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 September 30, 2016 expire at various dates during the next five years.

The Company recognized rent expense of $0.3 million and $1.2 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively, and $0.4 million and $1.3 million, in the three and nine months ended September 30, 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 September 30, 2016 (in thousands):

	Operating Lease		Purchase Commitments		Other Contractual Commitments		Total
2016 (remaining three months)	$	368	$	6,312	$	13	$	6,693
2017		1,029		2,679		11		3,719
2018		266		—		—		266
2019		171		—		—		171
2020		159		—		—		159
Thereafter		2		—		—		2
Total	$	1,995	$	8,991	$	24	$	11,010

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 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. On June 6, 2016, each of the Company, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on August 5, 2016, the court granted those motions with leave for the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On September 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff in the Rok lawsuit filed a second amended complaint. On October 10, 2016, the Company, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which motions are scheduled to be heard on December 16, 2016. 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. Similarly, on June 28, 2016, the court in the Wollnik lawsuit entered a stipulated order staying proceedings in the Wollnik lawsuit in favor of the Oswald lawsuit. On June 17, 2016, the plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed an amended complaint. On August 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure by plaintiff to make a pre-lawsuit demand upon the Company’s board of directors, which motion was heard on October 14, 2016. The judge in the Oswald lawsuit issued an order on November 7, 2016 granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice. In addition, the court stayed the case so that plaintiff could exercise whatever rights he has under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. 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.