12.Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

We lease our office facilities under noncancelable agreements expiring between 2017 and 2023.

Rent expense for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 was $1.9 million and $1.7 million respectively. Rent expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 was $5.3 million and $5.1 million respectively. The aggregate future minimum lease payments under our agreements as of September 30, 2017 are as follows (in thousands):


Year
2017 (remaining)	$	1,769
2018		7,195
2019		7,102
2020		5,553
2021		4,071
Thereafter		4,402
Total	$	30,092

Litigation

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron Shareholder Litigation. The actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company’s registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as defendants. On August 8, 2016 the Company filed a demurrer to the corrected consolidated complaint. The court overruled the demurrer on October 4, 2016.

On March 8, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the above-described actions and the court granted preliminary approval of that settlement on June 9, 2017. The court approved the settlement on August 21, 2017 and entered final judgment in the case on October 11, 2017 releasing all parties. The settlement called for a payment of $7.5 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims against the Company, its officers, directors and the other defendants. The Company contributed $1.1 million to the settlement in the three months ending September 30, 2017. This amount represented the remainder of the Company’s retention amount under its Director & Officer liability insurance policy. The balance was paid by the Company’s Director & Officer liability insurance.

While the Company and the other defendants continue to deny each of the plaintiffs’ claims and deny any liability, the Company agreed to the settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to management.

We continually evaluate uncertainties associated with litigation and record a charge equal to at least the minimum estimated liability for a loss contingency when both of the following conditions are met: (i) information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and (ii) the loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is possible and a range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we disclose the range of the possible loss in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued, if any, and the matters and related ranges of possible losses disclosed, and make adjustments and changes to our disclosures as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of there being and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Until the final resolution of such matters, there may be an exposure to loss, and such amounts could be material. An estimate of a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss) cannot be made in our lawsuits at this time.

Indemnification

Under the indemnification provisions of our standard sales related contracts, we agree to defend and/or settle claims brought by third parties against our customers alleging that the customer’s use of our software infringes the third party’s intellectual property right, such as a patent right. These indemnification obligations are typically not subject to limitation; however if it is commercially impractical for us to either procure the right for the customer to continue to use our software or modify our software so that it’s not infringing, we typically can terminate the customer agreement and refund the customer a portion of the license fees paid, prorated over the three year period from initial delivery. We also on occasion indemnify our customers for other types of third party claims. In addition, we indemnify our officers, directors, and certain key employees while they are serving in such capacities in good faith. Through September 30, 2017, we have not received any material written claim for indemnification.