Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

7. 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 one to seven 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 right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and lease liabilities. As of December 31, 2020, the weighted-average remaining lease term for the Company’s operating leases was 4.2 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 December 31, 2020, the Company had operating ROU assets of $5.1 million. Total operating lease liabilities of $6.8 million were comprised of current lease liabilities of $1.8 million and non-current lease liabilities of $5.0 million.

The Company recognized $0.5 million of operating lease costs in the three months ended December 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.

The Company paid $0.7 million in operating cash flows for operating leases in the three months ended December 31, 2020.

Maturities of our operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2020 were as follows (amounts shown in thousands):


	Operating leases
2021—remaining	$	1,571
2022	1,737
2023	1,735
2024	1,399
2025	314
2026	310
Thereafter	395
Total lease payments	7,461
Less: amount representing interest	(692)
Present value of future lease payments	$	6,769

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 but has been delayed as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 receives indemnification demands from end-user customers who received third party patentee offers to license patents and allegations of patent infringement. 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. In neither lawsuit was the Company named in the Complaint

as an infringer and at no time did USAA allege specifically that the Company’s products by themselves infringed any of the asserted patents. 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. Wells Fargo filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of the four patents in the First Wells Lawsuit. Three of those four petitions were instituted, while one (relating to the ‘090 Patent) was denied institution. On November 24, 2020 and January 26, 2021, the PTAB issued final written decisions determining that Wells Fargo had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any claims of the ‘571 Patent, the ‘779 Patent, or ‘517 Patent were unpatentable. Wells Fargo can request rehearing of these decisions and/or appeal the decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On September 30, 2020, USAA filed suit against PNC Bank (the “PNC Lawsuit”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,482,432 and 10,621,559. These two patents are continuations of an asserted patent in the Second Wells Lawsuit and relate to similar subject matter. On October 19, 2020, PNC Bank’s integration partner, NCR Corporation, sent an indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification from all claims related to the PNC Lawsuit. The complaint against PNC does not claim that any Company product infringes any of the asserted patents. At this time, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify NCR Corporation or end-users of NCR Corporation resulting from the patent infringement allegations by USAA. On December 4, 2020, USAA filed an amended complaint against PNC Bank also asserting two patents at issue in the First Wells Lawsuit—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,699,779 (“the ’779 Patent”) and 8,977,571 (“the ’571 Patent”). Also on December 4, 2020, PNC Bank filed a complaint for declaratory judgement of non-infringement of the ’779 Patent and the ’571 Patent in the Western District of Pennsylvania. On January 19, 2021, USAA filed a motion to dismiss that action in view of the pending lawsuit between the parties in the Eastern District of Texas.

While neither the Wells Lawsuits nor the PNC Lawsuit name the Company 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 the ’779 Patent, the ’571 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,336,517 (“the ’517 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,818,090 (“the ’090 Patent”) (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. On July 15, 2020, the court in the Eastern District of Texas held a hearing on USAA’s motion to dismiss, but has not yet issued a ruling. 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.

In April, May, and June 2020, the Company filed petitions for IPR with the PTAB of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of the Subject Patents. On November 6 and 17, 2020 and January 26, 2021, the PTAB decided to exercise its discretion and deny institution of the four petitions due to the alleged relationship between the Company and Wells Fargo, who previously filed petitions for IPR on the Subject Patents. The PTAB did not address the merits of the Company’s petitions or the prior art cited in those petitions. The Company continues to believe that the prior art cited in the petitions renders all the claims of the Subject Patents invalid. On December 6 and 17, 2020, the Company filed requests for rehearing and Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) review of three of the four denied IPR petitions. The Company is evaluating all of it options with respect to the remaining petition, including a request for rehearing and POP review.

In September 2020, the Company filed an additional two petitions for IPR with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,013,681 and 10,013,605—two of the patents at issue in the Second Wells Lawsuit. Those petitions remain pending with institution decisions expected in March 2021.

The Company incurred legal fees of $0.2 million in the three months ended December 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.

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-DEB). UrbanFT is delinquent in payment and attempted to justify its non-payment by asserting that the Company is or may be infringing on purported UrbanFT patents. The Company filed such lawsuit to collect the delinquent payments and to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of five purported UrbanFT patents. UrbanFT filed an answer and later asserted 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. During the course of the litigation, the Company learned that a judgment had been entered against UrbanFT’s affiliates and its predecessor owner in which an Oregon court ordered that the patents in issue revert to a prior owner, Mr. Stevens, because UrbanFT’s affiliates did not pay the purchase price owed to the prior owner. On

September 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. On September 15, 2020, the district court issued an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction over patent issues in light of the Oregon judgment. On December 17, 2020, the district court dismissed Mitek’s claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and UrbanFT’s counterclaims for patent infringement and related affirmative defenses based on infringement of the patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because UrbanFT does not own the patents. The district court then dismissed the remaining state law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

On December 18, 2020, the Company filed a new suit against UrbanFT in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (case no. 37-2020-00046670-CU-BC-CTL) asserting claims for breach of contract, open book account, and monetary damages. UrbanFT filed an answer and has not asserted any cross-claims as of now. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend any cross-claims if any are filed at a later date.

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, which was subsequently not renewed. There were no borrowings outstanding under the Revolver as of September 30, 2020.