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 and $0.3 million for each of the three- and six-month periods ended on June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

The Company adopted ASC 842 and the related amendments on January 1, 2022. 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 six-month period ended June 30, 2022:


		For Six Months Ended June 30, 2022
Lease Cost		(in thousands)
Operating lease cost	$	327
Short-term lease cost		—
Variable lease cost		148
Total lease cost	$	475
Other Information
Operating cash flows used for lease liabilities	$	417
Right of use asset acquired under operating lease on the adoption of ASC 842	$	586
Weighted average remaining lease term (in years)		0.9
Weighted average incremental borrowing rate		4.0%

As of June 30, 2022, operating lease right of use assets were $0.6 million and operating lease liabilities were $0.8 million. The Company has no finance leases.

The maturities of the operating lease liabilities as of June 30, 2022 were as follows (in thousands):


2022 (remaining six months)	$	429
2023		358
Total undiscounted lease payments		787
Less: imputed interest		13
Total operating lease liability		774
Less: current portion		774
Operating lease liability, net of current maturities	$	-

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 June 30, 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. The District Court denied Minerva’s motion to dismiss or stay the case as to that patent pending Hologic's appeal. A few weeks before trial, in June 2018, the District Court held on 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 deny Minerva’s 35 U.S.C, §112 defenses based on the doctrine of assignor estoppel. The parties went to trial in July 2018 on the issues of damages and willfulness. Hologic sought over $16M in damages.

On July 27, 2018, a Delaware jury returned a verdict finding the Company did not willfully infringe and awarded Hologic $4.8 million in damages for lost profits and for royalties not included in the lost profits—less than a third of Hologic’s damages request. 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 had already 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 (supplemental damages and interest) 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 and found that Minerva was precluded from contesting the validity of the one remaining ’348 patent based on the doctrine of assignor estoppel. The Federal Circuit remanded to the District Court. On August 28, 2020, the District Court issued its amended final judgment pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s remand. The District Court amended the award to Hologic as follows: (i) damages in the amount of $4,787,668 plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $270,533 and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 2.44% from August 13, 2018 until such time as the judgment is paid; and (ii) supplemental damages in the amount of $1,629,304 from April 1, 2018 through November 19, 2018,

plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $79,073 and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 2.28% from June 3, 2019 until such time as the judgment is paid. The District Court also stayed all actions and proceedings to execute the amended final judgment pending exhaustion of all appeals.

In September 2020, the Company filed a petition for certiorari 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 put constraints on the proper application of assignor estoppel, and vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit to determine whether assignor estoppel applies to Minerva under the new criteria, or can pursue its challenge to the validity of the ’348 patent. On remand, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on January 27, 2022. A decision from the Federal Circuit following remand as to whether assignor estoppel applies and whether the ’348 patent is valid remains pending.

On July 8, 2020, Hologic sued the Company for willful infringement of the same ’348 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Minerva's new EAS Handpiece also infringed the patent for the approximately five month period before that patent expired. 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 thereafter 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 yet been set. The appeal proceeding in the Federal Circuit is expected to take several months.