Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
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 10. Commitments and Contingencies) of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018. 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, 2018, except for “Obligations with Third-Parties” and “Litigation” as discussed below. Obligations with Third Parties We have certain non-cancelable obligations, which include obligations with third-party manufacturers who manufacture our products. We are committed to purchase $12.4 million of inventory as of September 30, 2019. 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 a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. As of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, we have not recorded any such liabilities. The following is a description of our significant legal proceedings. Although we believe that resolving such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Federal Securities Class Actions On August 7, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us, our chief executive officer and chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that our quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading statements about our business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this complaint. On August 27, 2018, a second-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018, asserts claims that we made false or misleading statements in our financial statements, press releases and conference calls during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 2, 2018, a third-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including February 15, 2018, asserts claims that we made false or misleading statements about customer demand for our products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses. On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, we made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of our products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. On March 19, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against our President and COO, dismissed product capability-related allegations against our former CFO, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to the first quarter of 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants. A trial date has been set for February 1, 2021. New York State Securities Class Action On January 31, 2019, a fourth-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against us, our chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief financial officer, members of our board of directors and the underwriters of our July 2016 initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO. Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock pursuant to or traceable to our IPO and SPO, alleges that we made false or misleading statements in the registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings concerning demand for our products and inventory in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities class actions discussed above. Shareholder Derivative Actions On October 26, 2018, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against our chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief financial officer and certain of our directors. We are a nominal defendant. On November 8, 2018, a third shareholder derivative action was filed in this same court against the same defendants. Captioned Weiss v. Diorio, et al., Fotouhi v. Diorio, et al., and De la Fuente v. Diorio, et al., the derivative complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of us, allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to us and allegedly made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act regarding our business and operations. The derivative actions include claims for, among other things, unspecified damages in favor of us, corporate actions to purportedly improve our corporate governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiffs, including attorneys’ fees. On January 28, 2019, the Delaware federal court entered a stipulated order that stayed these derivative actions until resolution of the pending federal securities class actions described above. Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims 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. Our complaint alleges that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringed and continue to infringe numerous U.S. patents owned by us. We are seeking, among other things, past damages, including lost profits, and no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for infringement of each of the asserted patents. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing the RAIN RFID integrated circuit product NXP introduced in 2017. Defendants responded to our complaint on September 30, 2019 citing numerous defenses including denying infringement, claiming our asserted patents are invalid, and that the infringed patents were licensed on a royalty-free basis under Impinj’s commitments to GS1 EPCglobal. 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 alleges that certain of our products infringed and continue to infringe numerous U.S. patents owned by NXP or NXP USA, Inc. The plaintiffs are seeking, 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 are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

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 10. Commitments and Contingencies) of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018. 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, 2018, except for “Obligations with Third-Parties” and “Litigation” as discussed below.

Obligations with Third Parties

We have certain non-cancelable obligations, which include obligations with third-party manufacturers who manufacture our products. We are committed to purchase $12.4 million of inventory as of September 30, 2019.

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 a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. As of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, we have not recorded any such liabilities. The following is a description of our significant legal proceedings. Although we believe that resolving such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties.

Federal Securities Class Actions

On August 7, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us, our chief executive officer and chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that our quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading statements about our business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this complaint.

On August 27, 2018, a second-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018, asserts claims that we made false or misleading statements in our financial statements, press releases and conference calls during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 2, 2018, a third-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including February 15, 2018, asserts claims that we made false or misleading statements about customer demand for our products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, we made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of our products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against our President and COO, dismissed product capability-related allegations against our former CFO, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to the first quarter of 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants. A trial date has been set for February 1, 2021.

New York State Securities Class Action

On January 31, 2019, a fourth-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against us, our chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief financial officer, members of our board of directors and the underwriters of our July 2016 initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO. Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock pursuant to or traceable to our IPO and SPO, alleges that we made false or misleading statements in the registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings concerning demand for our products and inventory in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities class actions discussed above.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On October 26, 2018, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against our chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief financial officer and certain of our directors. We are a nominal defendant. On November 8, 2018, a third shareholder derivative action was filed in this same court against the same defendants. Captioned Weiss v. Diorio, et al., Fotouhi v. Diorio, et al., and De la Fuente v. Diorio, et al., the derivative complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of us, allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to us and allegedly made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act regarding our business and operations. The derivative actions include claims for, among other things, unspecified damages in favor of us, corporate actions to purportedly improve our corporate governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiffs, including attorneys’ fees. On January 28, 2019, the Delaware federal court entered a stipulated order that stayed these derivative actions until resolution of the pending federal securities class actions described above.

Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims

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. Our complaint alleges that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringed and continue to infringe numerous U.S. patents owned by us. We are seeking, among other things, past damages, including lost profits, and no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for infringement of each of the asserted patents. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing the RAIN RFID integrated circuit product NXP introduced in 2017. Defendants responded to our complaint on September 30, 2019 citing numerous defenses including denying infringement, claiming our asserted patents are invalid, and that the infringed patents were licensed on a royalty-free basis under Impinj’s commitments to GS1 EPCglobal.

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 alleges that certain of our products infringed and continue to infringe numerous U.S. patents owned by NXP or NXP USA, Inc. The plaintiffs are seeking, 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 are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit.