Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies For information on our commitments and contingencies, see Part II, Item 8 (Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies) of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022. There have been no material changes to our commitments and contingencies, outside of the ordinary course of our business, as previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, except for “Obligations with Third-Parties” and “Litigation” as discussed below. Obligations with Third Parties We manufacture products with third-party manufacturers. We are committed to purchase $43.7 million of inventory as of June 30, 2023. Litigation From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when management believes that it is both probable that we have incurred a liability and we can reasonably estimate the amount of loss. As of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we did not have accrued contingency liabilities. The following is a description of our significant legal proceedings. Although we believe that resolving these claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP in California On June 6, 2019, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of NXP Semiconductors N.V., or NXP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the Court. Our original complaint alleged that certain NXP endpoint ICs infringe 26 of our U.S. patents. At the order of the Court, we filed an amended complaint limited to eight of the original 26 patents. We subsequently elected to go forward with asserting infringement of six of those eight patents. We are seeking, among other things, past damages, including lost profits; no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing UCODE 8 and UCODE 9 ICs. NXP responded to our complaint on September 30, 2019 citing numerous defenses including denying infringement and claiming our asserted patents are invalid. After various post-trial motions, the Court narrowed the case to two patents—U.S. patent nos. 9,633,302 (the “’302 patent”) and 8,115,597 (the “’597 patent”). Before trial, the Court granted summary judgment of infringement on the ‘302 patent. The Court conducted a trial on those two patents beginning on July 5, 2023, and concluding on July 13, 2023. The issues on the ‘302 patent were validity, damages and willful infringement. The issues on the ‘597 patent were infringement, validity, damages and willful infringement. On July 14, 2023, the jury returned a verdict in our favor finding that: (1) that some, but not all, of the asserted claims of the ‘302 patent were proven to be obvious, and hence invalid; (2) that NXP’s infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘302 patent that were not proven to be invalid was willful; (3) none of the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent were proven to be invalid; and (4) NXP infringed the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent. The jury awarded approximately $18.2 million and $18.4 million in damages for infringement of the ‘302 patent and the ’597 patent, respectively. The majority of these damages were for lost profits and are therefore overlapping. The Court will approve any final award after deciding post-trial motions. If the Court upholds damages for both patents as determined by the jury, total damages will be approximately $18.9 million. We recognize contingent gains in our financial statements upon resolution of all contingencies related to the award. NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj in Washington On October 4, 2019, NXP USA, Inc. and NXP filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that certain of our products infringe eight U.S. patents owned by NXP or NXP USA, Inc. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, past damages adequate to compensate them for our alleged infringement of each of the patents-in-suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They also sought an injunction against us. We denied we are infringing any of the patents and we have asserted both that our wafer supplier is licensed under four of them and that all eight are invalid. On September 23, 2020, the District of Delaware granted Impinj’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. On December 11, 2020, we moved to stay the case with respect to six of the eight patents in suit pending final resolution of IPR petitions we filed with the PTAB. On February 12, 2021, the Court granted our motion to stay the case as to these six patents. The PTAB instituted IPRs on two of the six challenged patents but denied them on the other four. The Court subsequently removed the stay on the four against which IPRs were not instituted. The Court ultimately narrowed the case to seven patents. Following the close of fact discovery, the parties each moved for summary judgment on various issues. The Court ultimately granted summary judgment of noninfringement to us on six of the seven patents, and the final patent went to a jury trial beginning on June 5, 2023. The jury found that we did not infringe the patent and a final judgment was entered in our favor. We moved for attorneys’ fees on July 12, 2023 and that motion is pending. Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP in Texas On May 25, 2021, we filed a new patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco), asserting that NXP has infringed nine of our patents, including seven that we originally asserted in the Northern California case. We also later added NXP Semiconductor Netherlands B.V. as a defendant. We are seeking among other things, past damages, including lost profits; no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing its UCODE 7, 8 and 9 endpoint ICs. On July 26, 2021, NXP filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaimed that we infringe nine patents, one of which NXP owns and eight of which NXP recently licensed from a third party. NXP has denied infringement, asserted our patents are invalid and asserted that some are unenforceable and/or subject to a license under our commitments to license “necessary” patents to certain standards. A claim construction hearing was held on February 10, 2022 and fact discovery has closed. The Patent Office has instituted reexamination proceedings on five of the nine patents asserted by NXP and has issued a final office action rejecting all asserted claims on three of those patents. The Court has ordered that a first trial will involve three patents asserted by each side and is scheduled to begin on October 30, 2023. The parties have selected those patents and various summary judgment motions have been filed relating to many of the asserted patents. There is no hearing date yet for those motions. NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj in China On December 7, 2020, Impinj Radio Frequency Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Impinj Shanghai, was served with patent infringement lawsuits filed in the Intellectual Property Court in Shanghai, China, or Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, in which NXP B.V. asserted that certain of our products infringe three Chinese patents owned by NXP B.V., that closely correspond to three of the eight U.S. patents NXP asserted in the U.S. District Court described above. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, past damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit. Impinj Shanghai objected to the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court and filed a motion to stay the proceedings. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected by the Shanghai court in March 2021; a subsequent appeal filed by Impinj Shanghai was denied before the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court in third-quarter 2021. Impinj, Inc. was formally served in July 2021, officially adding Impinj, Inc. to the suit. On December 22, 2022, Impinj Shanghai filed invalidity requests against all three Chinese patents before the China National Intellectual Property Administration, or CNIPA. In July 2021, the CNIPA issued decisions upholding the validity of all three Chinese patents. In October 2021, Impinj Shanghai filed for judicial review of all the CNIPA decisions by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which has docketed its review for all three patents. In December 2022, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued the first-instance administrative judgment, upholding the invalidity decision for one of the three Chinese patents. On January 11, 2023, Impinj Shanghai filed a subsequent appeal to the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court, which is pending. For the remaining two Chinese patent cases, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a hearing on July 14th, 2023, and the decisions are still pending. In May 2022, the Shanghai court held a hearing for all three patents, but the panel did not address the merits of any case in the hearing. In November 2022, we filed with the Shanghai court motions to dismiss two patent cases to which we assert a license defense (parallel to our arguments in Washington). Decisions on the motions are pending. In January 2023, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held a supplemental evidentiary hearing to review the admissions of evidence, but the panel did not address the merits of any case in that hearing. For the two Chinese patents for which we argue a license defense, the Shanghai court has requested NXP to withdraw in view of the existing wafer supplier license and the favorable summary judgment regarding the corresponding U.S. Patents in the Western District of Washington. For the third Chinese patent, the Shanghai court has not yet set a date for any further hearings while the completion of its technical evaluation remains pending.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies

For information on our commitments and contingencies, see Part II, Item 8 (Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies) of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022. There have been no material changes to our commitments and contingencies, outside of the ordinary course of our business, as previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, except for “Obligations with Third-Parties” and “Litigation” as discussed below.

Obligations with Third Parties

We manufacture products with third-party manufacturers. We are committed to purchase $43.7 million of inventory as of June 30, 2023.

Litigation

From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when management believes that it is both probable that we have incurred a liability and we can reasonably estimate the amount of loss. As of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we did not have accrued contingency liabilities. The following is a description of our significant legal proceedings. Although we believe that resolving these claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties.

Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims

Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP in California

On June 6, 2019, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of NXP Semiconductors N.V., or NXP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the Court. Our original complaint alleged that certain NXP endpoint ICs infringe 26 of our U.S. patents. At the order of the Court, we filed an amended complaint limited to eight of the original 26 patents. We subsequently elected to go forward with asserting infringement of six of those eight patents. We are seeking, among other things, past damages, including lost profits; no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing UCODE 8 and UCODE 9 ICs. NXP responded to our complaint on September 30, 2019 citing numerous defenses including denying infringement and claiming our asserted patents are invalid.

After various post-trial motions, the Court narrowed the case to two patents—U.S. patent nos. 9,633,302 (the “’302 patent”) and 8,115,597 (the “’597 patent”). Before trial, the Court granted summary judgment of infringement on the ‘302 patent. The Court conducted a trial on those two patents beginning on July 5, 2023, and concluding on July 13, 2023. The issues on the ‘302 patent were validity, damages and willful infringement. The issues on the ‘597 patent were infringement, validity, damages and willful infringement.

On July 14, 2023, the jury returned a verdict in our favor finding that: (1) that some, but not all, of the asserted claims of the ‘302 patent were proven to be obvious, and hence invalid; (2) that NXP’s infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘302 patent that were not proven to be invalid was willful; (3) none of the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent were proven to be invalid; and (4) NXP infringed the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent. The jury awarded approximately $18.2 million and $18.4 million in damages for infringement of the ‘302 patent and the ’597 patent, respectively. The majority of these damages were for lost profits and are therefore overlapping. The Court will approve any final award after deciding post-trial motions. If the Court upholds damages for both patents as determined by the jury, total damages will be approximately $18.9 million. We recognize contingent gains in our financial statements upon resolution of all contingencies related to the award.

NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj in Washington

On October 4, 2019, NXP USA, Inc. and NXP filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that certain of our products infringe eight U.S. patents owned by NXP or NXP USA, Inc. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, past damages adequate to compensate them for our alleged infringement of each of the patents-in-suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They also sought an injunction against us. We denied we are infringing any of the patents and we have asserted both that our wafer supplier is licensed under four of them and that all eight are invalid. On September 23, 2020, the District of Delaware granted Impinj’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle.

On December 11, 2020, we moved to stay the case with respect to six of the eight patents in suit pending final resolution of IPR petitions we filed with the PTAB. On February 12, 2021, the Court granted our motion to stay the case as to these six patents. The PTAB instituted IPRs on two of the six challenged patents but denied them on the other four. The Court subsequently removed the stay on the four against which IPRs were not instituted. The Court ultimately narrowed the case to seven patents.

Following the close of fact discovery, the parties each moved for summary judgment on various issues. The Court ultimately granted summary judgment of noninfringement to us on six of the seven patents, and the final patent went to a jury trial beginning on June 5, 2023. The jury found that we did not infringe the patent and a final judgment was entered in our favor. We moved for attorneys’ fees on July 12, 2023 and that motion is pending.

Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP in Texas

On May 25, 2021, we filed a new patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco), asserting that NXP has infringed nine of our patents, including seven that we originally asserted in the Northern California case. We also later added NXP Semiconductor Netherlands B.V. as a defendant.

We are seeking among other things, past damages, including lost profits; no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing its UCODE 7, 8 and 9 endpoint ICs.

On July 26, 2021, NXP filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaimed that we infringe nine patents, one of which NXP owns and eight of which NXP recently licensed from a third party. NXP has denied infringement, asserted our patents are invalid and asserted that some are unenforceable and/or subject to a license under our commitments to license “necessary” patents to certain standards.

A claim construction hearing was held on February 10, 2022 and fact discovery has closed. The Patent Office has instituted reexamination proceedings on five of the nine patents asserted by NXP and has issued a final office action rejecting all asserted claims on three of those patents. The Court has ordered that a first trial will involve three patents asserted by each side and is scheduled to begin on October 30, 2023. The parties have selected those patents and various summary judgment motions have been filed relating to many of the asserted patents. There is no hearing date yet for those motions.

NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj in China

On December 7, 2020, Impinj Radio Frequency Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Impinj Shanghai, was served with patent infringement lawsuits filed in the Intellectual Property Court in Shanghai, China, or Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, in which NXP B.V. asserted that certain of our products infringe three Chinese patents owned by NXP B.V., that closely correspond to three of the eight U.S. patents NXP asserted in the U.S. District Court described above. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, past damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit. Impinj Shanghai objected to the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court and filed a motion to stay the proceedings. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected by the Shanghai court in March 2021; a subsequent appeal filed by Impinj Shanghai was denied before the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court in third-quarter 2021. Impinj, Inc. was formally served in July 2021, officially adding Impinj, Inc. to the suit.

On December 22, 2022, Impinj Shanghai filed invalidity requests against all three Chinese patents before the China National Intellectual Property Administration, or CNIPA. In July 2021, the CNIPA issued decisions upholding the validity of all three Chinese patents. In October 2021, Impinj Shanghai filed for judicial review of all the CNIPA decisions by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which has docketed its review for all three patents. In December 2022, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued the first-instance administrative judgment, upholding the invalidity decision for one of the three Chinese patents. On January 11, 2023, Impinj Shanghai filed a subsequent appeal to the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court, which is pending. For the remaining two Chinese patent cases, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a hearing on July 14th, 2023, and the decisions are still pending.

In May 2022, the Shanghai court held a hearing for all three patents, but the panel did not address the merits of any case in the hearing. In November 2022, we filed with the Shanghai court motions to dismiss two patent cases to which we assert a license defense (parallel to our arguments in Washington). Decisions on the motions are pending. In January 2023, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held a supplemental evidentiary hearing to review the admissions of evidence, but the panel did not address the merits of any case in that hearing. For the two Chinese patents for which we argue a license defense, the Shanghai court has requested NXP to withdraw in view of the existing wafer supplier license and the favorable summary judgment regarding the corresponding U.S. Patents in the Western District of Washington. For the third Chinese patent, the Shanghai court has not yet set a date for any further hearings while the completion of its technical evaluation remains pending.