As discussed in Note 1, effective January 1, 2019, the Company adopted ASU No. 2016-02, as amended, using the alternative transition method, which allowed the Company to initially apply the new lease standard at the adoption date (the “effective date method”). The Company identified only one lease to be accounted for under ASU No. 2016-02, and this was the lease for its corporate facility in San Jose, California, which was entered into in October 2017 and expires in October 2020. The right-to-use asset and corresponding liability for the facility lease have been measured at the present value of the future minimum lease payments. The discount rate used to measure the lease asset and liability represents the interest rate on the Notes (8%). Lease expense is recognized on a straight line basis over the lease term. The Company has an option to extend the lease for an additional 20.5 month period, but, as the renewal is not reasonably certain, it has not included this renewal option in its accounting for the lease.

Future minimum payments under our facility operating lease as of December 31, 2019 are listed in the table below (in thousands).

	Operating
Year ended December 31, 2019	leases
Total future lease payments		187
Less: imputed interest		(21	)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	166

		Year Ended
		December 31, 2019
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities:
	Operating cash flows for lease	$	219

In October 2017, the Company entered into a lease termination agreement with M West Propco XII LLC (“MWest”) under which the Company and MWest agreed to terminate the Company’s lease for its former Santa Clara headquarters facility effective October 31, 2017. In connection with the lease termination, the Company incurred fees of approximately $250,000, which were recorded as restructuring charges in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

Rent expense was approximately $212,000, $212,000 and $470,000 for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. In addition to the minimum lease payments, the Company is responsible for property taxes, insurance and certain other operating costs.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contractual arrangements under which it may agree to indemnify the counterparties from any losses incurred relating to breach of representations and warranties, failure to perform certain covenants, or claims and losses arising from certain events as outlined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, losses arising from litigation or claims relating to past performance. Such indemnification clauses may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors. No material amounts were reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 or 2017 related to these indemnifications.

The Company has not estimated the maximum potential amount of indemnification liability under these agreements due to the limited history of prior claims and the unique facts and circumstances applicable to each particular agreement. To date, the Company has not made any payments related to these indemnification agreements.

In October 2017, Trinity Technologies, Inc. (Trinity), the Company’s former sales representative in the San Francisco Bay Area, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California alleging non-payment of commissions. In April 2018, the Company and Trinity executed a settlement agreement, and Trinity dismissed the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay Trinity for commissions related to both 2017 and 2018. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company paid approximately $450,000, and recognized approximately $250,000 of expense in the year ended December 31, 2018.