Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2016
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
9. Commitments and contingencies
The Company leases its offices and certain equipment under operating leases that expire through January 2022. As of June 30, 2016, the minimum aggregate payments due under non-cancelable leases are summarized as follows:
Rent expense of $239 and $220 for the three months ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015, respectively, and $502 and $440 for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015, respectively, was included in the accompanying statements of comprehensive income.
The Company had $37,262 of outstanding purchase orders with its outside vendors and suppliers as of June 30, 2016. In addition, the Company entered into agreements for other services. Future commitments under these purchase orders and other agreements do not extend beyond twelve months.
The following table identifies the changes in the Company’s aggregate product warranty liabilities for the six and twelve-month periods ended June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively:
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 expulsion 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 Company believes that it complies in all material respects with the provisions of those regulations that are applicable to the Company’s business.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) assures health insurance portability, reduces healthcare fraud and abuse, guarantees security and privacy of health information, and enforces standards for health information. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) imposes notification requirements of certain security breaches relating to protected health information. The Company may be subject to significant fines and penalties if found not to be compliant with the provisions outlined in the regulations.
Inova Labs lawsuit
On November 4, 2011, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Inova Labs Inc., or Defendant, for infringement of two of the Company’s patents. The case, Inogen Inc. v. Inova Labs Inc., Case No. 8:11-cv-01692-JGB-AN, or the Inova Labs Lawsuit, involves U.S. Patent Nos. 7,841,343, entitled “Systems and Methods For Delivering Therapeutic Gas to Patients”, or the ’343 patent, and 6,605,136 entitled “Pressure Swing Adsorption Process Operation And Optimization”, or the ’136 patent. The Company alleged in the Inova Labs Lawsuit that certain of Defendant’s oxygen concentrators infringe various claims of the ’343 and ’136 patents. The Inova Labs Lawsuit seeks damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.
The Defendant has answered the complaint, denying infringement and asserting various sets of defenses including non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability, patent misuse, unclean hands, laches and estoppel. The Defendant also filed counterclaims against the Company alleging patent invalidity, non-infringement and inequitable conduct. The Company denied the allegations in the Defendant’s counterclaims and filed a motion to dismiss Defendant’s inequitable conduct counterclaim.
The Defendant filed requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking an inter partes reexamination of the ’343 and ’136 patents. The Defendant also filed a motion to stay the Inova Labs Lawsuit pending outcome of the reexamination. On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the Defendant’s motion to stay the Inova Labs Lawsuit pending outcome of the reexamination and also granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Defendant’s inequitable conduct counterclaim. On December 7, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an inter partes Reexamination Certificate for the ‘343 patent. Reexamination proceedings for the ‘136 patent have not concluded.
On February 4, 2016, ResMed announced the completion of the acquisition of Inova Labs Inc. The parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement in June 2016. On June 30, 2016, the parties filed a Stipulated Dismissal with Prejudice of all claims in this lawsuit and a Joint Motion to Dismiss the reexamination proceeding for the ‘136 patent. The Company recognized a gain of $1,000 relating to the settlement during the three months ended June 30, 2016 classified within general and administrative expense and the receivable was recorded in prepaid expenses and other current assets as of June 30, 2016. In addition, a gain contingency of $250 as of June 30, 2016 was not recorded. The Company received $1,250 on July 26, 2016 finalizing the payment of this settlement. The parties are also collaborating on a study of the use of portable oxygen concentrators.
Securities class action lawsuit
On March 13 and March 19, 2015, plaintiffs Brad Christi and Roger D. Holford each filed, respectively, a lawsuit against Inogen, Raymond Huggenberger, Inogen’s Chief Executive Officer, and Alison Bauerlein, Inogen’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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 between November 12, 2014 and March 11, 2015. The complaints alleged that Inogen, Mr. Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaints alleged that during the purported class period the Company’s financial statements and disclosures concerning internal controls over financial reporting were materially false and misleading. The complaints sought 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 deemed proper. On May 7, 2015, plaintiff Roger D. Holford filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A) in the second filed action. On June 29, 2015, plaintiff Brad Christi filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A) in the first filed action. The case was closed by the Court as of June 29, 2015.
Separation Design Group litigation
On October 23, 2015, Separation Design Group IP Holdings, LLC (SDGIP) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On December 7, 2015, SDGIP filed a First Amended Complaint in the SDGIP Lawsuit.
SDGIP alleges that the Company willfully infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,894,751 and 9,199,055, both of which are titled “Ultra Rapid Cycle Portable Oxygen Concentrator.” SDGIP also alleges misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract stemming from a meeting in September 2010. The Company never received any communication from SDGIP related to patent infringement, misuse of trade secrets, or breach of the mutual non-disclosure agreement prior to SDGIP filing the lawsuit. SDGIP seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages (including compensatory and treble damages), costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees), pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other relief that the Court deems proper. SDGIP also seeks a permanent injunction against the Company.
The Company has and continues to vigorously contest SDGIP’s claims. The Company has answered SDGIP’s First Amended Complaint, denying SDGIP’s allegations of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract and asserting several affirmative defenses. The Company has also filed counterclaims against SDGIP alleging that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Labor law dispute
On April 13, 2016, Ryan Casper and Shane Hoefer (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the Company on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees in the Superior Court for Santa Barbara County, California. The complaint alleges failure to pay overtime wages, failure to allow and pay for meal periods, and other alleged violations of California wage and hour law. The Plaintiffs and class members are seeking compensatory damages in the amount of all wages, interest, and penalties allegedly due, as well as liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and other relief. The parties successfully mediated the claims and reached a settlement in April 2016. While the Company disputes the claims, it agreed to the settlement with no admission of liability to avoid the risks and costs associated with litigating the claims. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had accrued approximately $980 for the settlement costs within accounts payable and accrued expenses. On August 2, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties anticipate final approval of the settlement in late November 2016, and distribution of the settlement funds in December 2016.
Other legal proceedings
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 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.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef