XML 32 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies |
10. | Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation On August 26, 2020, a putative stockholder of Neonode filed a purported class action lawsuit (C.A. No. 2020-0701-AGB) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) against Neonode and the Board of Directors of Neonode for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with disclosure of information concerning Proposal 5 and Proposal 6 in the proxy statement filed with the SEC by Neonode on August 20, 2020 for the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Neonode (the “Proxy Statement”). These proposals for shareholder approval related to the Private Placement by Neonode on August 5, 2020 in which two directors and the chief executive officer of Neonode participated. The relief sought by the plaintiff included a preliminary injunction to enjoin the stockholder votes on Proposal 5 and Proposal 6. On September 13, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to also enjoin the stockholder vote on Proposal 1 in the Proxy Statement concerning election of directors. Neonode and the other named defendants believe that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy Statement complied fully with all applicable law, that no supplemental disclosure was required, and that the plaintiffs’ allegations are without merit. However, in an effort to avoid the nuisance and ongoing expense relating to the claims in the lawsuit, Neonode filed definitive additional materials to the Proxy Statement on September 18, 2020. The plaintiff withdrew his motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder votes on Proposals 1, 5, and 6 based upon the definitive additional materials to the Proxy Statement. On November 23, 2020, the Court entered an order to dismiss the lawsuit. On September 2, 2020, a separate putative stockholder of Neonode filed a purported class action lawsuit (Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Neonode, the Board of Directors of Neonode, and the Chief Executive Officer of Neonode for alleged violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with disclosure of information concerning Proposal 5 and Proposal 6 in the Proxy Statement, and generally containing the same substantive allegations as in the above previously-filed Delaware Court of Chancery action. On October 20, 2020, the plaintiff claimed to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit in the United States District Court. However, on February 5, 2021, the plaintiff made contact again regarding mootness discussions, which are still ongoing. Operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 include costs in relation to the above-referenced lawsuits. Indemnities and Guarantees Our bylaws require that we indemnify each of our executive officers and directors for certain events or occurrences arising as a result of the officer or director serving in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. However, we have a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy that should enable us to recover a portion of future amounts paid. As a result of our insurance policy coverage, we believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal and we have no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of December 31, 2020 and 2019. We enter into indemnification provisions under our agreements with other companies in the ordinary course of business, typically with business partners, contractors, customers and landlords. Under these provisions we generally indemnify and hold harmless the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party as a result of our activities or, in some cases, as a result of the indemnified party’s activities under the agreement. These indemnification provisions often include indemnifications relating to representations made by us with regard to intellectual property rights. These indemnification provisions generally survive termination of the underlying agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is unlimited. We have not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, we believe the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these indemnification provisions as of December 31, 2020 and 2019. One of our manufacturing partners has previously purchased material for the final assembly of AirBars. To protect the manufacturer from losses in relation to AirBar production, we agreed to secure the value of the inventory in a bank guarantee. At December 31, 2020, the guaranteed amount is $100,000 and represents the value of the remaining material in inventory at December 31, 2020. Management’s judgment is that the bank guarantee is a contingent guarantee and management will record a liability when it is probable we will have to purchase the inventory. As of March 10, 2021, management’s judgment is that we will sell the remaining AirBars during 2021 and thereby purchase the components and the assembly service from the manufacturing partner throughout the year. No liability has therefore been recorded as of December 31, 2020. Patent Assignment On May 6, 2019, the Company assigned a portfolio of patents to Aequitas Technologies LLC. The assignment provides the Company the right to share potential proceeds generated from a licensing and monetization program. On June 8, 2020, Neonode Smartphone LLC, a subsidiary of Aequitas Technologies LLC filed complaints against Apple and Samsung in the Western District of Texas for infringing two patents. These litigation matters are still ongoing. Non-Recurring Engineering Development Costs On April 25, 2013, we entered into an Analog Device Development Agreement with an effective date of December 6, 2012 (the “NN1002 Agreement”) with Texas Instruments (“TI”) pursuant to which TI agreed to integrate our intellectual property into an ASIC. Under the terms of the NN1002 Agreement, we agreed to pay TI $500,000 of non-recurring engineering costs at the rate of $0.25 per ASIC for each of the first 2 million ASICs sold. As of December 31, 2020, we had made no payments to TI under the NN1002 Agreement.

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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration