11. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases its facilities, certain equipment, and automobiles under non-cancelable operating lease agreements. Those lease agreements existing as of March 31, 2016 expire at various dates during the next five years.

The Company recognized rent expense of $0.5 million and $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, respectively, in its condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Purchases for inventories are highly dependent upon forecasts of customer demand. Due to the uncertainty in demand from its customers, the Company may have to change, reschedule, or cancel purchases or purchase orders from its suppliers. These changes may lead to vendor cancellation charges on these purchases or contractual commitments.

The following table summarizes the Company’s principal contractual commitments as of March 31, 2016 (in thousands):

	Operating Lease		Purchase Commitments		Other Contractual Commitments		Total
2016 (remaining nine months)	$	1,316	$	9,105	$	7	$	10,428
2017		1,193		—		—		1,193
2018		435		—		—		435
2019		330		—		—		330
2020		329		—		—		329
Thereafter		110		—		—		110
Total	$	3,713	$	9,105	$	7	$	12,825

The Company provides warranties on certain product sales for periods ranging from 12 to 24 months, and allowances for estimated warranty costs are recorded during the period of sale. The determination of such allowances requires the Company to make estimates of product return rates and expected costs to repair or to replace the products under warranty. The Company currently establishes warranty reserves based on historical warranty costs for each product line combined with liability estimates based on the prior 12 months’ sales activities. If actual return rates and/or repair and replacement costs differ significantly from the Company’s estimates, adjustments to recognize additional cost of sales may be required in future periods. Historically the warranty accrual and the expense amounts have been immaterial.

On May 21, 2015, the Company received notification from NASDAQ that it no longer met the requirements for continued listing under NASDAQ’s listing rules because of the failure to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company subsequently submitted a plan of compliance to NASDAQ, and was given until November 16, 2015 to regain compliance with the continued listing requirements. The plan of compliance included an undertaking to file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, which had also become delinquent. The Company subsequently was unable to timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015. On November 17, 2015, the Company received a notice from NASDAQ informing the Company that as a result of its failure to regain compliance with the continued listing requirements by November 16, 2015, and because the September 30, 2015 Form 10-Q was also delinquent, the Company’s common stock was subject to delisting. The Company requested, was granted, and attended a hearing before the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel (“the Panel”) to appeal the delisting determination. On January 26, 2016, the Company was notified that the Panel had granted its request to remain listed on The NASDAQ Capital Market, subject to certain conditions. The Panel determined the Company’s common stock would remain listed subject to the Company becoming current with its periodic filings with the SEC by March 30, 2016, and the Company holding its annual meeting of stockholders on or before May 12, 2016. If the Company does not maintain compliance with the remainder of The NASDAQ Capital Market’s continued listing requirements on an ongoing basis and fails to timely comply with the conditions of the Panel’s decision, the Company’s common stock may be immediately delisted from The NASDAQ Capital Market.

On December 16, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. On May 3, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff Thomas Cunningham in the Rok lawsuit filed an amended complaint and a notice of dismissal without prejudice of all current or former officers and directors other than Jason Hart and Brian Nelson. In addition, three shareholder derivative actions were filed between January and February 2016. On January 1, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Oswald v. Humphreys, et al., Case No. 16-cv-00241-JCS, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control claims. On January 25, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Chopra v. Hart, et al., Case No. RG16801379, alleging breach of fiduciary duty claims. On February 9, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Wollnik v. Wenzel, et al., Case No. HG16803342, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment claims. These lawsuits generally allege that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information in certain public filings and disclosures between 2013 and 2015. Each of the lawsuits seeks one or more of the following remedies: unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified exemplary or punitive damages, restitution, declaratory relief, equitable and injunctive relief, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. On May 2, 2016, the court in the Chopra lawsuit entered an order staying proceedings in the Chopra lawsuit in favor of the Oswald lawsuit, based on a stipulation to that effect filed by the parties in the Chopra lawsuit on April 28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of each of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, if any, which could be material, and the resolution of these lawsuits may harm its business and have a material adverse impact on its financial condition.