek filed a lawsuit against Maplebear Inc., d/b/a Instacart (“Instacart”), in California Superior Court – San Diego County (Case No, 37-2021-00052089-CU-BC-CTL). Mitek is alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and requesting over $2.0 million in damages. On August, 3, 2018 Instacart entered into a Master Services Agreement (the “Master Services Agreement”) with Mitek agreeing to purchase a subscription to Mitek’s Mobile Verify Advanced service. On June 19, 2020, the parties entered into a second Order Form in connection with the Master Services Agreement. The Order Form has a term of June 18, 2020 to December 31, 2023 and calls for an annual commitment of $1.2 million. On September 23, 2021, Instacart sent a letter to Mitek purporting to outline breaches under the Master Services Agreement. Mitek responded on November 11, 2021, refuting Instacart’s claims and offering to engage in further discussions. Instacart thereafter sent a Notice of Termination of the Master Services Agreement dated November 24, 2021. The Parties participated in mediation on March 15, 2022. The mediation did not result in the resolution of the case and, following mediation, the Parties stipulated that Instacart’s response to Mitek’s complaint would be due on April 27, 2022. In lieu of filing a response to the complaint, Instacart elected to file a Motion to Transfer Venue to the County of San Francisco, which the Court denied, thereby keeping the case in the County of San Diego. On November 28, 2022, Instacart filed a cross-complaint against Mitek alleging: (1) Fraudulent Inducement; (2) Intentional Misrepresentation; (3) False Advertising; (4) Fraudulent Business Practices; (5) Unlawful Business Practices; (6) Unfair Business Practices; (7) Breach of Contract; and (8) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. On January 27, 2023, Mitek filed a demurrer to the Cross-Complaint (the functional equivalent of a motion to dismiss). The demurrer is pending before the Court and will be heard on December 1, 2023. Both Parties have filed motions to compel further responses to written discovery requests. The motions will be heard on December 1, 2023. Biometric Information Privacy Act Claims On December 16, 2021, the Company was sued in a putative class action in state court in Illinois alleging that the Company had violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) with respect to identity verification services that the Company provided to its customer HyreCar, Inc. for HyreCar’s customers in Illinois (the “BIPA Lawsuit”). Plaintiff claimed that the Company had not obtained the required consent to collect and use Plaintiff’s biometric information, and that Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals therefore are entitled to statutory damages under BIPA. The Company removed the BIPA Lawsuit to federal court, and on March 4, 2022 the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration based on HyreCar’s terms and conditions requiring HyreCar customers to arbitrate on an individual (non-class) basis (the “Arbitration Motion”). On May 4, 2022 the trial court denied the Arbitration Motion. On December 21, 2022, the trial court’s ruling was upheld on appeal, and the case subsequently was remanded to the trial court. On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, adding a second named plaintiff but otherwise not materially changing the allegations. On March 27, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike Class Allegations. After the Motion to Dismiss/Strike was fully briefed, on May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint that would add two new named plaintiffs (customers of Instacart and Roadie). The Company opposed the Motion for Leave. The Motion for Leave is fully briefed and awaiting a decision. Other Legal Matters In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is both (i) probable that a loss has occurred and (ii) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. While any legal proceeding has an element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the disposition of such matters, in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Employee 401(k) Plan The Company has a 401(k) plan that allows participating employees to contribute a percentage of their salary, subject to Internal Revenue Service annual limits. In 2015, the Company implemented a company match to the plan. The Company's contributions are made in an amount equal to 50% of the first 6% of an employee's designated deferral of their eligible compensation. The Company's total cost related to the 401(k) plan was $0.7 million, $0.7 million, and $0.4 million for the twelve months ended September 30, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration