XML 34 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Leases
The Company’s principal executive offices, as well as its research and development facility, are located in approximately 29,000 square feet of office space in San Diego, California and the term of the lease continues through June 30, 2024. The Company’s other offices are located in Paris, France; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, New York; Barcelona, Spain; and London, United Kingdom. Other than the lease for office space in San Diego, California, the Company does not believe that the leases for the offices are material to the Company. The Company believes its existing properties are in good condition and are sufficient and suitable for the conduct of its business.
The Company’s leases have remaining terms of two to eight years. Certain leases contain renewal options for varying periods, which are at the Company’s sole discretion. For leases where the Company is reasonably certain to exercise a renewal option, such option periods have been included in the determination of the Company’s ROU assets and lease liabilities. As of March 31, 2020, the weighted-average remaining lease term for the Company’s operating leases was 4.7 years and the weighted-average discount rate was 4.7%.
Lease liabilities expected to be paid within one year are recorded in current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. All other lease liabilities are recorded in non-current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2020, the Company had operating ROU assets of $6.0 million. Total operating lease liabilities of $7.5 million were comprised of current lease liabilities of $1.4 million and non-current lease liabilities of $6.1 million.
The Company recognized $0.6 million of operating lease costs in the six months ended March 31, 2020. Operating lease costs are included within cost of revenue, selling and marketing, research and development, and general and administrative expenses, dependent upon the nature and use of the ROU asset, in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income (loss).
The Company paid $0.9 million in operating cash flows for operating leases in the six months ended March 31, 2020.
Maturities of our operating lease liabilities as of March 31, 2020 were as follows (amounts shown in thousands):
Operating leases
2020—remaining$670  
20212,053  
20221,700  
20231,703  
20241,373  
2025285  
Thereafter630  
Total lease payments8,414  
Less: amount representing interest(902) 
Present value of future lease payments7,512  
As determined under ASC 840, the future minimum lease payments related to lease agreements with a remaining noncancelable term in excess of one year, as of September 30, 2019 were as follows:
Operating leases
2020$1,641  
20212,157  
20221,777  
20231,550  
20241,151  
202536  
Thereafter—  
Total minimum lease payments$8,312  
Legal Proceedings
Claim Against ICAR
On June 11, 2018, a claim was filed before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia number 5 of Barcelona, Spain, the first instance court in the Spanish civil procedure system, against ICAR. The claim, also directed to Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa, former controlling shareholder of ICAR and its current General Manager, was brought by the Spanish company Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. for the alleged breach by ICAR of a services agreement entered into in the context of the sale of the shares in ICAR to Mitek Holding B.V.
ICAR responded to the claim on September 7, 2018 and the court process is ongoing.
The amount claimed is €0.8 million (or $0.9 million), plus the interest accrued during the court proceedings.
Pursuant and subject to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement concerning the acquisition of the shares in ICAR, Mitek Holding B.V. is to be indemnified in respect of any damages suffered by ICAR and/or Mitek Holding B.V. in respect of this claim.
Third Party Claims Against Our Customers
The Company is subject to indemnification demands related to various offers to license patents and allegations of patent infringement against several end-customers. Some of the offers and allegations have resulted in ongoing litigation. The Company is not a party to any such litigation. License offers to and infringement allegations against the Company’s end-customers were made by Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC; Lupercal, LLC; Pebble Tide, LLC; Dominion Harbor Group, LLC; and IP Edge, LLC, which appear to be non-practicing entities (“NPEs”)—often called “patent trolls”—and not the Company’s competitors. These NPEs may seek to extract settlements from our end-customers, resulting in new or renewed indemnification demands to the Company. At this time, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify any customers or end-customers resulting from license offers or patent infringement allegations by the companies listed above. However, the Company could incur substantial costs if it is determined that it is required to indemnify any customers or end-customers in connection with these offers or allegations. Given the potential for impact to other customers and the industry, the Company is actively monitoring the offers, allegations and any resulting litigation.
On July 7, 2018, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Wells Fargo’s remote deposit capture systems (which in part utilize technology provided by the Company to Wells Fargo through a partner), infringe four USAA owned patents related to mobile deposits (the “First Wells Lawsuit”). On August 17, 2018, USAA filed a second lawsuit (the “Second Wells Lawsuit” and together with the First Wells Lawsuit, the “Wells Lawsuits”) against Wells Fargo in the Eastern District of Texas asserting that an additional five patents owned by USAA were infringed by Wells Fargo’s remote deposit capture system. Subsequently, on November 6, 2019, a jury in the First Wells Lawsuit found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed at least one of the Subject Patents (as defined below) and awarded USAA $200 million in damages. In the Second Wells Lawsuit, USAA dropped two of the patents from the litigation, and the judge in the case found that one of the remaining three patents was invalid. On January 10, 2020, a jury in the Second Wells Lawsuit found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed at least one of the patents at issue in that case and awarded USAA $102 million in damages. No Mitek product was accused of infringing either of the two patents in question in the Second Wells Lawsuit as the litigation involved broad banking processes and not Mitek’s specific mobile deposit features. The jury verdicts are subject to post-trial motions and appeal by Wells Fargo. The Wells Lawsuits are ongoing and no final judgments or awards have been made to date. Given the potential impact such litigations could have on the use of Mitek’s products by Wells Fargo, our other customers, as well as the industry as a whole, the Company is closely monitoring the Wells Lawsuits.
While the Wells Lawsuits do not name Mitek as a defendant, given (among other factors) the Company’s prior history of litigation with USAA and the continued use of Mitek’s products by its customers, on November 1, 2019, the Company filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory judgment that its products do not
infringe USAA’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,699,779; 9,336,517; 9,818,090; and 8,977,571 (collectively, the “Subject Patents”). On January 15, 2020, USAA filed motions requesting the dismissal of the declaratory judgement of the Subject Patents and transfer of the case to the Eastern District of Texas, both of which the Company opposed. On April 21, 2020, the court in the Northern District of California transferred Mitek’s declaratory judgement action to the Eastern District of Texas and did not rule on USAA’s motion to dismiss. The Company continues to believe that its products do not infringe the Subject Patents and will vigorously defend the right of its end-users to use its technology.
The Company incurred legal fees of $1.0 million in the six months ended March 31, 2020 related to third party claims against our customers. Such fees are included in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income (loss).
Claim Against UrbanFT, Inc.
On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit against one of its customers, UrbanFT, Inc. (“UrbanFT”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (case No. 19-CV-1432-CAB-WVG). UrbanFT is delinquent in payment and attempted to justify its non-payment by asserting that the Company is or may be infringing on Urban FT patents. The Company filed such lawsuit to collect the delinquent payments and to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of five UrbanFT patents. UrbanFT filed an answer to the complaint but did not file any cross-claims for infringement. UrbanFT later amended its answer to assert infringement of two of the five patents-at-issue in the Company’s lawsuit against UrbanFT. The Company thereafter filed counterclaims seeking a declaration that the two patents now asserted by UrbanFT are invalid in addition to being not infringed. Pleadings were closed on April 28, 2020. The case is now in the discovery stage. The final pretrial conference is scheduled for October 8, 2021. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims and defend against any claims of infringement.
Other Legal Matters
In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is both (i) probable that a loss has occurred and (ii) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. While any legal proceeding has an element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the disposition of such matters, in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.
Revolving Credit Facility
On May 3, 2018, the Company and ID Checker, Inc. (together, the “Co-Borrowers”) entered into a Loan and Security Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Company arranged for a $10.0 million secured revolving credit facility (the “Revolver”) with a floating per annum interest rate equal to the greater of the Wall Street Journal prime rate, plus 0.25%, or 4.5%. The Co-Borrowers must maintain, at all times when any amounts are outstanding under the Revolver, either (i) minimum unrestricted cash at SVB and unused availability on the Revolver of at least $15.0 million and (ii) Adjusted Quick Ratio of 1.75:1.00. In May 2019, the Company and SVB entered into an amendment of the Loan Agreement to extend the maturity of the Revolver to September 30, 2020. There were no borrowings outstanding under the Revolver as of March 31, 2020.