Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	10. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The Company incurred rent expense under non-cancellable operating leases of $953 and $815 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Contingencies CPI Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.) On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI’s October 2015 initial public offering (“IPO”). The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and seek, among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI’s customers’ (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard, and VISA chip cards (collectively, “EMV cards”) during the first half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels, and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO. On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). On October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers’ slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV market. On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. All discovery and other proceedings in the action are stayed under the PSLRA pending the resolution of that motion. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. Given the current stage of these matters, the range of potential loss is not probable or estimable and no accrual has been recognized as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Group Inc. (2 cases) First case. This suit was initially filed by Gemalto S.A. (“Gemalto”) against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in October 2015. The now-stayed complaint alleges that the Company infringes a Gemalto patent by incorporating into the Company’s products microchips that allegedly practice the EMV standard. Gemalto’s patent expired in March 2017. The Company successfully moved to transfer the lawsuit to the District of Colorado. On January 28, 2016, the Company answered the complaint and filed counterclaims that the asserted patent is invalid and unenforceable, and that Gemalto’s lawsuit is a “sham” intended to interfere with the Company’s IPO and business relationships. Gemalto answered the Company’s counterclaims on February 5, 2016. On March 8, 2016, Gemalto provided specific infringement contentions, which—contrary to the complaint’s claim that all EMV-compliant products infringed upon Gemalto’s patent—only named CPI products that incorporate microchips supplied by two specific vendors. On May 31, 2016, the Company filed an Inter Partes Review petition with the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”), seeking re-examination of Gemalto’s asserted patent. In light of the Company’s petition, on July 11, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Company’s motion to stay the litigation pending the PTAB’s consideration of the Company’s challenge to the patentability of asserted claims. The petition was granted as to all of the independent claims of Gemalto’s patent on November 9, 2016. The PTAB also granted the Company’s petition as to certain dependent claims, which are claims that rely upon and incorporate an independent claim. The district court litigation remains stayed. Second case. On May 3, 2016, Gemalto filed a second patent infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company infringes a Gemalto patent on networked smartcard printing by way of the Company’s Card@Once offering. Gemalto alleges that its patent will expire in 2019. Gemalto provided initial infringement contentions to the Company on July 29, 2016, and amended its contentions on October 13, 2016. The parties are presently engaged in claim construction activities, including the deposition of the patent-in-suit’s named inventor and the inspection records relating to the alleged commercial embodiment of Gemalto’s patent. During May 2017, the Company filed an Inter Partes Review petition with the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board, seeking re-examination of Gemalto’s asserted patent. The PTAB has not yet ruled on the Company’s petition. With respect to both cases, the Company believes Gemalto’s claims are without merit and that the Company has strong legal and equitable defenses, plus meritorious counterclaims and indemnity rights. The Company intends to defend these suits vigorously. While a risk of loss is reasonably possible, given the current stage of these matters, as well as the aforementioned defenses, counterclaims and indemnity rights, the range of potential loss is not estimable and no accrual has been recognized as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is subject to routine legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

The Company incurred rent expense under non-cancellable operating leases of $953 and $815 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Contingencies

CPI Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.)

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI’s October 2015 initial public offering (“IPO”). The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and seek, among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI’s customers’ (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard, and VISA chip cards (collectively, “EMV cards”) during the first half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels, and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). On October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers’ slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV market.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. All discovery and other proceedings in the action are stayed under the PSLRA pending the resolution of that motion.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. Given the current stage of these matters, the range of potential loss is not probable or estimable and no accrual has been recognized as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016.

Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Group Inc. (2 cases)

First case. This suit was initially filed by Gemalto S.A. (“Gemalto”) against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in October 2015. The now-stayed complaint alleges that the Company infringes a Gemalto patent by incorporating into the Company’s products microchips that allegedly practice the EMV standard. Gemalto’s patent expired in March 2017. The Company successfully moved to transfer the lawsuit to the District of Colorado. On January 28, 2016, the Company answered the complaint and filed counterclaims that the asserted patent is invalid and unenforceable, and that Gemalto’s lawsuit is a “sham” intended to interfere with the Company’s IPO and business relationships. Gemalto answered the Company’s counterclaims on February 5, 2016. On March 8, 2016, Gemalto provided specific infringement contentions, which—contrary to the complaint’s claim that all EMV-compliant products infringed upon Gemalto’s patent—only named CPI products that incorporate microchips supplied by two specific vendors.

On May 31, 2016, the Company filed an Inter Partes Review petition with the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”), seeking re-examination of Gemalto’s asserted patent. In light of the Company’s petition, on July 11, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Company’s motion to stay the litigation pending the PTAB’s consideration of the Company’s challenge to the patentability of asserted claims. The petition was granted as to all of the independent claims of Gemalto’s patent on November 9, 2016. The PTAB also granted the Company’s petition as to certain dependent claims, which are claims that rely upon and incorporate an independent claim. The district court litigation remains stayed.

Second case. On May 3, 2016, Gemalto filed a second patent infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company infringes a Gemalto patent on networked smartcard printing by way of the Company’s Card@Once offering. Gemalto alleges that its patent will expire in 2019. Gemalto provided initial infringement contentions to the Company on July 29, 2016, and amended its contentions on October 13, 2016. The parties are presently engaged in claim construction activities, including the deposition of the patent-in-suit’s named inventor and the inspection records relating to the alleged commercial embodiment of Gemalto’s patent. During May 2017, the Company filed an Inter Partes Review petition with the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board, seeking re-examination of Gemalto’s asserted patent. The PTAB has not yet ruled on the Company’s petition.

With respect to both cases, the Company believes Gemalto’s claims are without merit and that the Company has strong legal and equitable defenses, plus meritorious counterclaims and indemnity rights. The Company intends to defend these suits vigorously. While a risk of loss is reasonably possible, given the current stage of these matters, as well as the aforementioned defenses, counterclaims and indemnity rights, the range of potential loss is not estimable and no accrual has been recognized as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is subject to routine legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.