Note 8 - Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	8. Commitments and Contingencies We establish contingent liabilities when a particular contingency is both probable and estimable. The Company is not aware of any pending claims or assessments, other than as described below, which may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Outsource Manufacturers. We have manufacturing agreements with electronics manufacturing service (“EMS”) providers related to the outsourced manufacturing of our products. Certain manufacturing agreements establish annual volume commitments. We are also obligated to repurchase Company-forecasted but unused materials. The Company has non-cancellable, non-returnable, and long-lead time commitments with its EMS providers and certain suppliers for inventory components that will be used in production. The Company’s purchase commitments under such agreements is approximately $3,402 as of December 31, 2017. Uncertain Tax Positions. As further discussed in Note 12, we had $652 of uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2017. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the underlying tax positions, it is not possible to forecast the payment of this liability to any particular year. Legal Proceedings. Intellectual Property Litigation On April 25, 2017, the Company was awarded a new patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,635,186 (the “186 Patent”), which relates to a system and method involving the combination of echo cancellation and beamforming microphone arrays. Also on April 25, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court in the District of Utah against three parties—Shure, Inc. (“Shure”), Biamp Systems Corporation (“Biamp”), and QSC Audio Products, LLC (“QSC,” together with Shure and Biamp, collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants were jointly and indirectly infringing the newly issued ‘186 Patent (the “Infringement Action”). On that same day, Shure filed a separate action in the U.S. Federal District Court in the Northern District of Illinois (the “Illinois Action”) requesting a declaratory judgment as to the invalidity or non-infringement with respect to the ‘186 Patent. The Illinois Action also seeks the same declaratory judgment with respect to another Company patent, United States Patent No. 9,264,553 (the “553 Patent”), and which has not been asserted by the Company against any defendant and has been submitted to the USPTO for reissue. In early 2018, Shure added a claim that the ‘186 Patent is unenforceable. On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16–341. That opinion changed the law on permissible venues for patent litigation from any district in which there was personal jurisdiction over a defendant to only districts in which a defendant was incorporated or had a regular and established place of business. Given that none of the Defendants were incorporated or had a regular and established place of business in the District of Utah, on May 30, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the Illinois Action and counterclaims substantially the same as those in the Company’s Infringement Action, joining Biamp and QSC as counter-defendants with Shure in such counterclaims in the Illinois Action, and on May 31, 2017, the Company voluntarily dismissed the Infringement Action in Utah without prejudice. On November 14, 2017 the U.S. Federal District Court in the Northern District of Illinois granted Biamp’s and QSC’s motions to dismiss for lack of appropriate venue and followed up with a written opinion on March 16, 2018 consistent with its minute order on November 14, 2017. Also on March 16, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Shure’s declaratory judgment claim for noninfringement of the '553 Patent. On July 14, 2017, Shure filed a petition with Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) for inter partes review against the ‘553 Patent. On January 29, 2018, PTAB decided to institute inter partes review. On August 6, 2017, the Company filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from continuing to infringe on the Company’s '186 Patent. On March 16, 2018 the Court denied the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction. On November 7, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded the Company U.S. Patent No. 9,813,806 ("the '806 Patent"). On February 6, 2018, the Company filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Counterclaim adding the '806 Patent to the case. The Court granted the motion the next day. On April 17, the Company filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Shure from continuing to infringe the Company’s '806 Patent. The Company intends to continue to vigorously enforce and defend its intellectual property rights in the Illinois Action. During twelve months ended December 31, 2016 and 2016, the Company recorded $408 and $1,111 respectively, of pretax gross expenses related to this intellectual property litigation to prevent infringement of the Company’s patents. In addition, the Company also capitalized $2,289 of litigation expenses related to this matter during the twelve months ended December 31, 2017. Former Employee Litigation On or about October 24, 2016, the Company received written notice from the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) that a complaint had been filed against it by a former employee. Among other things, the former employee’s OSHA complaint alleged harassment, retaliation, and violations of 18 U.S.C.A. Section 1514A, et seq. (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), arising out of the termination of his employment with the Company on or about August 17, 2016 ( the “OSHA Complaint”). By letter dated March 2, 2017, the Company received notice that the same former employee who initiated the OSHA Complaint filed a complaint with the Utah Labor Commission, Anti-Discrimination & Labor Division (“UALD“), alleging that the employee's termination was discriminatory based upon a disability or, in the alternative, retaliatory for substantially the same reasons alleged in the OSHA Complaint. The charge was also forwarded to the United States Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“) and was also recognized as a charge under the EEOC's federal jurisdiction. Following negotiations between the parties, the parties executed a settlement agreement on December 7, 2017 ( “the Agreement“) with respect to the OSHA Complaint. Per the terms of the Agreement, the Company's signing of the Agreement in no way constitutes an admission of a violation of any law or regulation enforced by OSHA. Around the same time in December 2017, the parties executed a side settlement agreement by which the former employee acknowledged that he does not believe that the Company engaged in activities which would be construed as violations of securities-related laws and agreed to withdraw his charge against the Company from the UALD and the EEOC. The charge was effectively withdrawn on December 6, 2017. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, the Company recorded $927 and $152 respectively, of pretax gross expenses and settlement costs related to the defense of the OSHA Complaint and review of the allegations underlying the former employee’s OSHA complaint. The amount recorded in 2017 is net of recoveries from the insurance company towards this matter. The Company maintains an Employment Practices Liability policy with Chubb/Federal Insurance Company (the “EPL Policy”). Based on the allegations contained in the OSHA Complaint, the Company has tendered a claim for coverage under the EPL Policy. In addition, the Company is also involved from time to time in various claims and legal proceedings which arise in the normal course of our business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable. However, based on the information available to us, we do not believe any such other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. Conclusion We believe there are no other items that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Legal proceedings are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties of legal proceedings and there can be no assurance as to the probable result of any legal proceedings. The Company believes it has adequately accrued for the aforementioned contingent liabilities. If adverse outcomes were to occur, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected materially for the period in which the adverse outcomes are known.

Commitments and Contingencies

We establish contingent liabilities when a particular contingency is both probable and estimable. The Company is

not

aware of any pending claims or assessments, other than as described below, which

may

have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Outsource Manufacturers.

We have manufacturing agreements with electronics manufacturing service (“EMS”) providers related to the outsourced manufacturing of our products. Certain manufacturing agreements establish annual volume commitments. We are also obligated to repurchase Company-forecasted but unused materials. The Company has non-cancellable, non-returnable, and long-lead time commitments with its EMS providers and certain suppliers for inventory components that will be used in production. The Company’s purchase commitments under such agreements is approximately

$3,402

as of

December 31, 2017.

Uncertain Tax Positions.

As further discussed in Note

12,

we had

$652

of uncertain tax positions as of

December 31, 2017.

Due to the inherent uncertainty of the underlying tax positions, it is

not

possible to forecast the payment of this liability to any particular year.

Legal Proceedings.

Intellectual Property Litigation

April 25, 2017,

the Company was awarded a new patent, U.S. Patent

No.

9,635,186

(the

“186

Patent”), which relates to a system and method involving the combination of echo cancellation and beamforming microphone arrays. Also on

April 25, 2017,

the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court in the District of Utah against

three

parties—Shure, Inc. (“Shure”), Biamp Systems Corporation (“Biamp”), and QSC Audio Products, LLC (“QSC,” together with Shure and Biamp, collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants were jointly and indirectly infringing the newly issued

‘186

Patent (the “Infringement Action”). On that same day, Shure filed a separate action in the U.S. Federal District Court in the Northern District of Illinois (the “Illinois Action”) requesting a declaratory judgment as to the invalidity or non-infringement with respect to the

‘186

Patent. The Illinois Action also seeks the same declaratory judgment with respect to another Company patent, United States Patent

No.

9,264,553

(the

“553

Patent”), and which has

not

been asserted by the Company against any defendant and has been submitted to the USPTO for reissue. In early

2018,

Shure added a claim that the

‘186

Patent is unenforceable.

May 22, 2017,

the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,

No.

16–341.

That opinion changed the law on permissible venues for patent litigation from any district in which there was personal jurisdiction over a defendant to only districts in which a defendant was incorporated or had a regular and established place of business. Given that

none

of the Defendants were incorporated or had a regular and established place of business in the District of Utah, on

May 30, 2017,

the Company filed an answer to the Illinois Action and counterclaims substantially the same as those in the Company’s Infringement Action, joining Biamp and QSC as counter-defendants with Shure in such counterclaims in the Illinois Action, and on

May 31, 2017,

the Company voluntarily dismissed the Infringement Action in Utah without prejudice. On

November 14, 2017

the U.S. Federal District Court in the Northern District of Illinois granted Biamp’s and QSC’s motions to dismiss for lack of appropriate venue and followed up with a written opinion on

March 16, 2018

consistent with its minute order on

November 14, 2017.

Also on

March 16,

the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Shure’s declaratory judgment claim for noninfringement of the

'553

Patent.

July 14, 2017,

Shure filed a petition with Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) for inter partes review against the

‘553

Patent. On

January 29, 2018,

PTAB decided to institute inter partes review.

August 6, 2017,

the Company filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from continuing to infringe on the Company’s

'186

Patent. On

March 16, 2018

the Court denied the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction.

November 7, 2017,

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded the Company U.S. Patent

No.

9,813,806

("the

'806

Patent"). On

February 6, 2018,

the Company filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Counterclaim adding the

'806

Patent to the case. The Court granted the motion the next day. On

April 17,

the Company filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Shure from continuing to infringe the Company’s

'806

Patent.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously enforce and defend its intellectual property rights in the Illinois Action.

During

twelve

months ended

December 31, 2016

and

2016,

the Company recorded

$408

and

$1,111

respectively, of pretax gross expenses related to this intellectual property litigation to prevent infringement of the Company’s patents. In addition, the Company also capitalized

$2,289

of litigation expenses related to this matter during the

twelve

months ended

December 31, 2017.

Former Employee Litigation

On or about

October 24, 2016,

the Company received written notice from the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) that a complaint had been filed against it by a former employee. Among other things, the former employee’s OSHA complaint alleged harassment, retaliation, and violations of

U.S.C.A. Section

1514A,

et seq. (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), arising out of the termination of his employment with the Company on or about

August 17, 2016 (

the “OSHA Complaint”). By letter dated

March 2, 2017,

the Company received notice that the same former employee who initiated the OSHA Complaint filed a complaint with the Utah Labor Commission, Anti-Discrimination & Labor Division (“UALD“), alleging that the employee's termination was discriminatory based upon a disability or, in the alternative, retaliatory for substantially the same reasons alleged in the OSHA Complaint. The charge was also forwarded to the United States Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“) and was also recognized as a charge under the EEOC's federal jurisdiction.

Following negotiations between the parties, the parties executed a settlement agreement on

December 7, 2017 (

“the Agreement“) with respect to the OSHA Complaint. Per the terms of the Agreement, the Company's signing of the Agreement in

way constitutes an admission of a violation of any law or regulation enforced by OSHA. Around the same time in

December 2017,

the parties executed a side settlement agreement by which the former employee acknowledged that he does

not

believe that the Company engaged in activities which would be construed as violations of securities-related laws and agreed to withdraw his charge against the Company from the UALD and the EEOC. The charge was effectively withdrawn on

December 6, 2017.

During the

twelve

months ended

December 31, 2016

and

2017,

the Company recorded

$927

and

$152

respectively, of pretax gross expenses and settlement costs related to the defense of the OSHA Complaint and review of the allegations underlying the former employee’s OSHA complaint. The amount recorded in

2017

is net of recoveries from the insurance company towards this matter.

The Company maintains an Employment Practices Liability policy with Chubb/Federal Insurance Company (the “EPL Policy”). Based on the allegations contained in the OSHA Complaint, the Company has tendered a claim for coverage under the EPL Policy.

In addition, the Company is also involved from time to time in various claims and legal proceedings which arise in the normal course of our business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are

not

predictable. However, based on the information available to us, we do

not

believe any such other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.

Conclusion

We believe there are

other items that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Legal proceedings are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties of legal proceedings and there can be

assurance as to the probable result of any legal proceedings.

The Company believes it has adequately accrued for the aforementioned contingent liabilities. If adverse outcomes were to occur, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected materially for the period in which the adverse outcomes are known.