COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
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 $5,000 per month, increasing 3% annually after the first fourteen months. In addition, our share of building operating costs were estimated to be $2,000 per month. In April 2014, we amended the lease to add additional space which increased our rent to $8,000 per month beginning August 1, 2014 plus estimated monthly operating costs of $3,000 and extended the lease term through July, 2017. We have a renewal option for an additional three year term. The original lease included a tenant improvement allowance of $72,000 and the amended lease included an additional tenant improvement allowance of $38,000. The allowances were used to construct our office build-out and have been capitalized as leasehold improvements and construction-in-process as of December 31, 2015 and as leasehold improvements as of June 30, 2016 as construction has been completed. The capitalized costs are being amortized over the amended lease term through July 2017. In June 2016, we amended the lease to include additional space on a month-to-month basis. The monthly rent related to the additional space is $2,325. 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. Rent expense related to our facilities and equipment for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2016 was $38,000 and $52,000, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2016, was $75,000 and $95,000, 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 (VBKx), and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated 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. On February 8, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint. 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, or the Class Period, as well as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs allege 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 throughout the Class Period. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action. On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss. 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. The court also granted plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. As a result of the court's order, there are no remaining claims pending against the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs notified the court that they have elected not to further amend the complaint. On August 8, 2016, we filed a motion asking the court to certify for immediate appeal its order denying our motion to dismiss, and to stay the proceedings pending any such appeal. It is not known when the court will rule on that motion. The court has set a scheduling conference to take place on October 24, 2016. 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 by 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. As a result of the court’s July 11, 2016 order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss in the putative class action, we were required to meet and confer with plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative action to determine the future course of that action. A status conference in the shareholder derivative action is currently scheduled for August 29, 2016. 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, and we expect to incur some costs to defend these suits in the future. As of June 30, 2016, we have incurred total legal expenses of approximately $632,000 and expect to incur additional costs to defend these suits in the future. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur in connection with the foregoing matters. 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. Based on the very early stage of litigation for the cases referred to above, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range 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 June 30, 2015 and June 30, 2016, there was no litigation or contingency with at least a reasonable possibility of a material loss. No losses have been recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2015 and June 30, 2016, 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 $5,000 per month, increasing 3% annually after the first fourteen months. In addition, our share of building operating costs were estimated to be $2,000 per month. In April 2014, we amended the lease to add additional space which increased our rent to $8,000 per month beginning August 1, 2014 plus estimated monthly operating costs of $3,000 and extended the lease term through July, 2017. We have a renewal option for an additional three year term. The original lease included a tenant improvement allowance of $72,000 and the amended lease included an additional tenant improvement allowance of $38,000. The allowances were used to construct our office build-out and have been capitalized as leasehold improvements and construction-in-process as of December 31, 2015 and as leasehold improvements as of June 30, 2016 as construction has been completed. The capitalized costs are being amortized over the amended lease term through July 2017. In June 2016, we amended the lease to include additional space on a month-to-month basis. The monthly rent related to the additional space is $2,325.

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.

Rent expense related to our facilities and equipment for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2016 was $38,000 and $52,000, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2016, was $75,000 and $95,000, 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 (VBKx), and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated 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. On February 8, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint. 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, or the Class Period, as well as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs allege 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 throughout the Class Period. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action. On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss. 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. The court also granted plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. As a result of the court's order, there are no remaining claims pending against the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs notified the court that they have elected not to further amend the complaint. On August 8, 2016, we filed a motion asking the court to certify for immediate appeal its order denying our motion to dismiss, and to stay the proceedings pending any such appeal. It is not known when the court will rule on that motion. The court has set a scheduling conference to take place on October 24, 2016.

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 by 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. As a result of the court’s July 11, 2016 order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss in the putative class action, we were required to meet and confer with plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative action to determine the future course of that action. A status conference in the shareholder derivative action is currently scheduled for August 29, 2016.

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, and we expect to incur some costs to defend these suits in the future. As of June 30, 2016, we have incurred total legal expenses of approximately $632,000 and expect to incur additional costs to defend these suits in the future. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur in connection with the foregoing matters.

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. Based on the very early stage of litigation for the cases referred to above, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range 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 June 30, 2015 and June 30, 2016, there was no litigation or contingency with at least a reasonable possibility of a material loss. No losses have been recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2015 and June 30, 2016, respectively, with respect to litigation or loss contingencies.