NOTE 12: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

The future minimum lease payments due subsequent to December 31, 2014 under all non-cancelable operating and capital leases for the next five years are as follows:

	Operating Leases		Capital Leases
Year Ending December 31,	Amount		Amount
2015	$	499,267	$	76,025
2016		478,210		49,216
2017		119,333		-
2018		13,439		-
2019		13,439		-
Total minimum lease payments	$	1,123,688	$	125,241

The total rent expense for 2014 and 2013, respectively, is as follows:

Year Ending December 31,	2014		2013
Research and development expenses	$	227,996	$	214,301
General and administrative expenses		149,174		121,201
Total rent expense	$	377,170	$	335,502

Affymetrix Purchase Commitment

In connection with the development of the NextCYTE test by the NRLBH, the NRLBH entered into an “OwnerChip Program Agreement” with Affymetrix, Inc. (“Affymetrix”), a manufacturer of GeneChip Systems, where Affymetrix has agreed to loan a GeneChip System 3000Dx v.2 (“instrument”) to the Company if it purchases and takes delivery of a minimum thirty GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 (30-pack) arrays at $21,590 per 30 pack for the next three years for a total purchase obligation of $647,700 with a minimum purchase of ten 30-pack arrays per contract year. At the end of the three year contract, upon fulfillment of the purchase commitment, the instrument title and ownership transfer to the NRLBH at no additional cost. Because the Company takes ownership of the equipment at the completion of the three-year contract, the Company determined that the arrangement represents a capital lease for the equipment. The Company recorded $206,702 as a capital lease for the equipment and began amortizing the equipment on a straight line basis over five years. In addition to the GeneChip Human Genome, the NRLBH must purchase a two year service contract for $51,600 to cover maintenance of the instrument during the contract period. The NRLBH placed an initial order for four 30-pack arrays during 2013 for $94,723. In September 2014, the NRLBH purchased six additional 30-pack arrays for $142,005.

The future minimum payments for the Affymetrix capital lease are as follows:

Year Ending December 31,	Amount
2015	$	70,204
2016		49,216
Total minimum lease payments	$	119,420

A5 Software Development Commitment

On June 10, 2013 the Company entered into an irrevocable license and service agreement with A5 Genetics KFT, Corporation (“A5 Genetics”), pursuant to which the Company received the world-wide (other than the European Union) exclusive license to the software used in the NextCYTE test. The Company has the right to prosecute patents related to this software, two of which the Company has filed in the United States. The patent applications have been assigned to the Company. The Company paid a one-time fee of $ 100,000 to A5 Genetics in 2013 and in March 2014 the Company completed software validation and paid an additional $ 100,000 to A5 Genetics. The Company is obligated to pay up to an additional $ 1.2 million to A5 Genetics upon receiving the regulatory clearance for NextCYTE test. The Company must also pay a royalty of $ 50 for each NextCYTE test performed and a service fee of $65 for each NextCYTE test performed. The NextCYTE test is still in validation stage and no royalty or service fees have been paid as of December 31, 2014. The agreement terminates on the later of June 10, 2023 or the expiration of the latest patents covering the software.

Luminex Reagent Rental Agreement and Assay License Agreement

On September 2, 2014, in connection with the development of a pharmacogenomics test by the NRLBH, the NRLBH entered into a three year rental agreement with Luminex Corporation (Luminex), which provides that the NRLBH acquires the right to use Luminex instruments, including accessories, peripherals and options (the “System”) at no cost if the NRLBH purchases goods (the “Products”) at agreed upon quantities and prices for the next three years. The minimum purchases of Products under the agreement are $452,408 per year. The title to the System remains with Luminex and the NRLBH is required to return the System to Luminex at the end of the three year rental agreement.

BioVentive Laboratory Marketing Service Agreement

On August 28, 2014, NRLBH entered into a three year Laboratory Marketing Services Agreement with BioVentive, Inc. (“BioVentive”), which provides that BioVentive market and promote the NRLBH laboratory tests to licensed physicians practicing medicine for a fee. The agreement may be terminated prior to the end of the three year term by either party for material breach that is not cured and the NRLBH may terminate if BioVentive fails to meet certain minimums or if the NRLBH undergoes a change of control. If the agreement is terminated by the NRLBH for any reason other than for cause (which includes a material uncured breach by BioVentive or if BioVentive fails to meet certain minimums), the NRLBH is required to pay BioVentive a termination fee equal to approximately three months of fees otherwise payable to BioVentive.

Targeted Medical Education (TME) Master Service Agreement

On September 1, 2014, the NRLBH entered into a three year agreement with TME Research LLC (TME) which requires TME to provide to the NRLBH 100 tissue specimens in connection with the development of the NextCYTE test. Fees payable to TME under the agreement includes $99,600 up front, $31,500 upon supplying the first 25 specimens and $31,500 at the time of final delivery of all specimens. The agreement is terminable with 60 days prior written notice or immediately upon a material breach. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has paid $131,000 in set-up fees, which were recorded as R&D expenses in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

Litigation and Contingencies

On June 30, 2011, Robert Kelly, the Company’s former President, filed a counterclaim against the Company in an arbitration proceeding, alleging breach of contract in connection with the termination of a consulting agreement between Mr. Kelly (dba Pitslayer LLC) and the Company that was entered into in July 2010 in connection with his resignation from the Company as President and a director. The consulting agreement was terminated by the Company in September 2010.

On February 26, 2013, Mr. Victor Cononi filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Western Division of Washington seeking compensatory damages, interest and attorneys’ fees related to the rescission of shares issued to him in July 2010 in connection with Mr. Kelly’s resignation from the Company as President and a director.

On November 3, 2014, the matters with Messrs. Kelly and Cononi were settled through mutual agreement of the parties. The parties agreed to mutual releases and to dismiss the arbitration and federal actions. The amount paid by the Company to settle this matter was not significant.

On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of the Company’s directors and officers and the underwriters of the Company November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering’s registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount.

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the “Levi Group”) as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014. On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants’ motion dismissing all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court’s order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30, 2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have appealed the Court’s dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants’ answering brief is due April 13, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has not been set.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously; however, failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been recorded for these claims as of December 31, 2014. The costs associated with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from the conduct of the Company’s business, will depend upon many unknown factors and management’s view of these may change in the future.

FDA Warning Letter

On February 21, 2013, the Company received a Warning Letter (“Warning Letter”) from the FDA regarding its Mammary Aspirate Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) System and MASCT System Collection Test (together, the “System”). The Warning Letter arises from certain FDA findings during a July 2012 inspection, to which the Company responded in August 2012, explaining why the Company believed it was in compliance with applicable regulations and/or was implementing changes responsive to the findings of the FDA inspection. The FDA alleges in the Warning Letter that following 510(k) clearance of the MASCT System, the Company changed the System in a manner that requires submission of an additional 510(k) notification to the FDA. Specifically, the FDA stated that the Instructions For Use (IFU) in the original 510(k) submission stated that the user must “Wash the collection membrane with fixative solution into the collection vial…” while the current IFU states “…apply one spray of Saccomanno’s Fixative to the collection membrane…” and that “this change fixes the NAF specimen to the filter paper rather than washing it into a collection vial.” At the time that the changes were made the Company determined and documented that the change could not significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the MASCT System, and thus, that a new 510(k) was not required in accordance with the FDA’s guidance document entitled, “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device.” The Warning Letter also identified certain issues with respect to the Company’s marketing of the System and the Company’s compliance with FDA Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations, among other matters. The Company responded to the Warning Letter on March 13, 2013, and identified the corrective actions that had been made, or were otherwise underway. The Company also filed a new 510(k) application for the MASCT System which was withdrawn in August 2013 after receiving feedback from the FDA.

On October 4, 2013, the Company initiated a voluntary recall of the system to address the FDA’s concerns regarding the modifications identified in the Warning Letter. As a result of this recall, this product is currently not being marketed or distributed in the United States. The Company submitted a new premarket notification, or 510(k) application, with the FDA on December 23, 2013 that covered the collection, preparation, and processing of NAF specimens and includes the spray method of fixing specimens to the collection membrane and in September 2014 the FDA rendered a decision that the ForeCYTE Breast Aspirator is not “substantially equivalent” to its predicate device. The ForeCYTE Breast Aspirator is therefore not cleared by the FDA for marketing in the United States. We cannot market or distribute the ForeCYTE Breast Aspirator within the United States until we receive clearance for this device from the FDA.

On March 14, 2014, the FDA completed a follow up inspection at the Company’s Seattle facility. A Form 483 was provided to the Company at the conclusion of the inspection. In the FDA's most recent Form 483, five inspectional observations were identified regarding the Company’s quality management system. The FDA investigator also orally identified five additional discussion points related to the Company’s product labeling prior to the recall of the MASCT System; sufficiency of the content of the Company’s pending 510(k) submission for the ForeCYTE Breast Aspirator; and other compliance issues. On March 26, 2014, the Company submitted a response to the FDA, which included its proposed corrective actions to address the FDA's observations and discussion points. On December 5, 2014, we received EIRs (Establishment Inspection Reports) from the FDA Office of Compliance which means the FDA closed our inspections. This means that the observations that resulted from the inspections have been addressed; however, the FDA will conduct additional inspections and may issue additional observations.