NOTE 6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

As of September 30, 2018, the future annual minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases with remaining term in excess of one year are as follows:


	Amount
Years ending December 31,	(in thousands)
Remaining of 2018	$	1,719
2019		6,930
2020		7,056
2021		7,272
2022		7,488
Thereafter		39,222
Total minimum lease payments	$	69,687

Rent expense for three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 was $1.6 million and $4.7 million, respectively. Rent expense for three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 was $1.6 million and $4.7 million, respectively;

Legal

USITC Proceedings

On November 2, 2016, we filed a complaint against Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. (“ONT Ltd.”), Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. (“ONT Inc.”) and Metrichor, Ltd. (“Metrichor” and, together with ONT Ltd. and 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 (C.A. No. 17-cv-275 (“275 Action”)). The complaint is based on our U.S. Patent No. 9,546,400 (the “’400 Patent”), 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 Inc.’s motion to dismiss. On June 1, 2018, we filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add ONT Ltd. as a defendant. On August 20, 2018, the judge granted our motion, and on August 23, 2018, we filed an amended complaint, adding ONT Ltd. as a defendant in the 275 Action. On September 24, 2018, ONT Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging failure to state a claim.

On September 12, 2018, ONT Inc. filed its answer, defenses and counterclaims in the 275 Action, seeking declaratory judgements of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’400 Patent and unenforceability of the ’400 Patent based on alleged inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), as well as antitrust, false advertising, and unfair competition counterclaims. On September 25, 2018, it was stipulated that the motion to dismiss ONT Inc.’s counterclaims that we submitted in the 1353 Action would also serve as our motion to dismiss ONT Inc.’s counterclaims in the 275 Action.

Related to the 275 Action, on March 15, 2018, ONT Inc. filed a petition to institute an inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the USPTO, alleging invalidity of the ’400 Patent. On July 5, 2018, we filed a preliminary response outlining for the PTAB why the petition should be denied, and no review should be instituted. On September 25, 2018, the PTAB denied ONT Inc.’s petition for institution of the inter partes review for all claims of the ’400 Patent.

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 (C.A. No. 17-cv-1353 (“1353 Action”)). The complaint is based on our U.S. Patent No. 9,678,056 (the “’056 Patent”) entitled “Control of Enzyme Translation in Nanopore Sequencing”, granted June 13, 2017, and U.S. Patent No. 9,738,929 (the “’929 Patent”) 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 ’929 Patent recite patent ineligible subject matter. On March 22, 2018, the judge denied ONT Inc.’s motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2018, we added a claim for infringement of our U.S. Patent No. 9,772,323 (the “’323 Patent”), entitled “Nanopore sequencing using n-mers.” On June 1, 2018, we filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add ONT Ltd. as a defendant. On August 20, 2018, the judge granted our motion, and on August 23, 2018 we filed an amended complaint, adding ONT Ltd. as a defendant in the 1353 Action. On September 24, 2018, ONT filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging failure to state a claim.

On April 25, 2018, ONT Inc. filed its answer, defenses and counterclaims in the 1353 Action, seeking declaratory judgements of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’056 and ’323 Patents and unenforceability of the ’056 and ’323 Patents based on alleged inequitable conduct before the USPTO, as well as antitrust, false advertising, and unfair competition counterclaims. On June 15, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss ONT Inc.’s counterclaims in the 1353 Action and, on June 18, 2018, we filed a motion to bifurcate and stay discovery on ONT Inc.’s antitrust counterclaims in the 1353 Action.

Related to the 1353 Action, on September 24, 2108, ONT Inc. filed a first petition to institute an inter partes review with the PTAB of the USPTO, alleging invalidity of the ’929 Patent. On September 25, 2018, ONT filed a second petition to institute an inter partes review of the ’929 Patent based on the same art and arguments as the first petition. We intend to file a preliminary response outlining for the PTAB why the petitions should be denied and no review should be instituted.

Also related to the 1353 Action, on September 25, 2018, ONT Inc. filed a petition to institute an inter partes review with the PTAB of the USPTO, alleging invalidity of the ’056 Patent. We intend to file a preliminary response outlining for the PTAB why the petition should be denied and no review should be instituted.

A claim construction (or “Markman”) hearing for the U.S. District Court matters is scheduled to occur on December 17, 2018. A trial for the U.S. District Court 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 ONT Ltd. and Metrichor for infringement of Patent EP(UK) 3 045 542 (the “’542 Patent”), which is in the same patent family as the patents asserted in the USITC action referred to above. We sought 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 (the “’904 Patent”). 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 Ltd.’s request for a declaration of non-infringement, asserting infringement of both patents by ONT’s 1D2 product. A trial for these matters was 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 (the “’453 Patent”), 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 sought 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 ’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 ’542 Patent. The trial date for the German infringement matter and cross-complaint was set for July 27, 2018. A trial for the UK matter was scheduled to occur in March 2019.

On May 8, 2018, the parties entered a settlement of all UK and German court proceedings pending as of such date. Under the terms of the settlement, ONT agreed not to make, dispose of, use or import any “2D” nanopore sequencing products, or to induce or assist others to carry out a “2D” sequencing process, in the UK or Germany, through the end of 2023. During this time, we agreed not to assert the ’542 Patent and ’904 Patent against either ONT or its customers in the UK or Germany. Accordingly, the High Court of England and Wales entered an order staying our UK action against ONT through the end of 2023. As part of the settlement, ONT and Harvard University dismissed their UK and German actions under the ’453 Patent and agreed not to assert the ’453 Patent against us or our customers through the end of 2023. We correspondingly agreed to dismiss our separate German nullity action seeking to invalidate the ’453 Patent, which expires on June 22, 2020.

Related to these proceedings, on August 15, 2017, ONT Ltd. filed a notice of opposition to our ’542 Patent with the European Patent Office, and on August 16, 2017, an anonymous party filed a second notice of opposition to the same patent, each alleging invalidity of the patent. On April 5, 2018, we filed our response to the combined opposition. An oral hearing in the matter is scheduled for January 22, 2019.

Also related to these proceedings, on May 16, 2018, ONT Ltd. filed a notice of opposition to our ’904 Patent with the European Patent Office alleging invalidity of the ’904 Patent. On October 11, 2018, we filed our response to the opposition.

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Litigation is a significant ongoing 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.

Other Proceedings

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.