Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

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 Trans Ova's sale of semen-sorting products and services breached a 2004 licensing agreement and infringed on XY's patents related to semen sorting. Trans Ova counterclaimed for breach of contract, antitrust, and patent invalidity, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in January 2016. The jury determined that XY and Trans Ova had each breached the licensing agreement and that Trans Ova had infringed on XY's patents. In April 2016, the court issued its post-trial final judgment, awarding $528 in damages to Trans Ova and $6,066 in damages to XY. The order also provided Trans Ova with the ability to continue to practice XY's technology, subject to an ongoing royalty obligation of 12.5% of gross proceeds on Trans Ova's standard sorted semen products, plus a 2% enhancement on those products utilizing "reverse-sorted semen", or semen that is frozen before being sorted. In addition, the court assigned a $5.00 minimum royalty for a straw of sexed semen. Both parties appealed the district court's order. In May 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Trans Ova's appeal of its claims for antitrust, breach of contract and patent invalidity (except as to one patent, for which the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity in a separate, same-day ruling in a third-party case). The Federal Circuit remanded the district court's calculation of the ongoing royalty and instructed the district court to re-calculate the ongoing royalty in light of post-verdict economic factors. In March 2019, the district court clarified the royalty base and reset the royalty rates consistent with the Federal Circuit's opinion. In an amended final judgment, the district court increased the royalty rate on Trans Ova's standard sorted semen products to 18.75%. For the reverse-sort enhancement, however, it applied a weighted, blended royalty of 12.63% to Trans Ova's entire in vitro fertilization ("IVF") service cycle that utilizes reverse-sorted semen. The district court also changed the minimum royalty for a straw of sexed semen to $6.25 for a 2-

million cell straw (prorated appropriately for straws of higher cell counts), and assigned a minimum royalty for a sexed embryo at $6.25 per embryo. The new royalty rates were made retroactive to February 2016 (the end date of the trial).

Since the inception of the 2004 licensing agreement, Trans Ova has remitted payments to XY pursuant to the terms of that agreement, or pursuant to the terms of the district court's April 2016 post-trial order and its March 2019 post-remand order, and has recorded these payments in cost of services in the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the respective periods. For the period from inception of the 2004 licensing agreement through the district court's April 2016 order, aggregate royalty and license payments were $3,170, of which $2,759 had not yet been deposited by XY. In 2016, the Company recorded the expense of $4,228, representing 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 district court's registry, to be held until the appeals process was complete and final judgment amounts were determined. After the appeal, the district court subsequently released the funds held in its registry to XY in January 2019. As for post-trial damages, Trans Ova continued to remit payment to XY every quarter based on the original ongoing royalty rates set by the district court, though XY refused to cash those checks.

Under the district court's March 2019 post-remand order clarifying the royalty base and resetting the royalty rates, Trans Ova recalculated royalties owed from February 2016 through the first quarter of 2019, plus applicable pre- and post-judgment interest, and remitted that payment, totaling $5,801, to XY in May 2019. In June 2019, XY deposited the $5,801 into the district court's registry while the parties resolved two separate disputes over the appropriate calculation of royalties. In the first dispute, XY filed a motion claiming over $1,000 in additional back royalties. Trans Ova contested XY's motion. On February 6, 2020, the district court denied XY's motion without prejudice, holding that XY failed to satisfy its obligation under the court's local rules to meaningfully confer with Trans Ova before filing its motion. The district court held that, should XY choose to re-file its motion, it must include a substantial certificate of conferral demonstrating that it seriously and in good faith tried to resolve its disputes with Trans Ova.

In the second dispute, Trans Ova moved for partial relief from judgment in December 2019, shortly after XY's last patent not expressly limited to reverse sorting expired. Trans Ova sought an appropriate reduction in its royalty obligation in light of the fact that many of its products and services do not employ reverse sorting, and thus were no longer covered by any non-expired XY patents. On May 5, 2020, the court granted Trans Ova's motion in its entirety and issued a second amended final judgment, which substantially reduced Trans Ova's royalty obligation. The court held that, as of December 4, 2019, Trans Ova's royalty obligation on standard sorted semen products terminated. For the reverse-sort enhancement, the court held that, from December 4, 2019 through January 14, 2022, Trans Ova owes a weighted, blended royalty of 3.93% on each component of the IVF service cycle. From January 15, 2022 through May 21, 2022, Trans Ova will owe XY a royalty rate of 5% on just the reverse-sort and IVF procedure components of the IVF service cycle, with no royalty being owed on the ovum pick-up and IVF drug components of the cycle. On May 22, 2022, Trans Ova will cease owing XY any royalty for the litigated patents.

In June 2020, XY filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit, seeking reversal of the district court's May 5, 2020 order and second amended final judgment that reduced Trans Ova's royalty obligation. XY's appeal is expected to be argued and decided sometime in 2021.

In December 2016, XY filed a complaint for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and various state law claims against Trans Ova in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco, Texas. Since the claims in the 2016 complaint directly relate to the parties' other litigation, Trans Ova succeeded in transferring the case to the same Colorado district court that presided over the 2012 litigation. That court subsequently dismissed nine of the complaint's twelve counts, including all five non-patent counts and four patent counts. The court subsequently dismissed a fifth patent count after ruling that the patent was invalid, leaving only two patent counts left in the case. In February 2019, a Wisconsin district court invalidated one of the two remaining patents, which XY had asserted against another competitor. After initially appealing the Wisconsin court's invalidation of its patent, XY subsequently withdrew the appeal. In March 2019, the Colorado district court stayed the two remaining patent counts (including the one later invalidated by the Wisconsin court) and entered final judgment against XY's ten other dismissed counts. The 2016 litigation is administratively closed, pending disposition of XY's appeal to the Federal Circuit, in which XY has appealed the district court's dismissal of four of its patent causes of action. XY did not appeal the dismissal of any of the non-patent causes of action. The Federal Circuit opinion was issued on July 31, 2020. The appellate court reversed the Colorado district court's dismissal of the appealed patents and remanded the disposition of those patents back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Trans Ova shall continue to utilize the technology consistent with the determinations of the court proceedings. Nonetheless, these disputes remain subject to a number of uncertainties, including the outcome of appellate proceedings, the possibility of further claims by XY, and the impact of these matters on Trans Ova's ability to utilize the technology. Trans Ova and the Company could elect to enter into a settlement agreement in order to avoid the further costs and uncertainties of litigation.

In October 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") informing the Company of a non-public, fact-finding investigation concerning the Company's disclosures regarding its methane bioconversion platform. The Company produced documents to, and met with, the staff of the SEC and voluntarily cooperated with the SEC investigation. In September 2020, the Company reached a final settlement with the SEC regarding the matter. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company, without admitting or denying the allegations of the SEC, consented to the entry of an administrative order requiring that the Company: (i) cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and future violations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 13a-11 and 12b-20 promulgated thereunder; and (ii) pay a $2,500 civil money penalty to the SEC.

In October 2020, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Abadilla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al, Chen v. Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al., and Seppen v. Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaints name as defendants the Company and certain of its current officers and, in one matter, a former officer. Plaintiff's claims track the allegations in the SEC's administrative order described above. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

On July 10, 2020, the Company received a notice of arbitration from Harvest pursuant to the Collaboration Investment Opportunity Agreement dated March 13, 2015. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously, but there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this arbitration.

The Company has previously entered into strategic collaborations, including ECCs and JVs, to fund and develop products enabled by its technologies. These relationships involve complex interests, and the Company's interests may diverge with those of its collaborators, which can occur as a result of operations under those collaborations, business or technological developments, or as the Company transitions away from, or terminates, certain strategic collaborations. The Company has had, and has, disagreements and disputes with certain collaborators and JV partners, including Harvest, the IEP Investors, and the IEPII Investors. While the Company believes it is entitled to payment for work performed per its collaborations and JVs, consistent with its policy for accounting for accounts receivable, the Company has fully reserved the amount of any disputed accounts receivable that remained outstanding as of September 30, 2020. These disagreements and disputes result in management distraction and may result in litigation, unfavorable settlements, or concessions by the Company, or adverse regulatory action, any of which could harm the Company's business or operations.

In the course of its business, the Company is involved in litigation or legal matters, including governmental investigations. 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 September 30, 2020, 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.