Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company leases certain facilities and equipment under noncancelable operating leases. The equipment leases are renewable at the option of the Company. At March 31, 2017, future minimum lease payments under operating leases having initial or remaining noncancelable lease terms in excess of one year are as follows:



2017	$	3,901
2018	6,376
2019	6,227
2020	6,235
2021	5,588
2022	4,780
Thereafter	19,265
Total	$	52,372

Rent expense, including other facility expenses, was $2,301 and $2,032 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

The Company maintains subleases for certain of its facilities. Rental income under sublease agreements was $41 and $335 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Future rental income is expected to be $59 for 2017, $80 for 2018, and $67 for 2019.

Purchase Commitments

As of March 31, 2017, the Company had outstanding contractual purchase commitments of $6,705, which primarily relate to amounts that will be paid in 2018 and 2019 upon delivery of commercial non-browning apple trees.

Contingencies

In March 2012, Trans Ova was named as a defendant in a licensing and patent infringement suit brought by XY, LLC ("XY") alleging that certain of Trans Ova's activities breach a licensing agreement and infringe on patents that XY allegedly owns. Trans Ova filed a number of counterclaims in the case. In Colorado District Court, the matter proceeded to a jury trial in January 2016. The jury determined that XY and Trans Ova had each breached the licensing agreement and that Trans Ova had infringed the intellectual property of XY. In April 2016, the court issued its order, entering a jury award of damages to Trans Ova in the amount of $528 and a jury award of damages to XY in the amount of $6,066, each with prejudgment interest. The order provides for the continuation of Trans Ova's license to XY's technology, subject to an ongoing royalty obligation for Trans Ova. Since the inception of the license, Trans Ova has remitted payments to XY pursuant to the terms of the original license agreement and has recorded these payments in cost of services in the consolidated statements of operations for the respective periods. For the period from inception of the agreement through the court's order, aggregate royalty and license payments were $3,170, of which $2,759 had not yet been deposited by XY. For the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company recorded litigation expense of $4,228, which is included in selling, general and administrative expenses on the accompanying consolidated statement of operations and represents the excess of the net damages awarded to XY, including prejudgment interest, over the liability previously recorded by Trans Ova for uncashed checks previously remitted to XY. In August 2016, Trans Ova deposited the net damages amount, including prejudgment interest, into the court's treasury, to be held until the appeals process is complete and final judgment amounts are determined. As of March 31, 2017, this amount is included in restricted cash on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. In December 2016, Trans Ova elected to void the outstanding checks discussed above, and these amounts have been reclassified to other accrued liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. In 2017, Trans Ova and XY each filed an appeal seeking to overturn respective adverse rulings. As a result of an appeal decision, the damages awarded to either party could decrease, increase, or be eliminated. The appeal decision may remand to the Colorado District Court all, or a portion, of the appellate issues. In December 2016, XY filed a complaint for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation against Trans Ova in the District Court of Waco, Texas. Since the claims in this 2016 complaint directly relate to the 2012 licensing dispute, Trans Ova filed and was granted a motion for change of venue to Colorado District Court. Trans Ova filed a motion to dismiss. This motion is now pending before the Colorado court. Trans Ova and the Company could elect to enter into a settlement agreement in order to avoid the further costs and uncertainties of litigation, to modify the license to XY's technologies, or to recover monetary damages related to Trans Ova's antitrust counterclaims.

In May 2016, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Intrexon's common stock between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016 (the "Class Period"). In July 2016, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants Intrexon and certain of Intrexon's current and former officers (the "Defendants"). It alleges, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period with respect to the Company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs' claims are based in part upon allegations in a report published in April 2016 on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants moved to dismiss the case. On February 24, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a claim, while granting the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff subsequently notified the court that it would seek to appeal the court's ruling rather than amend its complaint. On April 26, 2017, the court entered final judgment in the case. Any appeal must be filed by the plaintiff by May 26, 2017. The Company intends to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this case.

In July 2016, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Basile v. Kirk et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, against certain of the Company's directors, the Company's CEO, and Third Security, and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges causes of action for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment relating to the entry by the Company into the Services Agreement with Third Security. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement of improper benefits, appropriate equitable relief, and an award of attorney fees and other costs and expenses. The complaint is substantially similar to two separate demands made by shareholders concerning the Services Agreement and Mr. Kirk's compensation. The board of directors of the Company appointed a Special Litigation Committee ("SLC") consisting of independent directors to investigate the claims and allegations made in the derivative action and in the two shareholder demands and to decide on behalf of the Company whether the claims and allegations should be pursued. The Basile case was stayed pending the report of the SLC. In November 2016, the SLC completed its review and evaluation and unanimously determined that the claims were without merit because the compensation arrangements were the result of an informed and disinterested decision-making process and were fair to the Company, and that prosecution of the asserted claims was not in the best interest of Intrexon or its shareholders. Based upon the determination of the SLC, on February 24, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the court action pursuant to Virginia statute and that motion is pending. There can be no assurance, however, regarding the ultimate outcome of the case.

In addition to the shareholder demands above, in June and July 2016, two shareholders made separate demands under Virginia law demanding that the Company file suit against certain of its current officers and directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other claims. The demands were based upon and asserted the allegations previously published in April 2016 in the Seeking Alpha financial blog. In July 2016, the Company's board of directors authorized the SLC to expand its review to include all such allegations. In February 2017, the SLC completed its review and evaluation and unanimously determined that there was no basis for any of the allegations, that the Company's officers and directors did not breach their fiduciary duties or any other applicable law, and that prosecution of the asserted claims was not in the best interest of Intrexon or its shareholders. Following the SLC's determination, in March 2017, one of the putative shareholders filed a derivative complaint captioned Luger v. Kirk et al. in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. The Company is a nominal defendant in this new action, and other defendants include certain of the Company's directors, the Company's CEO, and Third Security. The complaint alleges causes of action for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment relating to the entry by the Company into the Services Agreement with Third Security, Mr. Kirk's compensation, and certain allegations contained in the April 2016 Seeking Alpha financial blog piece. Based on the determination of the SLC and a review of applicable law, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this case.

The Division of Enforcement of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") is conducting an investigation which the Company believes concerns certain issues raised by the foregoing matters. The Company has met with the SEC staff and is voluntarily cooperating with their investigation. The Company's board of directors has authorized the SLC to monitor the Company's interaction with the SEC staff.

The Company may become subject to other claims and assessments from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues liabilities for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company does not believe that any such matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.