|Commitments and Contingencies
||Commitments and Contingencies
The aggregate amount of open purchase orders as of October 3, 2020 was approximately $430.5 million. Of the aggregate amount, $156.9 million related to the Company’s migration to a third-party hosting provider, of which $17.3 million was accrued for as of October 3, 2020. The Company cannot determine the aggregate amount of such purchase orders that represent contractual obligations because purchase orders may represent authorizations to purchase rather than binding agreements. The Company’s purchase orders are based on its current needs and are fulfilled by its suppliers, contract manufacturers, and logistics providers within short periods of time.
During the normal course of business, the Company and its contract manufacturers procure components based upon a forecasted production plan. If the Company cancels all or part of the orders, or materially reduces forecasted orders, it may be liable to its suppliers and contract manufacturers for the cost of the excess components purchased by its contract manufacturers. As of October 3, 2020, $7.9 million was accrued for such liabilities to contract manufacturers.
Letters of Credit
As of October 3, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $24.8 million and $24.6 million, respectively, issued to cover the security deposit on the lease of its office headquarters in San Francisco, California, and other facility leases.
Jawbone. Aliphcom, Inc. d/b/a Jawbone (“Jawbone”) and the Company each initiated civil lawsuits against each other in 2015. These included a complaint filed by Jawbone in California state court alleging the misappropriation of certain trade secrets by six former Jawbone employees who had joined Fitbit and who were also named as defendants. On December 8, 2017, the parties announced the global settlement of all of the outstanding civil litigation on confidential terms, and all of the cases were dismissed with prejudice.
In February 2017 and February 2018, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California requesting documents regarding certain of the Company’s confidential business information that appeared to be related to Jawbone’s allegations of trade secret misappropriation, and the Company produced documents in response. On June 14, 2018, the six former Jawbone employees who were named as individual defendants in the state trade secret case were charged in a federal indictment with being in possession of certain Jawbone trade secrets. Charges were dismissed against one individual in December 2019. On February 3, 2020, a jury returned a not-guilty verdict on all counts in favor of the first individual to be tried. On February 14, 2020, the government dropped all charges against the remaining individuals.
Sleep Tracking. On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs sought class certification, restitution, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees. On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on December 8, 2017.
The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on August 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the court denied preliminary settlement approval without prejudice and ordered revised settlement papers be filed. On November 29, 2018, the court granted preliminary settlement approval and the final approval hearing was scheduled for August 1, 2019. On May 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company opposed that request. At the hearing on August 1, 2019, the court asked the parties to submit a re-notice plan in order to achieve a higher claims rate. On the fee request, the court offered the plaintiffs alternative conditions, and on August 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their fee election, opting for a 90% reduction of challenged fees and expenses. The re-notice plan was approved on October 16, 2019, and the re-notice resulted in approximately 80,000 more claims, for a total of approximately 141,000 claims. The court granted final approval of the settlement on February 6, 2020, in an amount that is not material to the Company.
On March 20, 2020, the court ruled on plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs and awarded $6.9 million in attorneys’ fees and $0.2 million in costs. On April 20, 2020, the Company filed a notice of appeal. On August 14, 2020, the parties agreed to settle the attorneys’ fees issue for $5.6 million and on August 24, 2020, the appeal was dismissed.
Securities Litigation I. In 2016, putative class actions were filed in federal and California state court against the Company and other defendants alleging violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s PurePulse® heart rate tracking technology. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuits for $33.3 million, which the Company accrued for as of December 31, 2017. Following court approval of the settlement, the federal and state class action cases were dismissed with prejudice in May 2018.
During 2016 and 2017, seven derivative lawsuits were filed in various federal courts and in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming the Company as nominal plaintiff and certain of the Company’s officers and directors as defendants. The federal cases are all stayed. The three cases filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery were consolidated and a second amended
complaint was filed in which plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading against certain defendants who sold shares in the Company’s initial public offering and/or a secondary offering. On April 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware cases for failure to state a claim. On December 14, 2018, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a motion for interlocutory appeal, which was denied on January 14, 2019. The Company then filed a Notice of Appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court, which was denied on January 30, 2019. On February 10, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement of all of the derivative lawsuits, and final court approval of the settlement was received on October 27, 2020.
Securities Litigation II. On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) arising out of alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and full fiscal year 2016 that was provided during the third and fourth quarters of 2016. On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same defendants. On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24, 2019. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and certain officers relating to the Company’s 2016 guidance, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017. Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees. On August 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On March 23, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On April 28, 2020, the court entered judgment after plaintiffs indicated that they did not intend to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 27, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on September 25, 2020, and the Company’s opposition brief is due on November 25, 2020.
Koninklijke Philips and Philips North America Patent Litigation. On December 4, 2017, Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed suit in Germany in the Regional Court of Mannheim alleging infringement of its European patent (“EP”) by certain of Fitbit’s products of the German part of EP 1 247 229 B1 (“EP229”). In October 2018, the case was stayed pending an appeal of a January 2014 decision by the European Patent Office (“EPO”) to revoke EP229. On May 31, 2019, the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to revoke EP229. Koninklijke Philips appealed the EPO Board of Appeal decision on July 30, 2019.
On May 30, 2018, Koninklijke Philips filed a second patent infringement suit in the Regional Court of Mannheim alleging infringement by certain of Fitbit’s products of the German part of EP 1 076 806 B1 (“EP806”). In October 2018, the case was stayed pending the decision in a parallel nullity proceeding challenging the validity of EP806. A hearing in the nullity proceeding is scheduled for November 11, 2020.
On July 22, 2019, Philips North America LLC filed a patent infringement suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,007, 7,088,233, 8,277,377, and 6,976,958 by certain of Fitbit’s products. On November 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On November 27, 2019, Philips filed an amended complaint. On December 10, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on August 20, 2020, but the Court has not yet issued an order. In addition, the Court held a claim construction hearing on August 5, 2020, but has not yet issued an order. On September 3, 2020, Philips filed an amended complaint, withdrawing all allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,976,958.
On December 10, 2019, Philips North America and Koninklijke Philips filed a complaint for patent infringement in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) naming Fitbit, Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc., Garmin Ltd., d/b/a Garmin Switzerland GmbH, Ingram Micro Inc., Maintek Computer (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., and Inventec Appliances (Pudong) as proposed respondents. The complaint asserts that all proposed respondents’ accused products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,845,228 (the “’228 patent”), 9,820,698 (the “’698 Patent”), and 9,717,464 (the “’464 patent”) (collectively, the “ITC Patents”), and requests that the ITC institute an investigation and thereafter issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. On January 10, 2020, the ITC instituted the investigation, titled “In the Matter of Certain Wearable Monitoring Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof.” On October 1, 2020, the ITC Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granted summary determination that Fitbit’s accused products do not infringe the ’464 and ’698 Patents. The ALJ also denied the parties’ respective motions for summary determination of non-infringement and infringement of the ’228 Patent, and determined that Philips satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ’228 patent. The ITC held an evidentiary hearing regarding the ’228 patent (and the ’464 patent with respect to certain remaining allegations against Garmin) on October 21, 2020 through October 23, 2020. The initial determination is due by February 4, 2021, and the target date for completion of the investigation is June 4, 2021.
On April 2, 2020, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Koninklijke Philips in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California requesting that the court declare that Fitbit’s products do not infringe the ITC Patents. On July 9, 2020, the court ordered that the case be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts following a motion filed by Koninklijke Philips. On October 15, 2020, the court stayed the action pending the ITC investigation between the parties.
On April 8, 2020, the Company filed a lawsuit against Philips North America and Koninklijke Philips in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,145,462 and 8,868,377 by certain of Philips’ products. On August 26, 2020, the court ordered that the case be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts following a motion filed by Philips. On September 11, 2020, Philips filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims in the Company’s complaint.
The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Wynit. In September 2017, Wynit Distribution LLC (“Wynit”) filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Wynit was previously the Company’s largest customer. The Company ceased to recognize revenue from Wynit, which totaled $8.1 million during the third quarter of 2017. Additionally, the Company recorded a charge of $35.8 million during the third quarter of 2017 comprised of cost of revenue of $5.5 million associated with shipments to Wynit in the third quarter of 2017 and bad debt expense of $30.3 million associated with all of Wynit’s outstanding accounts receivables. The Company maintains credit insurance that covers a portion of the exposure related to its customer receivables. The Company recorded an insurance receivable based on an analysis of its insurance policies, including their exclusions, an assessment of the nature of the claim, and information from its insurance carrier. As of September 30, 2017, the Company had recorded an insurance receivable of $26.8 million, included in prepaid expenses and other current assets, associated with the amount it had concluded was probable related to the claim. The $26.8 million insurance receivable allowed the Company to recover $22.7 million of bad debt expense and $4.1 million of cost of revenue, resulting in a net charge of $9.0 million in the consolidated statement of operations comprised of net bad debt expense of $7.6 million and net cost of revenue of $1.4 million. The Company received $21.4 million of the insurance receivable during the fourth quarter of 2017 and the remaining $5.4 million in the first quarter of 2018.
During 2018, the Company released $12.4 million in product return and rebate reserves related to Wynit, as it believed the possibility of future claims associated with these reserves was remote. This reserve release resulted in a $12.4 million increase in revenue during the year ended December 31, 2018.
On September 4, 2019, plaintiff Nauni Manty, as the chapter 7 trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Wynit Distribution, LLC, et al, filed a complaint in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Minnesota. The complaint sought: (1) avoidance and recovery under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 550, and 551 against Fitbit; and (2) avoidance and preservation under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 551 of a second lien granted to Fitbit on substantially all the debtors’ assets. On March 30, 2020, the bankruptcy court approved a settlement of the trustee’s claims in an amount that is not material to the Company, and the case has been dismissed.
Other. The Company is and, from time to time, may in the future become, involved in other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. The Company currently believes that the outcome of any of these existing legal proceedings, including the aforementioned cases, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material impact on the operating results, financial condition or cash flows of the Company. With respect to existing legal proceedings, the Company has either determined that the existence of a material loss is not reasonably possible or that it is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company may incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these legal proceedings.
In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into commercial agreements that may include indemnification provisions. Pursuant to such agreements, the Company may indemnify, hold harmless and defend an indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. Some of the provisions will limit losses to those arising from third-party actions. In some cases, the indemnification will continue after the termination of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these provisions is not determinable. To date, the Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware corporate law. The Company also currently has directors’ and officers’ insurance.