9. Commitments and contingencies

Non-cancelable contractual obligations

The Company enters into non-cancelable contractual obligations for software licenses and maintenance agreements. As of September 30, 2021, the minimum aggregate payments due under specified non-cancelable contractual obligations are summarized as follows:

Purchase obligations

The Company had approximately $65,700 of outstanding purchase orders due within one year with its outside vendors and suppliers as of September 30, 2021.

Warranty obligations

The following table identifies the changes in the Company’s aggregate product warranty liabilities for the nine and twelve-month periods ended September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively:

Contract liabilities

Contract liabilities primarily consist of deferred revenue related to lifetime warranties on direct-to-consumer sales revenue when payments are received in advance of services performed under the contract. The contract with the customer states the final terms of the sale, including the description, quantity, and price of each product or service purchase. The increase in deferred revenue related to lifetime warranties for the nine months ended September 30, 2021 was primarily driven by $5,339 of payments received in advance of satisfying performance obligations, partially offset by $4,319 of revenue recognized that was included in the deferred revenue balances as of December 31, 2020. Deferred revenue related to lifetime warranties was $18,098 and $17,078 as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, and is classified within deferred revenue – current and deferred revenue – noncurrent in the consolidated balance sheet.

Legislation and HIPAA

The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws and regulations of federal, state and local governments. These laws and regulations include, but are not necessarily limited to, matters such as licensure, accreditation, government healthcare program participation requirements, reimbursement for patient services, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Government activity has continued with respect to investigations and allegations concerning possible violations of fraud and abuse statutes and regulations by healthcare providers. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in exclusion from government healthcare programs together with the imposition of significant fines and penalties, as well as significant repayments for patient services previously billed.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with applicable fraud and abuse regulations and other applicable government laws and regulations. Compliance with such laws and regulations can be subject to future government review and interpretation as well as regulatory actions unknown or unasserted at this time. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was enacted to ensure health insurance portability, reduce healthcare fraud and abuse, guarantee security and privacy of health information, and enforce standards for health information. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), in part, imposes notification requirements of certain security breaches relating to protected health information. The Company believes that it complies in all material respects with the provisions of those regulations that are applicable to the Company’s business.

Legal proceedings

Securities class action and derivative lawsuits

On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s securities. On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court. On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs’ counsel. On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the strong sales acumen of its sales force, rather than to deceptive sales practices;  (iii) the growth in Inogen’s domestic business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales; and (iv) Inogen’s decision to focus on sales over rentals of portable oxygen concentrators harmed its ability to serve the Medicare market, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the court deems proper. On January 2, 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend. On January 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint generally alleging substantially similar claims as those in the previous complaint. On January 23, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 2, 2020, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and instructed defendants to file another motion to dismiss if the parties are unable to resolve the issues relating to the second amended complaint. The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 28, 2020. On August 13, 2021, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on September 27, 2021, the court entered judgment dismissing the action in its entirety.  

On June 26, 2019, plaintiff Twana Brown filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, Alison Bauerlein, Benjamin Anderson-Ray, Scott Beardsley, R. Scott Greer, Raymond Huggenberger, Heath Lukatch, Loren McFarland, and Heather Rider in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of Inogen against the individual defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of Inogen, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and violations of section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint generally alleges similar claims to the securities class action. The complaint seeks compensatory damages and restitution in an unspecified amount, changes to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On August 5, 2019, the court issued an order staying the derivative action pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss stage in In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig. Between October 7, 2019 and October 31, 2019, three additional shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California based on similar factual allegations. These lawsuits purport to bring claims on behalf of Inogen for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, insider trading and misappropriation of information, and violations of section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On January 13, 2020, the court consolidated the four derivative lawsuits before it under the name In re Inogen, Inc. S’holder Deriv. Litig., Lead Case No. 2:19-cv-5568-FMO-AGR and ordered that the consolidated action be stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss stage in In re Inogen, Inc., Sec. Litig. The parties are currently engaged in discussions regarding future proceedings in this action.

On September 13, 2019, plaintiff Dustin Weller filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, Alison Bauerlein, Benjamin Anderson-Ray, Scott Beardsley, R. Scott Greer, Raymond Huggenberger, Heath Lukatch, Loren McFarland, and Heather Rider in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Weller v. Wilkinson, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01723-MN. On October 17, 2019, plaintiff Sharokh Soltanipour filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court, captioned Soltanipour v. Wilkinson, et al., No. 1:19-cv-1968-MN. The complaints generally allege similar claims to those in In re Inogen, Inc., S’holder Deriv. Litig.  The complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of Inogen for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, insider selling and misappropriation of information, violations of section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and for contribution from certain of the individual defendants.  The complaints seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, changes to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, return of compensation, disgorgement of profits from sale of stock, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On May 15, 2020, the court consolidated the two derivative lawsuits before it under the name In re Inogen, Inc. S’holder Deriv. Litig., Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-01723-MN-JLH. On July 8, 2020, the court ordered that the consolidated action be stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action, In re Inogen, Inc., Sec. Litig. On November 3, 2021, the court approved the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware derivative action without prejudice.

Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services lawsuit

On September 21, 2020, Inogen filed a lawsuit against defendants, Alex M. Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in his official capacity, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), in her official capacity and Palmetto GBA, LLC. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the defendants’ arbitrary and capricious decision to retract a valid HCPCS code to Inogen’s Tidal Assist^® Ventilator (TAV^®), thereby eliminating reimbursements for the ventilator, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq.).  Further, CMS’s failure to provide notice and the opportunity to comment on a change in HCPCS code verification for the Sidekick Tidal Assist Ventilator and similar devices constitutes a violation of the procedural right provided under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1395hh(a)(2)), and Inogen’s due process rights. On June 17, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order to deny the Company’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint stating that the Company had failed to present its claim to CMS and exhaust its administrative remedies. The Company does not intend to appeal the court order or pursue additional alternatives to meet the Medicare reimbursement coding requirements. Therefore, the Company adjusted its recognized revenue estimates for the fair value of the earnout liability and evaluated the relevant long-lived asset grouping for impairment.

Other litigation

In addition to the lawsuits discussed above, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. The Company carries insurance, subject to specified deductibles under the policies, to protect against losses from certain types of legal claims. At this time, the Company does not anticipate that any of these other proceedings arising in the normal course of business will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.