XML 29 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | NOTE 7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases In December 2009, we entered into a lease agreement for a manufacturing and office facility in Menlo Park. As a result of the lease amendment agreement described below, future rent expense associated with our prior Menlo Park facility leases was reduced to zero. The remaining long-term facility financing obligations associated with these leases, presented as “Other liabilities, non-current” on the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, were $0 and $1.7 million, respectively. Lease Amendment Agreement On July 23, 2015, we entered into a Lease Amendment Agreement (the “Lease Amendment Agreement”) with Peninsula Innovation Partners, LLC (the “Prior Landlord”), which amends the terms and conditions of certain of our prior Menlo Park facility real property leases. The Lease Amendment Agreement provides for, among other things, amendments of the term for certain of the leases with the Prior Landlord, the termination of all renewal, expansion and extension rights contained in any of the existing leases with the Prior Landlord (including our options to extend the terms for certain of the existing leases for two consecutive five-year periods), as well as rent abatement for a specified period of time. As consideration for our agreement to amend the existing leases pursuant to the Lease Amendment Agreement, and subject to the terms and conditions contained therein, we became eligible to receive up to four payments of $5.0 million each from the Prior Landlord over time (the “Landlord Payments”), and rent abatement for the remainder of the lease. In the event that we breach any of the leases and fail to cure such breach within the time permitted, the Prior Landlord would have no obligation to make the final $5.0 million payment. On September 1, 2015, the permit process related to an architectural approval and a change of use permit with respect to our new premises at 1305 O’Brien Drive (formerly 1315 O’Brien Drive), Menlo Park, California (the “O’Brien Premises”) was completed, which satisfied the contingencies under the Lease Amendment Agreement. As a result, we recorded $23.0 million in “Gain on lease amendments” in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the three-month period ended September 30, 2015, reflecting that our rent payments were reduced to zero for the remaining term of our existing Menlo Park facility real property leases, and the aggregate of $20.0 million in Landlord Payments became receivable and any associated financing obligation was revalued. Of the $20.0 million remaining Landlord Payments, the first $5.0 million Landlord Payment was received in September 2015, the second $5.0 million Landlord Payment was received in February 2016 and the third $5.0 million Landlord Payment was received in August 2016. In June 2016, we entered into a Second Lease Amendment Agreement with the Prior Landlord that modified the payment schedule for the final $5.0 million. At December 31, 2016, the final $5.0 million of Landlord Payments were recorded in “Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets” in the consolidated balance sheets. In January 2017, we entered into a Third Lease Amendment Agreement with the Prior Landlord that increased the amount of the final $5.0 million Landlord Payments by $65,000. During the first quarter of 2017, we received Landlord Payments totaling $2,628,000. In May 2017, we entered into a Fourth Lease Amendment Agreement with the Prior Landlord, based on which we turned over the 940 Hamilton and 1010 Hamilton buildings to the Prior Landlord. Accordingly, in June 2017 we received $1,682,000 in Landlord Payments. The 940 Hamilton building was a capital lease with a long-term facility financing obligation associated with this lease included in “Other liabilities, non-current” and the corresponding building and related leasehold improvements were included in “Property and equipment, net” of the consolidated balance sheets. Upon turning over the building to the Prior Landlord, the capital lease was terminated, resulting in the extinguishment of the facility financing obligation. There was no material gain or loss associated with this transaction. In September 2017, we entered into a Fifth Lease Amendment Agreement with the Prior Landlord, pursuant to which we extended the term and rent abatement period for the remaining two buildings: 960 Hamilton and 1180 Hamilton, from September 30, 2017 to December 31, 2017. As of December 31, 2017, we returned the remaining two buildings: 960 Hamilton and 1180 Hamilton to the Prior Landlord and received $755,000 in Landlord Payments in return. O’Brien Lease Agreement On July 22, 2015, we entered into a new lease agreement (the “O’Brien Lease”) with respect to the O’Brien Premises. The term of the O’Brien Lease is one hundred thirty-two (132) months, commencing on the date that is the later of April 15, 2016 or the date on which the O’Brien Premises landlord has substantially completed certain shell improvements and tenant improvements. In December 2016, we entered into an amendment to the O’Brien Lease which defined the commencement date of the lease to be October 25, 2016, notwithstanding that such substantial completion did not occur until the first quarter of 2017. Base monthly rent was abated for the first six (6) months of the lease term and thereafter is $540,000 per month during the first year of the lease term, with specified annual increases thereafter until reaching $711,000 per month during the last twelve (12) months of the lease term. We were required to pay $2.2 million in prepaid rent which was applied to the monthly rent installments due for the first to fourth months after the rent abatement period; and, as such, $2.2 million was recorded in “Prepaid expense and other current assets” in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2017, a balance of $0 was recorded in “Prepaid expense and other current assets” in the consolidated balance sheet. We were required to establish a letter of credit for the benefits of the landlord and to submit $4.5 million as a deposit for the letter of credit in October 2015; and, as such, $4.5 million was recorded at such time and continued to be recorded in “Long-term restricted cash” in the consolidated balance sheet as of both December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. The landlord was obligated to construct certain warm shell improvements at the landlord’s cost and expense and provide us with a tenant improvement allowance in the amount of $12.6 million. Construction was completed in phases and we began moving into the O’Brien Premises during January 2017. By the end of the first quarter of 2017, improvements associated with the entire O’Brien Premises were substantially completed. As a result, during the first quarter of 2017 we capitalized $28.8 million of tenant improvements, of which $12.6 million was paid by the landlord as a tenant improvement allowance. As the $12.6 million tenant improvement allowance is accounted for as a lease incentive, we recorded the $12.6 million to “Deferred rent, non-current”, which will be amortized over the lease term of approximately 11 years. In addition, as the premises were completed in phases in 2017, tenant improvements were placed into service in phases once construction was substantially complete and the related asset was ready for its intended use. As of December 31, 2017, the future annual minimum lease payments under all noncancelable operating leases with remaining term in excess of one year are as follows: ﻿
﻿ |  |
﻿ |  |
﻿ | Amount
﻿Years ending December 31, | (in thousands)
﻿2018 | $ | 6,822
﻿2019 |  | 6,930
﻿2020 |  | 7,056
﻿2021 |  | 7,272
﻿2022 |  | 7,488
﻿Thereafter |  | 39,222
﻿Total minimum lease payments | $ | 74,790
﻿ Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $6.3 million, $0.2 million and $1.1 million, respectively. Rent expense was lower in 2016 due to rent abatement with respect to that period. We are also required to pay our share of operating expenses with respect to the facilities in which we operate. In addition, we had other purchase commitments of an estimated amount of approximately $16.2 million as of December 31, 2017, consisting of open purchase orders and contractual obligations in the ordinary course of business, including commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers for which we have not received the goods or services, and acquisition and licensing of intellectual property. A majority of these purchase obligations are due within a year. Although open purchase orders are considered enforceable and legally binding, the terms generally allow us the option to cancel, reschedule and adjust our requirements based on our business needs prior to the delivery of goods or performance of services. Contingencies We become subject to claims and assessments from time to time in the ordinary course of business. We accrue liabilities for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. Legal Proceedings USITC Proceedings On November 2, 2016, we filed a complaint against Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd., Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. (“ONT Inc.”) and Metrichor, Ltd. (“Metrichor” and, together with ONT Inc., “ONT”) with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) for patent infringement. On December 5, 2016, the USITC provided notice that an investigation had been instituted based on the complaint. We sought exclusionary relief with respect to several ONT products, including ONT’s MinION and PromethION devices. The complaint was based on our U.S. Patent No. 9,404,146, entitled “Compositions and methods for nucleic acid sequencing” which covers novel methods for sequencing single nucleic acid molecules using linked double-stranded nucleic acid templates, providing improved sequencing accuracy. On March 1, 2017, we filed an amended complaint to add a second patent in the same patent family, U.S. Patent No. 9,542,527, which was granted on January 10, 2017, to the investigation. We sought, among other things, an exclusion order permanently barring entry of infringing ONT products into the United States, and a cease and desist order preventing ONT from advertising and selling infringing products in the United States. On May 23, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) assigned to the matter issued an order construing certain claim terms of the asserted patents. On June 8, 2017, ONT filed a summary determination motion to terminate the proceedings based on the ALJ’s claim construction decision, and we did not oppose the motion. The ALJ granted the motion on July 19, 2017, and, on July 31, 2017, we filed a petition to review with the USITC to correct what we believe was an incorrect construction of the claims. On September 5, 2017, the USITC issued a notice granting our petition to review the ALJ’s claim construction decision. On February 7, 2018, the USITC issued a notice indicating that it had determined to adopt the ALJ’s claim construction and terminating the investigation. On February 13, 2018, we filed a petition to appeal the USITC’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. U.S. District Court Proceedings On March 15, 2017, we filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against ONT Inc. for patent infringement. The complaint is based on our U.S. Patent No. 9,546,400, entitled “Nanopore sequencing using n-mers” which covers novel methods for nanopore sequencing of nucleic acid molecules using the signals from multiple monomeric units. This patent was granted on January 17, 2017. We are seeking remedies including injunctive relief, damages and costs. On May 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the asserted patent claims recite patent ineligible subject matter. On November 9, 2017, the judge denied ONT’s motion to dismiss. On September 25, 2017, we filed a second complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against ONT Inc. for patent infringement. The complaint is based on our U.S. Patent No. 9,678,056 entitled “Control of Enzyme Translation in Nanopore Sequencing”, granted June 13, 2017, and U.S. Patent No. 9,738,929 entitled “Nucleic Acid Sequence Analysis”, granted August 22, 2017. We are seeking remedies including injunctive relief, damages and costs. On December 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the asserted patent claims in the 9,738,929 patent recite patent ineligible subject matter. On January 5, 2018, we filed our opposition to this motion. A hearing on this motion is scheduled to occur on February 27, 2018. A trial for these matters is scheduled to occur in March 2020. UK and German Court Proceedings On February 2, 2017, we filed a claim in the High Court of England and Wales against Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. (“ONT Ltd.”) and Metrichor for infringement of Patent EP(UK) 3 045 542, which is in the same patent family as the patents asserted in the USITC action referred to above. We are seeking remedies including injunctive relief, damages, and costs. On March 27, 2017, the defendants in the case filed their defense and counterclaim, denying infringement and seeking a declaration that the asserted patent is invalid. We filed our reply and defense to counterclaim on April 12, 2017. A case management conference was held on June 13, 2017. On August 31, 2017 we added a claim for infringement of a newly granted divisional, EP(UK) 3 170 904. On December 22, 2017, ONT Ltd. added to the action a request for declaration of non-infringement of its 1D2 product. On January 12, 2018 we served reply to ONT’s request for a declaration of non-infringement, asserting infringement of both patents by ONT’s 1D2 product. A trial for these matters is scheduled to occur in May 2018. On April 21, 2017, ONT Ltd. and Harvard University filed a claim against us in the High Court of England and Wales for infringement of Patent EP(UK) 1 192 453, a patent owned by Harvard University and entitled “Molecular and atomic scale evaluation of biopolymers,” and for which ONT Ltd. alleges it holds an exclusive license. ONT Ltd. and Harvard University are seeking remedies including injunctive relief, damages, and costs. On April 25, 2017, ONT Ltd. announced that it also had filed a claim against us in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, for infringement of the German version of the patent. On November 2, 2017, we filed our statement of defense in the German infringement matter and we also filed a separate nullity action in Germany to establish that the EP 1 192 453 patent is invalid. On December 6, 2017, we filed a cross-complaint in the German infringement matter alleging ONT Ltd.’s infringement in Germany of our EP 3 045 542 patent. The trial date for the German infringement matter and cross-complaint is set for July 27, 2018. A trial for the UK matter is scheduled to occur in March 2019. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is too early in the proceedings to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any impact they may have on us. As such, the estimated financial effect associated with these complaints cannot be made as of the date of filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Litigation is a significant ongoing expense, recognized in sales, general and administrative expense, with an uncertain outcome, and has been in the past and may in the future be a material expense for the Company. Management believes this investment is important to protect the Company’s intellectual property position, even recognizing the uncertainty of the outcome. From time to time, we may also be involved in a variety of other claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, patent infringement, contract disputes, employment and other matters that arise in the normal course of our business. In addition, third parties may, from time to time, assert claims against us in the form of letters and other communications. We record a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We currently do not believe that the ultimate outcome of any of the matters described above is probable or reasonably estimable, or that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business; however, the results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of litigation and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Indemnification Pursuant to Delaware law and agreements entered into with each of our directors and officers, we may have obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of our directors and officers against losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with their service to us, and judg e ments, fines, settlements and expenses related to claims arising against such directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law, our bylaws and certificate of incorporation. We also enter and have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and officers that may require us to indemnify them against liabilities that arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers, except as prohibited by applicable law. In addition, we may have obligations to hold harmless and indemnify third parties involved with our fund raising efforts and their respective affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents or other representatives against any and all losses, claims, damages and liabilities related to claims arising against such parties pursuant to the terms of agreements entered into between such third parties and us in connection with such fund raising efforts. To the extent that any such indemnification obligations apply to the lawsuits described above, any associated expenses incurred are included within the related accrued litigation expense amounts. No additional liability associated with such indemnification obligations has been recorded at December 31, 2017.

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 loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 30 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127197 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127163 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyDisclosures
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration