The Company's corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, manufacturing and distribution center are located in Santa Clara, CA and are subject to a non-cancellable operating lease that terminates in May 2023.

The Company recognized rent expense of $0.2 million for each of the three month periods ended on March 31, 2022 and March 31, 2021.

The following table contains a summary of the lease costs recognized under ASC 842 and other information pertaining to the Company’s operating leases for the three month period ended March 31, 2022:


		For Three Months Ended March 31, 2022
Lease Cost		(in thousands)
Operating lease cost	$	163
Short-term lease cost		—
Variable lease cost		83
Total lease cost	$	246
Other Information
Operating cash flows used for lease liabilities	$	208
Right of use asset acquired under operating lease on the adoption of ASC 842	$	741
Weighted average remaining lease term (in years)		1.2
Weighted average incremental borrowing rate		4.0%

As of March 31, 2022, operating lease right of use assets were $0.7 million and operating lease liabilities were $1.0 million. The Company has no finance leases.

The maturities of the operating lease liabilities as of March 31, 2022 were as follows (in thousands):


2022 (remaining nine months)	$	637
2023		358
Total undiscounted lease payments		995
Less: imputed interest		21
Total operating lease liability		974
Less: current portion		831
Operating lease liability, net of current maturities	$	143

The future minimum lease payments under all non-cancelable operating lease obligations as of December 31, 2021 under ASC 840 were as follows (in thousands):


2022		846
2023		358
Total minimum lease payments	$	1,204

The Company maintains letters of credit of $0.5 million in connection with the Company’s office leases in Santa Clara. As of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the cash amount associated with the Santa Clara Lease is recorded as restricted cash on the balance sheet.

The Company enters into indemnification provisions under its agreements with other companies in the ordinary course of business, including business partners and contractors. Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party as a result of the Company’s activities. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these agreements is not determinable. The Company has never incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. The Company maintains commercial general liability insurance and products liability insurance to offset certain of its potential liabilities under these indemnification provisions.

The Company regularly evaluates its exposure to threatened or pending litigation and other business contingencies. Because of the uncertainties related to the amount of loss from litigation and other business contingencies, the recording of losses relating to such exposures requires significant judgment about the potential range of outcomes. As additional information about current or future

litigation or other contingencies becomes available, the Company will assess whether such information warrants the recording of additional expense.

In November 2015, Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC (collectively, Hologic) filed a complaint against the Company alleging infringement of four patents. Hologic ultimately dropped two of the four asserted patents and two patents remained in the case: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,872,183 (“the ’183 patent”) and 9,095,348 (“the ’348 patent”). On December 15, 2017, the Patent Office found the asserted claims of the ’183 patent to be invalid. But the District Court denied Minerva’s motion to dismiss or stay that patent. A few weeks before trial, in June 2018, the District Court held a summary judgment that Minerva infringed the ’183 and ’348 patents. In that same summary judgment order, the District Court also granted Hologic’s motion to reject Minerva’s 35 U.S.C, §112 defenses based on the doctrine of assignor estoppel.

On July 27, 2018, a Delaware jury returned a verdict finding the Company did not willfully infringe on the patents and awarded Hologic $4.8 million in damages for lost profits and for royalties not included in the lost profits. Based on the result of the trial in July 2018 with Hologic, the Company recorded an accrual for potential legal losses of $4.8 million as of December 31, 2017 with a corresponding expense within general and administrative expenses.

On April 19, 2019, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) unanimously affirmed the invalidity of the ’183 patent which was the only patent on which Hologic was relying in its motion for a permanent injunction as the ’348 patent expired in November 2018. As a consequence, the District Court denied Hologic’s post-trial motion for a permanent injunction. The District Court issued its Final Judgment on June 3, 2019. In July 2019, the Company appealed to the Federal Circuit. At the time of filing the appeal, the updated damages calculation totaled $7.1 million and the related cash balance was restricted from withdrawal. A surety bond was generated and filed along with the appeal documents and included in restricted cash in the balance sheet. The additional damages were accrued for as of December 31, 2018. On April 22, 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed the verdict of the $7.1 million in total damages. In September 2020, the Company filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted. On November 11, 2020, the Company increased the bond amount to $7,203,414 to sufficiently cover the post-judgment interest accrued during the pendency of the appeal. On June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit’s decision that Minerva cannot challenge the validity of the ’348 patent due to assignor estoppel. A decision from the Federal Circuit on remand as to the invalidity of the ’348 patent is pending. On remand, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on January 27, 2022. No opinion has been issued.

On July 8, 2020, Hologic sued the Company for willful infringement of Hologic’s ’348 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that the new Minerva ES Handpiece infringed the now expired patent. The Company has answered, denying infringement and willfulness and alleges that the patent was invalid prior to expiry. Due to COVID-19, the case was stayed twice for 60 days. On April 6, 2021, the District Court granted the Company’s motion to stay this case until all appeals have been exhausted relating to the ’348 patent (see above).

In April 2017, the Company sued Hologic for willful infringement of a Company patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208 (“the ’208 patent”)) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Hologic has answered, denying infringement and willfulness and alleging invalidity of the patent. The Company sought a preliminary injunction and that motion was denied. This matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where it has been assigned to the same judge presiding over the Hologic complaints. Due to COVID-19, the July 2020 trial date was delayed. On July 20, 2021, the District Court granted Hologic’s motion excluding certain expert opinions regarding infringement. On July 23, 2021, the District Court found on summary judgment that the Company’s ’208 patent is invalid, dismissed the case and entered judgment. On August 24, 2021, the Company appealed to the Federal Circuit. Hologic’s response brief was filed on March 4, 2022, The Company's response was filed on April 12, 2022 and no date for oral argument has been set yet. The appeal proceeding in the Federal Circuit is expected to take several months.