Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

In August 2014, the Company entered into a five-year operating lease for approximately 12,215 square feet of office space beginning on November 1, 2014, and expiring on October 31, 2019. In June 2019, the lease was amended to extend the expiration date to October 31, 2020. Upon the execution of the amendment, which was deemed to be a lease modification, the Company reassessed the lease liability using the discount rate at the modification date and recorded ROU assets for the same amount. The Company also reassessed the lease classification and concluded that the lease continues to be an operating lease. Under the terms of the lease, the Company is responsible for taxes, insurance, and maintenance expense. The lease contains certain scheduled rent increases. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term.

In November 2017, the Company entered into a seven-year operating lease for approximately 25,548 square feet of office space beginning on August 1, 2018, and expiring on August 31, 2025. In June 2019, the lease was amended to extend the expiration date to October 31, 2027. Upon the execution of the amendment, which was deemed to be a lease modification, the Company reassessed the lease liability using the discount rate at the modification date and recorded ROU assets for the same amount. The Company also reassessed the lease classification and concluded that the lease continues to be an operating lease. Under the terms of the lease, the Company is responsible for taxes, insurance, and maintenance expense. The lease contains certain scheduled rent increases. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term. The Company has a renewal option to extend the term of the lease for a period of five years beyond the initial term. Under the terms of the lease, the base rent payable with respect to each renewal term will be equal to the prevailing market rental rent as of the commencement of the applicable renewal term. In the event of a default of certain of the Company’s obligations under the lease, the Company’s landlord would have the right to terminate the lease.

In June 2019, the Company entered into an eight-year operating lease (the “New Lease”) for approximately 32,621 square feet of office space beginning on January 15, 2020 and expiring on January 31, 2028 (the “Initial Term”). The Company intends to use these premises as its new principal executive offices and for general office space. The Company intends to utilize its other currently-leased spaces through the lease expiration dates to conduct the training of its sales team and for manufacturing purposes. Under the terms of the lease, the Company is responsible for taxes, insurance, and maintenance expense. The lease contains certain scheduled rent increases. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term. The Company has a renewal option to extend the term of the New Lease for a period of five years (the “Renewal Term”) beyond the Initial Term. Under the terms of the New Lease, the base rent payable with respect to each Renewal Term will be equal to the prevailing market rental rent as of the commencement of the applicable Renewal Term. In the event of a default of certain of the Company’s obligations under the New Lease, the Company’s landlord would have the right to terminate the New Lease.

During the three months ended March 31, 2020, ROU assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities were $3.0 million. There were no ROU assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities during the three months ended March 31, 2019. As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the ROU asset has a balance of $7.0 million and $4.2 million, respectively. The operating lease ROU asset is included within the Company’s other non-current assets, and lease liabilities are included in current or noncurrent liabilities on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. During the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, cash paid for amounts included in operating lease liabilities were $0.3 million and $0.2 million, respectively. Amortization of the ROU asset was $0.2 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019.

As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the weighted-average remaining lease term for the Company’s operating leases were 7.6 years and 7.8 years, respectively. The weighted-average discount rate used to determine the present value of the Company’s operating leases’ future payments was 6.9% and 7.25% as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.

Total lease cost for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 are as follows (in thousands):



	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2020		2019
Lease cost
Operating lease cost	$	491	$	240
Short-term lease cost	39		55
Variable lease cost	23		13
Total lease cost	$	553	$	308

License Agreement

In October 2013, the Company entered into the License Agreement, pursuant to which AMF licensed the Company certain patents and know-how (collectively, the “AMF IP”) relating to, in relevant part, an implantable pulse generator and related system components in development by AMF as of that date, in addition to any peripheral or auxiliary devices, including all components, that when assembled, comprise such device, excluding certain implantable pulse generators (collectively, the “AMF Licensed Products”). The license to the AMF IP allows the Company to make, have made, lease, offer to lease, use, sell, offer for sale, market, promote, advertise, import, research, develop and commercialize the AMF Licensed Products worldwide for the treatment of (i) chronic pain in humans through the application of electrical energy to the nervous system, (ii) inflammatory conditions of the human body through the application of electrical energy to the vagus nerve, a nerve that interfaces with parasympathetic control of the heart, lungs and digestive tract and (iii) bladder and bowel dysfunction in humans through the application of electrical energy anywhere in or on the human body, excluding, in each case, any product or method that involves the placement of electrodes or the administration of electrical stimulation inside the cranial cavity or to the ocular nervous system or the auditory nervous system. The Company has the right to expand the field of use for the AMF Licensed Products to the modulation of digestive process and treatment of digestive conditions in humans through the application of electrical energy anywhere in or on the body, subject to the exclusions described above. Under the License Agreement, for each calendar year beginning in 2018, the Company is obligated to pay AMF a royalty on an AMF Licensed Product-by-AMF Licensed Product basis if one of the following conditions applies: (i) one or more valid claims within any of the patents licensed to the Company by AMF covers such AMF Licensed Products or the manufacture of such AMF Licensed Products or (ii) for a period of 12 years from the first commercial sale anywhere in the world of such AMF Licensed Product, in each case. The foregoing royalty is calculated as the greater of (a) 4% of all net revenue derived from the AMF Licensed Products, and (b) the Minimum Royalty, payable quarterly. The Minimum Royalty will automatically increase each year after 2018, subject to a maximum amount of $200,000 per year. The Company generated net revenue of $26.3 million and $1.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, and accrued related royalties of $1.0 million during the three months ended March 31, 2020. The Company recorded minimal related royalties during the three months ended March 31, 2019. Accrued royalty is included within accrued liabilities on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Legal Matters

On November 4, 2019, Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co., Medtronic Logistics LLC and Medtronic USA, Inc. (collectively, the “Medtronic Affiliates”) filed an initial complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:19-cv-2115 and amended the complaint on November 26, 2019. The Company refers to this matter as the Medtronic Litigation. The complaint asserts that the Company’s r-SNM System infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,036,756, 8,626,314, 9,463,324 and 9,821,112 held by the Medtronic Affiliates, the amended complaint further includes the additional patents 8,738,148; 8,457,758; and 7,774,069 (collectively, the “Medtronic Patents”). The Medtronic Litigation requests customary remedies for patent infringement, including (i) a judgment that the Company has infringed and is infringing the Medtronic Patents, (ii) damages, including treble damages for willful infringement, (iii) attorneys’ fees, (iv) a permanent injunction preventing the Company from infringing the Medtronic Patents and (v) costs and expenses. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Given the early stage of the Medtronic Litigation, the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of success of the claims of the Medtronic Affiliates against the Company or to quantify any risk of loss. The Medtronic Litigation could last for an extended period of time and require the Company to dedicate significant financial resources and management resources to its defense. An adverse ruling against the Company could materially and adversely affect its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows and could also result in reputational harm. Even if the Company is successful in defending against these claims, the Medtronic Litigation could result in delays in future product developments, reputational harm or other collateral consequences.

On March 16, 2020, the Company filed seven petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) to contest the validity of each of the Medtronic patents has alleged to be infringed by Axonics. The timing of the IPR process is defined by statute. In most circumstances, the USPTO will take six months to determine whether to institute an IPR petition. If instituted, the USPTO will usually render a decision on the validity of a contested patent within twelve months of instituting the review. The Company filed a motion to stay the proceedings before the United States District Court for the Central District of California pending resolution of the IPR process. The Company's motion is under consideration by the court.

In addition to the Medtronic Litigation, the Company may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business.