COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments—In October 2013, we signed a lease for new office space for our corporate headquarters, and moved into the new location in the first quarter of 2014. The lease had a term of 38 months and a rental cost of approximately $5,412 per month, increasing 3% annually after the first fourteen months. In addition, our share of building operating costs were estimated to be $2,101 per month. In April 2014, we amended the lease to add additional space which increased our rent to $8,286 per month beginning August 1, 2014 plus estimated monthly operating costs of $3,154 and extended the lease term through July, 2017. We had a renewal option for an additional three year term. The original lease included a tenant improvement allowance of $72,160 and the amended lease included an additional tenant improvement allowance of $38,320. The allowances were used to construct our office build-out and have been capitalized as leasehold improvements as of December 31, 2016 and September 30, 2017. The capitalized costs are being amortized over the amended lease term through July 2017. Effective April 2017, we amended the lease to add additional space and to extend our lease term through July 2018, with an option to extend through July 2019. With the amendment, the total leased space is now 9,024 square feet with monthly rent of $14,479 through July 2017 and $13,987 from August 1, 2017 through the end of the lease, plus estimated monthly operating costs of approximately $7,000. In November 2013, we signed a lease for our satellite development office in Burlingame, CA. The lease had a two-year term, and rental costs of approximately $4,000 per month. In May 2015, we renewed the lease for a one year period expiring November 30, 2016 with rental costs of $5,000 per month. Effective December 16, 2016, we signed a new lease of 5,248 square feet of office space within the same building in Burlingame, California commencing February 2017. The lease has a five year term, and rental costs of approximately $17,000 per month. Rent expense related to our facilities and equipment for the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017 was $57,000 and $127,000, respectively and for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017, was $152,000 and $339,000, respectively. Legal Proceedings—We are occasionally involved in legal proceedings and other matters arising from the normal course of business. Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (MRWx). On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint, purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. In the consolidated second amended complaint, the plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, as well as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants’ allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015. On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. The court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court also granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made on February 26, 2015. The court denied our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made in November and December of 2014 and January of 2015. On October 26, 2016, the court issued an order clarifying its July 11, 2016 order on our motion to dismiss, making clear that the court's actual intent was to grant the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, while denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The parties in the putative class action have reached a settlement that, if approved by the court, will fully resolve plaintiffs’ claims and provide for the release of all claims asserted in the litigation. The settlement amount will be paid by our insurance carrier. On July 13, 2017, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has scheduled a final approval hearing to take place on November 20, 2017. We can make no assurances that the court will grant final approval of the settlement. On September 24, 2015, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and is pending before the same federal district court judge to whom the putative class action has been assigned. In the derivative action, the plaintiffs allege that certain of our officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to us, including by allegedly violating the federal securities laws and exposing us to possible financial liability. On November 16, 2015, the court entered an order staying the proceedings in the shareholder derivative action pending certain further developments. The court has set a status conference to take place on December 4, 2017. We have reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder derivative action. The settlement is in the process of being documented so that it may be presented to the court for approval. We can make no assurances that the settlement will be consummated or that the court will approve it. We intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions. We are not party to any other legal proceedings. We may, from time to time, be party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. As our growth continues, we may become party to an increasing number of litigation matters and claims. The outcome of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, and the resolution of any future matters could materially affect our future financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We have directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur in connection with the foregoing matters. As of September 30, 2017, we have incurred total legal expenses of approximately $750,000 which is the maximum of our insurance deductible. Legal fees and other costs associated with such actions are expensed as incurred. We assess, in conjunction with our legal counsel, the need to record a liability for litigation and contingencies. Litigation accruals are recorded when and if it is determined that a loss related matter is both probable and reasonably estimable. Material loss contingencies that are reasonably possible of occurrence, if any, are subject to disclosure. With respect to the litigation referred to above, we estimate that we are insured for all or substantially all of the amount of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters. We will evaluate developments in legal proceedings and other matters on a quarterly basis. As of September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2017, there was no litigation or contingency with at least a reasonable possibility of a material loss. No losses have been recorded during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2017, respectively, with respect to litigation or loss contingencies.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments—In October 2013, we signed a lease for new office space for our corporate headquarters, and moved into the new location in the first quarter of 2014. The lease had a term of 38 months and a rental cost of approximately $5,412 per month, increasing 3% annually after the first fourteen months. In addition, our share of building operating costs were estimated to be $2,101 per month. In April 2014, we amended the lease to add additional space which increased our rent to $8,286 per month beginning August 1, 2014 plus estimated monthly operating costs of $3,154 and extended the lease term through July, 2017. We had a renewal option for an additional three year term. The original lease included a tenant improvement allowance of $72,160 and the amended lease included an additional tenant improvement allowance of $38,320. The allowances were used to construct our office build-out and have been capitalized as leasehold improvements as of December 31, 2016 and September 30, 2017. The capitalized costs are being amortized over the amended lease term through July 2017. Effective April 2017, we amended the lease to add additional space and to extend our lease term through July 2018, with an option to extend through July 2019. With the amendment, the total leased space is now 9,024 square feet with monthly rent of $14,479 through July 2017 and $13,987 from August 1, 2017 through the end of the lease, plus estimated monthly operating costs of approximately $7,000.

In November 2013, we signed a lease for our satellite development office in Burlingame, CA. The lease had a two-year term, and rental costs of approximately $4,000 per month. In May 2015, we renewed the lease for a one year period expiring November 30, 2016 with rental costs of $5,000 per month. Effective December 16, 2016, we signed a new lease of 5,248 square feet of office space within the same building in Burlingame, California commencing February 2017. The lease has a five year term, and rental costs of approximately $17,000 per month.

Rent expense related to our facilities and equipment for the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017 was $57,000 and $127,000, respectively and for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017, was $152,000 and $339,000, respectively.

Legal Proceedings—We are occasionally involved in legal proceedings and other matters arising from the normal course of business.

Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (MRWx). On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint, purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. In the consolidated second amended complaint, the plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, as well as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants’ allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015. On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. The court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court also granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made on February 26, 2015. The court denied our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made in November and December of 2014 and January of 2015. On October 26, 2016, the court issued an order clarifying its July 11, 2016 order on our motion to dismiss, making clear that the court's actual intent was to grant the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, while denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The parties in the putative class action have reached a settlement that, if approved by the court, will fully resolve plaintiffs’ claims and provide for the release of all claims asserted in the litigation. The settlement amount will be paid by our insurance carrier. On July 13, 2017, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has scheduled a final approval hearing to take place on November 20, 2017. We can make no assurances that the court will grant final approval of the settlement.

On September 24, 2015, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and is pending before the same federal district court judge to whom the putative class action has been assigned. In the derivative action, the plaintiffs allege that certain of our officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to us, including by allegedly violating the federal securities laws and exposing us to possible financial liability. On November 16, 2015, the court entered an order staying the proceedings in the shareholder derivative action pending certain further developments. The court has set a status conference to take place on December 4, 2017.

We have reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder derivative action. The settlement is in the process of being documented so that it may be presented to the court for approval. We can make no assurances that the settlement will be consummated or that the court will approve it.

We intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions.

We are not party to any other legal proceedings. We may, from time to time, be party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. As our growth continues, we may become party to an increasing number of litigation matters and claims. The outcome of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, and the resolution of any future matters could materially affect our future financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We have directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur in connection with the foregoing matters. As of September 30, 2017, we have incurred total legal expenses of approximately $750,000 which is the maximum of our insurance deductible.

Legal fees and other costs associated with such actions are expensed as incurred. We assess, in conjunction with our legal counsel, the need to record a liability for litigation and contingencies. Litigation accruals are recorded when and if it is determined that a loss related matter is both probable and reasonably estimable. Material loss contingencies that are reasonably possible of occurrence, if any, are subject to disclosure. With respect to the litigation referred to above, we estimate that we are insured for all or substantially all of the amount of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters. We will evaluate developments in legal proceedings and other matters on a quarterly basis. As of September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2017, there was no litigation or contingency with at least a reasonable possibility of a material loss. No losses have been recorded during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2017, respectively, with respect to litigation or loss contingencies.