Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	17. Legal Proceedings 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-CRB, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and waste 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 on 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 had under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On or around November 30, 2016, the plaintiff purported to serve a books and records demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Company responded to that demand. On March 21, 2017, the Company and the plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed a stipulation and proposed order lifting the stay of the case, granting the plaintiff leave to amend, and setting a briefing schedule. The plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed his second amended complaint on April 10, 2017. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint on May 12, 2017. After further briefing and argument, on October 22, 2017, the court issued its written order denying the motion to dismiss on the basis of demand futility. On January 3, 2018, the court entered a stipulated order setting a response and briefing schedule for defendants to the second amended complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Oswald action under Rule 12(b)(6) on January 16, 2018. After further briefing and argument, on April 13, 2018, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 19, 2018, plaintiff Oswald filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On that same date, plaintiff Chopra, a plaintiff in a related and stayed derivative action in state court, filed a motion to intervene in the Oswald action. After further briefing and argument, on July 16, 2018, the court entered an order granting the Chopra motion to intervene and denying the Oswald motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. After the filing of an unopposed administrative motion for entry of judgment by defendants, on October 1, 2018, the court entered an order granting administrative motion for entry of final judgment and entered final judgment in favor of all named defendants and against plaintiffs Oswald and Chopra. On October 23, 2018, plaintiff Oswald filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and the matter subsequently argued on March 5, 2020. In the interim, the state court Chopra and Wollnik actions have remained stayed with periodic status conferences. The next status conferences have been scheduled in the Chopra and Wollnik cases on June 16, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is approaching the coverage limits on its directors’ and officers’ insurance policy, with approximately $900,000 of coverage remaining under such policy. 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 the Company’s business and have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition. From time to time, the Company may become subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of business or could be named a defendant in additional lawsuits. The outcome of such claims or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and may have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

17. Legal Proceedings

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-CRB, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and waste 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 on 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 had under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On or around November 30, 2016, the plaintiff purported to serve a books and records demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Company responded to that demand. On March 21, 2017, the Company and the plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed a stipulation and proposed order lifting the stay of the case, granting the plaintiff leave to amend, and setting a briefing schedule. The plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed his second amended complaint on April 10, 2017. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint on May 12, 2017. After further briefing and argument, on October 22, 2017, the court issued its written order denying the motion to dismiss on the basis of demand futility. On January 3, 2018, the court entered a stipulated order setting a response and briefing schedule for defendants to the second amended complaint.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Oswald action under Rule 12(b)(6) on January 16, 2018. After further briefing and argument, on April 13, 2018, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 19, 2018, plaintiff Oswald filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On that same date, plaintiff Chopra, a plaintiff in a related and stayed derivative action in state court, filed a motion to intervene in the Oswald action. After further briefing and argument, on July 16, 2018, the court entered an order granting the Chopra motion to intervene and denying the Oswald motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. After the filing of an unopposed administrative motion for entry of judgment by defendants, on October 1, 2018, the court entered an order granting administrative motion for entry of final judgment and entered final judgment in favor of all named defendants and against plaintiffs Oswald and Chopra. On October 23, 2018, plaintiff Oswald filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and the matter subsequently argued on March 5, 2020. In the interim, the state court Chopra and Wollnik actions have remained stayed with periodic status conferences. The next status conferences have been scheduled in the Chopra and Wollnik cases on June 16, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is approaching the coverage limits on its directors’ and officers’ insurance policy, with approximately $900,000 of coverage remaining under such policy. 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 the Company’s business and have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition.

From time to time, the Company may become subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of business or could be named a defendant in additional lawsuits. The outcome of such claims or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and may have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.