UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

(Mark One)

 

 

For the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016

 

or

 

 

For the transition period from             to            

 

Commission file number 001-33170

 

 

NETLIST, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

175 Technology Drive, Suite 150

Irvine, CA 92618

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

 

(949) 435-0025

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ☒    No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒    No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One):

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes ☐   No ☒

 

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock as of the latest practicable date:

 

Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share

60,951,857 shares outstanding at November 10, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 1, 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

Item 1. Financial Statements

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands, except par value)

 

 

 

See accompanying notes.

 

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

 

 

 

See accompanying notes.

 

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(in thousands)

 

 

See accompanying notes.

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

October 1, 2016

 

 

Note 1—Description of Business

 

 

Netlist, Inc. together with its majority and wholly owned subsidiaries (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Company” or “Netlist,” unless the context or the use of the term indicates otherwise), provides high-performance modular memory subsystems to customers in diverse industries that require superior memory performance to empower critical business decisions. The Company has a long history of introducing disruptive new products, such as one of the first load-reduced dual in-line memory module (“LRDIMM”) based on its distributed buffer architecture, which has been adopted by the industry for DDR4 LRDIMM.  The Company was also one of the first to bring NAND flash memory (“NAND flash”) to the memory channel with its NVvault® non-volatile dual in-line memory modules (“NVDIMM”) using software-intensive controllers and merging dynamic random access memory integrated circuits (“DRAM ICs” or “DRAM”) and flash to solve data bottleneck and data retention challenges encountered in high-performance computing environments. The Company recently introduced a new generation of storage class memory products called HybriDIMM™ to address the growing need for real-time analytics in Big Data applications and in-memory databases.

 

Due to the ground-breaking product development of its engineering teams, Netlist has built a robust portfolio of over 100 issued and pending U.S. and foreign patents in the areas of hybrid memory, storage class memory, rank multiplication and load reduction. The Company’s early pioneering work in these areas has been broadly adopted in industry standard LRDIMM and in NVDIMM. Netlist’s objective is to continue to innovate in their field and invest further in their intellectual property portfolio, with the goal of monetizing their intellectual property through a combination of product sales, licensing and royalty agreements, and other revenue opportunities.

 

Netlist was incorporated in June 2000 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.  In 2007, the Company established a manufacturing facility in the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”), which became operational in July 2007 upon the successful qualification of certain key customers.

 

Liquidity

 

The Company incurred net losses of approximately $7.3 million and $16.2 million for the nine months ended October 1, 2016 and September 26, 2015, respectively. The Company has historically financed its operations primarily through issuances of equity and debt securities, as well as revenues generated from operations. 

 

On November 12, 2015, the Company entered into a Joint Development and License Agreement (“JDLA”) with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), pursuant to which the Company and Samsung agreed to work together to jointly develop a standardized product interface for NVDIMM-P memory modules in order to facilitate broad industry adoption of this new technology. The Company received an $8.0 million non-recurring engineering (“NRE”) fee from Samsung for the joint development. The JDLA also includes cross licensing of each party’s respective patent portfolios, as well as access to raw materials (DRAM and NAND flash) at competitive prices, and an important strategic partner that can facilitate getting the Company’s HybriDIMM technology to market.  Both parties may enter into an additional agreement in the future for Samsung to be granted commercial license for the Company’s NVDIMM-P technology.  The JDLA also includes a right of first refusal wherein the Company will provide Samsung the right to acquire the Company’s NVDIMM-P technology in a separate, subsequent transaction before the Company offers the technology to a third party. The Company also received $15.0 million under a Senior Secured Convertible Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement (“SVIC Purchase Agreement”) with SVIC No. 28 New Technology Business Investment L.L.P., a Korean limited liability partnership and an affiliate of Samsung Venture Investment Co. (“SVIC”) (see Note 5).

 

On September 23, 2016, the Company completed a registered firm commitment underwritten public offering (the “2016 Offering”) of 9,200,000 shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $1.25 per share, which includes 1,200,000 shares sold pursuant to the full exercise by the underwriters in the 2016 Offering of their option to purchase

additional shares to cover over-allotments.  The net proceeds to the Company from the 2016 Offering were approximately $10.3 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses paid or payable by the Company.

 

If adequate working capital is not available when needed, the Company may be required to significantly modify its business model and operations. Insufficient working capital could cause the Company to be unable to execute its business plan, take advantage of potential opportunities, or respond to competitive pressures or customer requirements. It may also cause the Company to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of its research and development programs, to implement cost-cutting measures to reduce spending to a sustainable level or to reduce or cease operations. While there is no assurance that the Company can meet its revenue and expense level forecasts, management anticipates that it can continue operations for at least the next 12 months.

 

 

Note 2—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

 

Basis of Presentation

 

The interim unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and with the instructions to Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Form 10-Q and Article 8 of SEC Regulation S-X. These condensed consolidated financial statements do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements. Therefore, these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended January 2, 2016, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 4, 2016.

 

The condensed consolidated financial statements included herein as of October 1, 2016 are unaudited; however, they contain all normal recurring accruals and adjustments that, in the opinion of the Company’s management, are necessary to present fairly the condensed consolidated financial position of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries as of October 1, 2016 and the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended October 1, 2016 and September 26, 2015 and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine months ended October 1, 2016 and September 26, 2015.  The results of operations for the nine months ended October 1, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year or any future interim periods.

 

Principles of Consolidation

 

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Netlist, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

 

Fiscal Year

 

The Company operates under a 52/53-week fiscal year ending on the Saturday closest to December 31.  For 2016, the Company’s fiscal year is scheduled to end on December 31, 2016 and will consist of 52 weeks. Each of the Company’s quarters in its 2016 fiscal year is comprised of 13 weeks.

 

Use of Estimates

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of net revenues and expenses during the reporting period. By their nature, these estimates and assumptions are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty.  Significant estimates made by management include, among others, provisions for uncollectible receivables and sales returns, warranty liabilities, valuation of inventories, fair value of financial instruments, recoverability of long-lived assets, valuation of stock-based transactions, estimates for

completion of NRE revenue milestones and realization of deferred tax assets.  The Company bases its estimates on historical experience, knowledge of current conditions and its beliefs of what could occur in the future considering available information.  The Company reviews its estimates on an on-going basis. Actual results may differ from these estimates, which may result in material adverse effects on the Company’s operating results and financial position.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

Net Product Sales

 

Net product sales primarily consist of sales of high-performance memory subsystems to OEMs, hyperscale data center operators and storage vendors.

 

The Company recognizes revenues in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 605. Accordingly, the Company recognizes revenues when there is persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists, product delivery and acceptance have occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability of the resulting receivable is reasonably assured.

 

The Company generally uses customer purchase orders and/or contracts as evidence of an arrangement. Delivery occurs when goods are shipped for customers with shipping point terms and upon receipt for customers with destination terms, at which time title and risk of loss transfer to the customer. Shipping documents are used to verify delivery and customer acceptance. The Company assesses whether the sales price is fixed or determinable based on the payment terms associated with the transaction and whether the sales price is subject to refund. Customers are generally allowed limited rights of return for up to 30 days, except for sales of excess component inventories, which contain no right-of-return privileges. Estimated returns are provided for at the time of sale based on historical experience or specific identification of an event necessitating a reserve. The Company offers a standard product warranty to its customers and has no other post-shipment obligations. The Company assesses collectability based on the creditworthiness of the customer as determined by credit checks and evaluations, as well as the customer’s payment history.

 

All amounts billed to customers related to shipping and handling are classified as revenues, while all costs incurred by the Company for shipping and handling are classified as cost of sales.

 

Engineering Services

 

The Company provides engineering services to its customers. The Company recognizes revenue from these services when all of the following conditions are met: (1) evidence existed of an arrangement with the customer, typically consisting of a purchase order or contract; (2) the Company’s services were performed and risk of loss passed to the customer; (3) the Company completed all of the necessary terms of the contract; (4) the amount of revenue to which the Company was entitled was fixed or determinable; and (5) the Company believed it was probable that it would be able to collect the amount due from the customer. To the extent that one or more of these conditions has not been satisfied, the Company defers recognition of revenue.  

 

Deferred Revenue

 

From time-to-time the Company receives pre-payments from its customers related to future services. Engineering development fee revenues, including NRE fees, are deferred and recognized ratably over the period the engineering work is completed.

 

Cash and Cash Equivalents

 

Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less, other than short-term investments in securities that lack an active market.

 

Restricted Cash

 

Restricted cash of $1,100,000 as of October 1, 2016 consists of cash to secure two standby letters of credits. Restricted cash of $400,000 as of January 2, 2016 consists of cash to secure three standby letters of credit.

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

The Company’s financial instruments consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable, accrued expenses and debt instruments.  The fair value of the Company’s cash equivalents is determined based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or Level 1 inputs.  The Company recognizes transfers between Levels 1 through 3 of the fair value hierarchy at the beginning of the reporting period.  The Company believes that the carrying values of all other financial instruments approximate their current fair values due to their nature and respective durations.

 

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

 

The Company evaluates the collectibility of accounts receivable based on a combination of factors. In cases where the Company is aware of circumstances that may impair a specific customer’s ability to meet its financial obligations subsequent to the original sale, the Company will record an allowance against amounts due, and thereby reduce the net recognized receivable to the amount the Company reasonably believes will be collected. For all other customers, the Company records allowances for doubtful accounts based primarily on the length of time the receivables are past due based on the terms of the originating transaction, the current business environment and its historical experience.  Uncollectible accounts are charged against the allowance for doubtful accounts when all cost effective commercial means of collection have been exhausted. Generally, the Company’s credit losses have been within its expectations and the provisions established. At October 1, 2016 and January 2, 2016 the Company had an allowance for doubtful accounts of $40,000.

 

Concentration of Credit Risk

 

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to significant concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, and accounts receivable.

 

The Company invests its cash equivalents primarily in money market mutual funds.  Cash equivalents are maintained with high quality institutions, the composition and maturities of which are regularly monitored by management. At times, deposits held with financial institutions may exceed the amount of insurance provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

 

The Company’s trade accounts receivable are primarily derived from sales to OEMs in the computer industry. The Company performs credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition and limits the amount of credit extended when deemed necessary, but generally requires no collateral. The Company believes that the concentration of credit risk in its trade receivables is moderated by its credit evaluation process, relatively short collection terms, the high level of credit worthiness of its customers (see Note 3), foreign credit insurance and letters of credit issued on the Company’s behalf.  Reserves are maintained for potential credit losses, and such losses historically have not been significant and have been within management’s expectations.

 

Inventories

 

Inventories are valued at the lower of actual cost to purchase or manufacture the inventory or the net realizable value of the inventory. Cost is determined on an average cost basis, which approximates actual cost on a first-in, first-out basis and includes raw materials, labor and manufacturing overhead. At each balance sheet date, the Company evaluates its ending inventory quantities on hand and on order and records a provision for excess quantities and obsolescence. Among other factors, the Company considers historical demand and forecasted demand in relation to the inventory on hand, competitiveness of product offerings, market conditions and product life cycles when determining obsolescence and net realizable value. In addition, the Company considers changes in the market value of components in determining

the net realizable value of its inventory. Once established, lower of cost or market write-downs are considered permanent adjustments to the cost basis of the excess or obsolete inventories.

 

Property and Equipment

 

Property and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, which generally range from three to seven years. Leasehold improvements are recorded at cost and amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of their estimated useful lives or the remaining lease term.

 

Deferred Financing Costs, Debt Discount and Detachable Debt-Related Warrants

 

Costs incurred to issue debt are deferred and recorded as a reduction to the debt balance in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company amortizes debt issuance costs over the expected term of the related debt using the effective interest method. Debt discounts relate to professional services rendered and to the relative fair value of any warrants issued in conjunction with the debt and are recorded as a reduction to the debt balance and accreted over the expected term of the debt to interest expense using the effective interest method.

 

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

 

The Company evaluates the recoverability of the carrying value of long-lived assets held and used by the Company in its operations for impairment on at least an annual basis or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying value may not be recoverable. When such factors and circumstances exist, the Company compares the projected undiscounted future net cash flows associated with the related asset or group of assets over their estimated useful lives against their respective carrying amount. These projected future cash flows may vary significantly over time as a result of increased competition, changes in technology, fluctuations in demand, consolidation of the Company’s customers and reductions in average selling prices. If the carrying value is determined not to be recoverable from future operating cash flows, the asset is deemed impaired and an impairment loss is recognized to the extent the carrying value exceeds the estimated fair value of the asset. The fair value of the asset or asset group is based on market value when available, or when unavailable, on discounted expected cash flows. The Company’s management believes there is no impairment of long-lived assets as of October 1, 2016. However, market conditions could change or demand for the Company’s products could decrease, which could result in future impairment of long-lived assets.

 

Warranty Liabilities

 

The Company offers product warranties generally ranging from one to three years, depending on the product and negotiated terms of any purchase agreements with customers. Such warranties require the Company to repair or replace defective product returned to the Company during such warranty period at no cost to the customer. Warranties are not offered on sales of excess inventory. The Company records an estimate for warranty-related costs at the time of sale based on its historical and estimated product return rates and expected repair or replacement costs (see Note 3). While such costs have historically been consistent between periods and within management’s expectations and the provisions established, unexpected changes in failure rates could have a material adverse impact on the Company, requiring additional warranty reserves and could adversely affect the Company’s gross profit and gross margins.

 

 

Stock-Based Compensation

 

The Company accounts for equity issuances to non-employees in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 505.  All transactions in which goods or services are the consideration received for the issuance of equity instruments are accounted for based on the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instrument issued, whichever is more reliably measurable. The measurement date used to determine the estimated fair value of the equity instrument issued is the earlier of the date on which the third-party performance is complete or the date on which it is probable that performance will occur.

 

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, employee and director stock-based compensation expense recognized during the period is based on the value of the portion of stock-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period.  Given that stock-based compensation expense recognized in the condensed consolidated statements of

operations is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, it has been reduced for estimated forfeitures. FASB ASC Topic 718 requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. The Company’s estimated average forfeiture rates are based on historical forfeiture experience and estimated future forfeitures.

The estimated fair value of common stock option awards to employees and directors is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes model requires subjective assumptions regarding future stock price volatility and expected time to exercise, along with assumptions about the risk-free interest rate and expected dividends, all of which affect the estimated fair values of the Company’s common stock option awards.  The expected term of options granted is calculated as the average of the weighted vesting period and the contractual expiration date of the option.  This calculation is based on the safe harbor method permitted by the SEC in instances where the vesting and exercise terms of options granted meet certain conditions and where limited historical exercise data is available.  The expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of the Company’s common stock.  The risk-free rate selected to value any particular grant is based on the U.S. Treasury rate that corresponds to the expected term of the grant effective as of the date of the grant. The expected dividend assumption is based on the Company’s history and management’s expectation regarding dividend payouts.  Compensation expense for common stock option awards with graded vesting schedules is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for the last separately vesting portion of the award, provided that the accumulated cost recognized as of any date at least equals the value of the vested portion of the award.

 

The Company recognizes the fair value of restricted stock awards issued to employees and outside directors as stock-based compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period for the last separately vesting portion of the awards.  Fair value is determined as the difference between the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date and the purchase price of the restricted stock award, if any, reduced by expected forfeitures.

 

If there are any modifications or cancellations of the underlying vested or unvested stock-based awards, the Company may be required to accelerate, increase or cancel any remaining unearned stock-based compensation expense, or record additional expense for vested stock-based awards. Future stock-based compensation expense and unearned stock- based compensation may increase to the extent that the Company grants additional common stock options or other stock-based awards.

 

Income Taxes

 

Under FASB ASC Topic 270, the Company is required to adjust its effective tax rate each quarter to be consistent with the estimated annual effective tax rate. The Company is also required to record the tax impact of certain discrete, unusual or infrequently occurring items, including changes in judgment about valuation allowances and effects of changes in tax laws or rates, in the interim period in which they occur. In addition, jurisdictions with a projected loss for the year or a year-to-date loss where no tax benefit can be recognized are excluded from the estimated annual effective tax rate. The impact of such an exclusion could result in a higher or lower effective tax rate during a particular quarter, based upon the mix and timing of actual earnings versus annual projections.

 

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized to reflect the estimated future tax effects, calculated at currently effective tax rates, of future deductible or taxable amounts attributable to events that have been recognized on a cumulative basis in the condensed consolidated financial statements.  A valuation allowance related to a net deferred tax asset is recorded when it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized.

 

FASB ASC Topic 740 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement requirement for the financial statement recognition of a tax position that has been taken or is expected to be taken on a tax return and also provides guidance on de-recognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition. Under FASB ASC Topic 740 the Company may only recognize or continue to recognize tax positions that meet a “more likely than not” threshold.

 

The application of tax laws and regulations is subject to legal and factual interpretation, judgment and uncertainty. Tax laws and regulations may change as a result of changes in fiscal policy, changes in legislation, the evolution of regulations and court rulings. Therefore, the actual liability for U.S. or foreign taxes may be materially

different from the Company’s estimates, which could require the Company to record additional tax liabilities or to reduce previously recorded tax liabilities, as applicable.

 

Research and Development Expenses

 

Research and development expenditures are expensed in the period incurred.

 

Risks and Uncertainties

 

The Company is subject to certain risks and uncertainties, including its ability to obtain profitable operations due to the Company’s history of losses and accumulated deficits, the Company’s dependence on one or a few customers for a significant portion of revenues, risks related to intellectual property matters, market development of and demand for the Company’s products, and the length of the sales cycle.  Such risks could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

The Company has dedicated substantial resources to developing a robust intellectual property portfolio and it intends to continue investing in this portfolio, with the goal of further establishing the Company as an innovator in the high-performance memory subsystem market and identifying emerging customer requirements for future generations of products. However, the Company may be unsuccessful in these efforts and its investments of time, capital and other resources into its intellectual property portfolio may not provide adequate, or any, returns. The Company also dedicates substantial resources in protecting its intellectual property, including its efforts to defend its patents against challenges made by way of reexamination proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The Company expects to continue this type of activity for the foreseeable future, without any guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection and litigation activities will be successful. The Company is also subject to litigation claims that it has infringed on the intellectual property of others, against which the Company intends to defend vigorously.  Litigation, whether or not eventually decided in the Company’s favor or settled, is costly and time-consuming and could divert management’s attention and resources. Because of the nature and inherent uncertainties of litigation, should the outcome of any of such actions be unfavorable, the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

 

The Company has also invested a significant portion of its research and development budget into the design of application-specific integrated circuits (“ASIC”) and field-programmable gate array (“FPGA”) devices, including the HyperCloud and HybriDIMM memory subsystems, and the NVvault family of products. These products are subject to increased risks as compared to the Company’s legacy products.  The Company may be unable to achieve customer or market acceptance of its products, or achieve such acceptance in a timely manner. Further, the Company experienced a longer qualification cycle than anticipated with its HyperCloud memory subsystems, and has experienced supply chain disruption and a shortage of DRAM and NAND flash required to create the HyperCloud memory subsystem and NVvault products.  As of October 1, 2016, Hypercloud has not generated significant revenue relative to the Company’s investment in the product.

 

The Company’s operations in the PRC are subject to various political, geographical and economic risks and uncertainties inherent to conducting business in the PRC. These include, but are not limited to, (i) potential changes in economic conditions in the region, (ii) managing a local workforce and overcoming other practical barriers, such as language and cultural differences, that may subject the Company to uncertainties or unfamiliar practices or regulatory policies, (iii) changes in the policies of the Chinese governmental and regulatory agencies, and (iv) changes in the laws and policies of the U.S. government regarding the conduct of business in foreign countries generally or in the PRC in particular. Additionally, the Chinese government controls the procedures by which its local currency, the Chinese Renminbi (“RMB”), is converted into other currencies and by which dividends may be declared or capital distributed for the purpose of repatriation of earnings and investments. If restrictions in the conversion of RMB or in the repatriation of earnings and investments through dividend and capital distribution restrictions are instituted, the Company’s operations and operating results may be negatively impacted. The liabilities of the Company’s subsidiary in the PRC exceeded its assets as of October 1, 2016 and January 2, 2016. 

 

Foreign Currency Remeasurement

 

The functional currency of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries is the U.S. dollar. Local currency financial statements are remeasured into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate in effect as of the balance sheet date for monetary assets and liabilities and the historical exchange rate for nonmonetary assets and liabilities. Expenses are remeasured using the average exchange rate for the period, except items related to nonmonetary assets and liabilities, which are remeasured using historical exchange rates. All remeasurement gains and losses are included in determining net loss.  Transaction gains and losses were not significant in the three and nine months ended October 1, 2016 or September 26, 2015.

 

Net Loss Per Share

 

Basic net loss per share is calculated by dividing net loss by the weighted-average common shares outstanding during the period, excluding unvested shares issued pursuant to restricted share awards under the Company’s share-based compensation plans.  Diluted net loss per share is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average shares and dilutive potential common shares outstanding during the period. Dilutive potential shares consist of dilutive shares issuable upon the exercise or vesting of outstanding stock options, warrants and restricted stock awards, respectively, computed using the treasury stock method.  In periods of losses, basic and diluted loss per share are the same, as the effect of stock options and unvested restricted share awards on loss per share is anti-dilutive.

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2014-09”). ASU 2014-09 supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in FASB Topic 605, Revenue Recognition. ASU 2014-9 implements a five-step process for customer contract revenue recognition that focuses on transfer of control, as opposed to transfer of risk and rewards. The amendment also requires enhanced disclosures regarding the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenues and cash flows from contracts with customers. Other major provisions include the capitalization and amortization of certain contract costs, ensuring the time value of money is considered in the transaction price, and allowing estimates of variable consideration to be recognized before contingencies are resolved in certain circumstances. Entities can transition to the standard either retrospectively or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption.  On July 9, 2015, the FASB approved amendments deferring the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year to December 15, 2017 for annual reporting periods beginning after that date and permitting early adoption of the standard, but not before the original effective date or for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016.  The Company has not yet selected a transition method and is currently assessing the impact the adoption of ASU 2014-9 will have on its consolidated financial statements and disclosures.

 

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern. The amendments in this update provide guidance in accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America about management’s responsibilities to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. The main provision of the amendments are for an entity’s management, in connection with the preparation of financial statements, to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Management’s evaluation should be based on relevant conditions and events that are known or reasonably knowable at the date the consolidated financial statements are issued. When management identifies conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going  concern, the entity should disclose information that enables users of the consolidated financial statements to understand all of the following: (1) principal conditions or events that raised substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern (before consideration of management’s plans); (2) management’s evaluation of the significance of those conditions or events in relation to the entity’s ability to meet its obligations; and (3) management’s plans that alleviated substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern or management’s plans that are intended to mitigate the conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. The amendments in this update are effective for interim and annual reporting periods after December 15, 2016 and early application is permitted. The Company will apply the guidance and disclosure provisions of the new standard upon adoption in its 2016 annual consolidated financial statements.

 

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-11, Inventory (Topic 330) ("ASU 2015-11"). The amendments in ASU 2015-11 require that an entity measure inventory within the scope at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Net realizable value is the estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of

completion, disposal, and transaction. The amendments in this update more closely align the measurement of inventory in accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America with the measurement of inventory in International Financial Reporting Standards. ASU 2015-11 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2016. The amendments in this update should be applied prospectively with early application permitted as of the beginning of the interim or annual reporting period. The Company is currently assessing this guidance for future implementation.

 

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740), Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (“ASU 2015-17), which eliminates the current requirement for an entity to separate deferred income tax liabilities and assets into current and non-current amounts in a classified balance sheet.  Instead, the ASU requires deferred tax liabilities, deferred tax assets and valuation allowances to be classified as non-current in a classified balance sheet.  ASU 2015-17 will be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those annual periods.  Early adoption is permitted.  Additionally, this guidance may be applied either prospectively or retrospectively to all periods presented.  The Company elected not to early adopt ASU 2015-17 and is evaluating the effect of the adoption of ASU 2015-17 on its consolidated financial statements.

 

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (“ASU 2016-02”).  Under ASU 2016-02, lessees will be required to recognize the following for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases) at the commencement date: a lease liability, which is a lessee’s obligation to make lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a discounted basis; and a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term.  ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years.  Early application is permitted.  Lessees must apply a modified retrospective transition approach for leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements.  The modified retrospective approach would not require any transition accounting for leases that expired before the earliest comparative period presented.  Lessees may not apply a full retrospective transition approach.  The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting ASU 2016-02 on its consolidated financial statements.

 

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718) (“ASU 2016-09”), which simplified certain aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including income taxes, classification of awards and classification in the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-09 will be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those annual periods. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting ASU 2016-09 on its consolidated financial statements.

 

Note 3—Supplemental Financial Information

 

Inventories

 

Inventories consisted of the following as of the dates presented (in thousands):

 

 

Warranty Liabilities

 

The following table summarizes activity related to warranty liabilities (in thousands):

 

 

The allowance for warranty liabilities expected to be incurred within one year is included as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. 

 

Computation of Net Loss Per Share

 

The following table sets forth the computation of net loss per share, including the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic and diluted net loss per share (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

The table below sets forth potentially dilutive common share equivalents, consisting of shares issuable upon the exercise or vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock awards, respectively computed using the treasury stock method.  These potential common shares have been excluded from the diluted net loss per share calculations above as their effect would be anti-dilutive for the periods presented (in thousands):

 

 

The above common share equivalents would have been included in the calculation of diluted net loss per share had the Company reported net income for the periods presented.

 

Major Customers

 

The Company’s product sales have historically been concentrated in a small number of customers. The following table sets forth the percentage of the Company’s net product sales made to customers comprising 10% or more of the Company’s net product sales in the periods presented:

 

 

 

 

The Company’s accounts receivable as of October 1, 2016 were concentrated with two customers, representing approximately 34% and 13% of aggregate gross receivables. At January 2, 2016, three customers represented approximately 24%, 19% and 14% of aggregate gross receivables. A significant reduction in sales to, or the inability to collect receivables from these or any of the Company’s other significant customers could have a material adverse impact on the Company. The Company mitigates risk with foreign receivables by purchasing comprehensive foreign credit insurance.

 

Cash Flow Information

 

The following table sets forth supplemental disclosures of cash flow information and non-cash financing activities (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

Note 4—Credit Agreement

 

SVB Credit Agreement

 

On October 31, 2009, the Company entered into a credit agreement with Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”), which was most recently amended on January 29, 2016 (as amended, the “SVB Credit Agreement” and such amendment, the “SVB Amendment”). Pursuant to the terms of the SVB Credit Agreement, the Company is eligible to borrow, in a revolving line of credit, up to the lesser of (i) 80% of its eligible accounts receivable, or (ii) $5.0 million, subject to certain adjustments as set forth in the SVB Credit Agreement. The SVB Amendment modified certain terms of the SVB Credit Agreement in order to (i) extend the maturity date of advances under the SVB Credit Agreement to January 31, 2017, (ii) adjust the rate at which advances under the SVB Credit Agreement accrue interest to the Wall Street Journal “prime rate” plus 2.75% (prior to the SVB Amendment, advances under the SVB Credit Agreement accrued interest at a rate equal to SVB’s most recently announced “prime rate” plus 2.75%), and (iii) effective as of December 1, 2015, adjust certain of the Company’s financial covenants under the SVB Credit Agreement, including relaxing the Company’s adjusted quick ratio covenant and removing the Company’s tangible net worth covenant. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the SVB Amendment, SVB allowed for the financing and security interests contemplated under the debt instrument issued to SVIC (see Note 5) and released certain patents and related assets relating to the NVvault®  product line from the collateral subject to SVB’s security interest under the SVB Credit Agreement.

 

The SVB Credit Agreement requires letters of credit to be secured by cash, which is classified as restricted cash in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. At October 1, 2016 and January 2, 2016, letters of credit in the amount of $1.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively, were outstanding.

 

At October 1, 2016 and January 2, 2016, the Company had no borrowings under the SVB Credit Agreement. The following table presents details of the Company’s availability under the SVB Credit Agreement as of the dates presented:

 

 

All obligations under the SVB Credit Agreement are secured by a first priority lien on the Company’s tangible and intangible assets, other than certain patents and related assets relating to the NVvault product line, which is subject to a first priority lien held by SVIC. The SVB Credit Agreement subjects the Company to certain affirmative and negative covenants, including financial covenants with respect to the Company’s liquidity and restrictions on the payment of dividends. As of October 1, 2016, the Company was in compliance with its covenants under the SVB Credit Agreement.

 

 

Note 5—Debt

 

The Company’s debt consisted of the following as of the dates presented (in thousands):

 

 

On November 18, 2015 (“Closing Date”), the Company entered into the SVIC Purchase Agreement with SVIC, pursuant to which the Company sold to SVIC a Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note (“SVIC Note”) and a Stock Purchase Warrant (“SVIC Warrant”), each dated as of the Closing Date. The SVIC Note has an original principal amount of $15.0 million, accrues interest at a rate of 2.0% per year, is due and payable in full on December 31, 2021 (“SVIC Note Maturity Date”) and the principal and accrued but unpaid interest are convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $1.25 per share (the “Conversion Price”), subject to certain adjustments as set forth therein on the SVIC Note Maturity Date. Upon a change of control of the Company prior to the SVIC Note Maturity Date, the SVIC Note may, at the Company’s option, be assumed by the surviving entity or be redeemed upon the consummation of such change of control for the principal and accrued but unpaid interest as of the redemption date. The SVIC Warrant grants SVIC a right to purchase 2,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.30 per share, subject to certain adjustments as set forth therein, is only exercisable in the event the Company exercises its right to redeem the SVIC Note prior to the SVIC Note Maturity Date, and expires on December 31, 2025. The SVIC Warrant was valued at $1,165,000, based on its relative fair value, and was recorded as a debt discount. The Company also recorded $154,000 as a debt discount for professional services rendered.  These amounts will be amortized over the term of the SVIC Note using the effective interest method. For the three and nine months ended October 1, 2016, the Company amortized approximately $55,000 and $163,000 respectively, to interest expense in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.  

 

In connection with the SVIC Note, SVIC was granted a first priority security interest in the Company’s patent portfolio and a second priority security interest in all of the Company’s other assets. On the Closing Date, the Company, SVB and SVIC entered into an Intercreditor Agreement pursuant to which SVB and SVIC agreed to their relative security interest in the Company’s assets.  On the Closing Date, the Company and SVIC also entered into a Registration Rights Agreement pursuant to which the Company is obligated to register with the SEC, upon demand by SVIC, the shares of the Company’s common stock issuable upon conversion of the SVIC Note or upon exercise of the SVIC Warrant.  On August 26, 2016, SVIC agreed to waive the covenant in which the Company is to maintain sufficient authorized and unissued shares for the full conversion of the note and interest balance upon maturity. The Waiver is valid through December 31, 2017. The Company agrees to increase the number of authorized shares to an amount sufficient to comply with the reservation provision of the SVIC Purchase Agreement.

 

Interest expense, including amortization of debt discounts, net of interest income, is presented in the following table (in thousands): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note 6—Income Taxes

 

The following table sets forth the Company’s provision for income taxes, along with the corresponding effective tax rates (in thousands, except percentages):

 

 

The Company evaluates whether a valuation allowance should be established against its deferred tax assets based on the consideration of all available evidence using a “more likely than not” standard.  Due to uncertainty of future utilization, the Company has provided a full valuation allowance as of October 1, 2016 and January 2, 2016. Accordingly, no benefit has been recognized for net deferred tax assets.

 

The Company does not have any unrecognized tax benefits as of October 1, 2016 and January 2, 2016.

 

Note 7—Commitments and Contingencies

 

Litigation and Patent Reexaminations 

 

The Company owns numerous patents and continues to seek to enlarge and strengthen its patent portfolio, which covers different aspects of the Company’s technology innovations with various claim scopes. The Company plans to pursue avenues to monetize its intellectual property portfolio, in which it would generate revenue by selling or licensing its technology, and it intends to vigorously enforce its patent rights against infringers of such rights. The Company dedicates substantial resources to protecting its intellectual property, including its efforts to defend its patents against challenges made by way of reexamination proceedings at the PTAB or USPTO. These activities are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, without any guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection and litigation activities will be successful, or that the Company will be able to monetize its intellectual property portfolio. The Company is also subject to litigation claims that it has infringed on the intellectual property of others, against which the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.

 

Litigation, whether or not eventually decided in the Company’s favor or settled, is costly and time-consuming and could divert management’s attention and resources. Thus, because of the nature and inherent uncertainties of litigation, even if the outcome of any of such actions is favorable, the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. Additionally, the outcome of pending litigation, and related patent reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect the Company’s ability to license its intellectual property in the future or to protect against competition in the current and expected markets for its products.

 

Google Litigation

 

In December 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google, Inc. (“Google”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”), seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Google’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 (“the ‘912 patent”), which relates generally to technologies to implement rank multiplication. In February 2010, Google answered the Company’s complaint and asserted counterclaims against the Company seeking a declaration that the patent is invalid and not infringed, and claiming that the Company committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract based on the Company’s activities in the JEDEC standard-setting organization. The counterclaim seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to Google’s counterclaim because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. In October 2010, Google

requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. In connection with the reexamination request, the Northern District Court granted the Company and Google’s joint request to stay the ‘912 patent infringement lawsuit against Google until the completion of the reexamination proceedings.

 

Inphi Litigation

 

In September 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Inphi Corporation (“Inphi”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”). The complaint, as amended, alleges that Inphi is contributorily infringing and actively inducing the infringement of U.S. patents owned by the Company, including the ‘912 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 (“the ‘537 patent”), which relates generally to memory modules with load isolation and memory domain translation capabilities, and U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 (“the ‘274 patent”), which is related to the ‘537 patent and relates generally to load isolation and memory domain translation technologies. The Company is seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Inphi’s use of the Company’s patented technology. Inphi denied infringement and claimed that the three patents are invalid. In April 2010, Inphi requested but was later denied Inter Partes Reexaminations of the ‘912, ‘537 and ‘274 patents by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted new requests and was later granted Inter Partes Reexaminations of the ‘912, ‘537 and ‘274 patents by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. In connection with the reexamination requests, Inphi filed a motion to stay the patent infringement lawsuit with the Central District Court, which was granted. The Central District Court has requested that the Company notify it within one week of any action taken by the USPTO in connection with the reexamination proceedings, at which time the Central District Court may decide to maintain or lift the stay.

 

SanDisk, Smart Modular, Smart Worldwide, and Diablo Litigations

 

In September 2012, Smart Modular, Inc. (“Smart Modular”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the “Eastern District Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company willfully infringes and actively induces the infringement of six claims of a U.S. patent newly issued to Smart Modular, U.S. Patent No. 8,250,295 (“the ‘295 patent”), and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Smart Modular also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a memorandum in support of the motion on the same day of the complaint. The Company promptly filed a request for reexamination of the ‘295 patent with the USPTO setting forth six different combinations of prior art that would render the six asserted claims of the ‘295 patent unpatentable. The Company also filed an answer to Smart Modular’s complaint with the Eastern District Court in October 2012 to deny infringement of the ‘295 patent, assert that the ‘295 patent is invalid and unenforceable, and bring a set of counterclaims against Smart Modular. Smart Modular filed various motions on the pleadings on November 1, 2012, which were opposed by the Company in its briefs filed in late November 2012.

 

In December 2012, the USPTO granted the Company’s request for the reexamination of the ‘295 patent, and issued an Office Action rejecting all of the six asserted claims over the six different combinations of prior art set forth by the Company in its request. The Company promptly moved to stay litigation pending result of reexamination. On February 19, 2013, a few days after Smart Modular filed replies in support of its motions, the Eastern District Court issued a Minute Order, in which the court on its own motion took the preliminary injunction; the motion to dismiss and the motion to stay under submission without oral argument and vacated the hearing dates.

 

On February 7, 2013, Smart Modular filed a response to the Office Action in the reexamination of the ‘295 patent. Thereafter, the Company and Smart Modular made various filings to address certain apparent defects contained in Smart Modular’s response. On March 13, 2013, the USPTO issued a Notice of Defective Paper, in which the USPTO found Smart Modular’s responses, both the initial filing and a supplemental filing, to be improper, and both responses were expunged from the record. The USPTO gave Smart Modular 15 days to submit another response, which Smart Modular submitted on March 26, 2013. The Company timely filed its comments on Smart Modular’s corrected response on April 25, 2013. The USPTO ultimately accepted Smart Modular’s corrected response on July 17, 2013.  On April 29, 2014, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”), confirming some claims and rejecting others.  Smart Modular filed a response to the ACP on May 29, 2014, and Netlist filed comments related to Smart Modular’s response on June 30, 2014.  On August 4, 2015, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice confirming all pending claims.  On

September 4, 2015, the Company appealed to the PTAB at the USPTO. Thus, the reexamination of the ‘295 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for reexamination proceedings.

 

On May 30, 2013, the Eastern District Court issued an order granting Netlist’s motion to stay pending results of the reexamination of the ‘295 patent and denied Smart Modular’s motion for preliminary injunction.  On May 5, 2016, Smart Modular filed a motion to lift the stay.  Netlist filed its opposition to Smart Modular’s motion on June 2, 2016, and Smart Modular filed its reply on June 9, 2016.  On September 21, 2016, the Eastern District Court granted Smart Modular’s motion to lift the stay and the action will now move forward in accordance with established procedures. 

 

On July 1, 2013, Netlist filed a complaint against Smart Modular in the Santa Ana Division of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District Court”), seeking, among other things, relief under federal antitrust laws for Smart Modular’s violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and damages and other equitable relief under California statutory and common law for Smart Modular’s unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and fraud.

 

On August 23, 2013, Netlist filed an amended complaint for patent infringement, antitrust violations and trade secret misappropriation against Smart Modular, Smart Storage Systems (“Smart Storage”), Smart Worldwide Holdings (“Smart Worldwide”) and Diablo Technologies (“Diablo”) in the Central District Court. Smart Storage was acquired by SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”) on August 22, 2013.  Netlist’s amended complaint alleges infringement of five Netlist patents by the defendants based on the manufacture and sale of the ULLtraDIMM memory module. Netlist’s complaint also alleges antitrust violations by Smart Modular and Smart Worldwide, contending that Smart Modular procured the ‘295 patent with blatant inequitable conduct at the USPTO, withheld the patent application leading to the patent from relevant JEDEC committees for more than eight years, sought to improperly enforce that patent against Netlist’s JEDEC-compliant HyperCloud® product by seeking a preliminary injunction against Netlist based on the patent, which was denied by the Eastern District Court, and made deceptive statements to the public about its lawsuit against Netlist. Netlist’s complaint also alleges trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement against Diablo, claiming that Diablo misused Netlist trade secrets to create the ULLtraDIMM product for Smart Storage (now SanDisk), and that Diablo used Netlist’s HyperCloud® technology to create competing products.

 

On the same day Netlist filed its amended complaint, Smart Modular and Diablo each filed a complaint in the San Francisco Division of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California (“Northern District Court”), seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents asserted in the Netlist’s amended complaint. On September 9, 2013, Netlist filed a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer these declaratory judgment complaints to the Central District Court. This motion was denied by the Northern District Court on October 10, 2013.

 

In the Central District Court, Smart Modular and Smart Worldwide filed motions on September 13, 2013, to dismiss or sever various counts related to the ‘295 patent. On September 26, 2013, Diablo filed a motion to dismiss Netlist’s claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and unfair competition. On October 29, 2013, Smart Modular and Diablo filed motions to dismiss or transfer the patent claims related to the ULLtraDIMM memory module. On November 26, 2013, the Central District Court: (i) severed and transferred the claims related to the ‘295 patent to the Eastern District Court, which were stayed by the Eastern District Court on March 7, 2014, along with the other ‘295 related claims pending results of the ‘295 reexamination; (ii) severed and transferred to the Northern District Court the patent claims related to the ULLtraDIMM memory module; (iii) issued an order to show cause why the remaining claims should not also be transferred to the Northern District Court; and (iv) held in abeyance Diablo’s pending motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties filed briefs in response to the order to show cause, and then on December 23, 2013, the Central District Court ordered the remaining claims to be transferred to the Northern District Court. All of the claims from the amended complaint filed on August 23, 2013, in the Central District Court have now been transferred to either the Northern District Court or the Eastern District Court.

 

As reported in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 13, 2013, Netlist received a whistleblower letter postmarked from Canada (where Diablo is based) on November 13, 2013, and obviously written by a current or former Diablo employee. The letter begins by bluntly stating that Diablo stole Netlist’s architecture and design, and goes on to explain that Diablo used Netlist’s HyperCloud product to create the ULLtraDIMM product, which it then used in demonstrations to major customers including IBM and Hewlett-Packard. The letter further states that Diablo’s management conspired to hide this theft by instructing its employees not to speak to customers about the fact that

Netlist’s product was incorporated into ULLtraDIMM. The letter includes diagrams showing how Diablo implemented the theft of Netlist’s trade secrets, as well as the names of former Diablo employees, customers and suppliers who can verify the theft. The Current Report on Form 8-K included as an exhibit a partially redacted copy of the whistleblower letter. On December 13, 2013, Diablo filed an ex parte application in the Northern District Court requesting that the Court issue an order to show cause why Netlist should not be sanctioned for attaching the redacted copy of the whistleblower letter to the Current Report on Form 8-K. The Northern District Court heard the parties’ arguments on December 16, 2013, and on January 3, 2014, issued an order denying Diablo’s application for sanctions, finding that Diablo had not established a basis for finding the information in the Current Report on Form 8-K and its attachments “confidential” and therefore had not shown why it should be granted the relief sought.

 

On January 21, 2014, Netlist filed a motion for leave to file a second amended answer and counterclaims in the Northern District Court to assert two additional patents, bringing the total to seven patents asserted against the ULLtraDIMM. Diablo did not oppose Netlist’s motion, and the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order on February 3, 2014, requesting an additional two months be added to the case schedule to account for the additional patents. On February 5, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion to add the two patents and entered a new case schedule.  On February 12, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing Smart Modular without prejudice.  On April 7, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in the patent case.

 

On March 21, 2014, Netlist filed a Second Amended Complaint against Diablo in the Northern District Court, Case No. 4:13-CV-05962 (the “trade secret case”), alleging, among other things, that in stealing Netlist’s proprietary HyperCloud and DxD and LRD technologies, Diablo breached its contracts with Netlist, committed trademark violations, and misappropriated Netlist’s trade secrets.  Also on March 21, 2014, Netlist served Diablo with its Amended Trade Secret Disclosure, detailing approximately 60 trade secrets Netlist taught to Diablo in connection with the contracted and confidential work on the HyperCloud project.  On April 9, 2014, Diablo filed a motion to dismiss Netlist’s Second Amended Trade Secret Complaint, as well as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  That motion was heard by the Northern District Court on May 13, 2014, and on September 4, 2014, denied the motion with respect to all grounds except one, which Netlist did not contest.

 

On April 1, 2014, the Northern District Court denied Diablo’s motion to strike Netlist’s infringement contentions, finding that Netlist’s contentions did indeed satisfy the relevant requirements and, on April 7, 2014, granted Netlist’s motion to compel defendants to produce certain discovery materials related to the ULLtraDIMM.  Diablo filed a motion for relief from these two rulings, which was denied on April 8, 2014.  Also on April 7, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion for issuance of Letters Rogatory to the Canadian courts requesting that summons be issued for two former Diablo employees living in Canada and named in the whistleblower letter to produce documents and to be deposed.  These depositions occurred in late August 2014.

 

On April 8, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion to consolidate the patent related cases (Case Nos. 4:13-CV-05889-YGR and 4:13-CV-03901-YGR) and to coordinate discovery with the trade secret case (4:13-CV-05962-YGR), and denied Diablo’s motion to further consolidate the patent and trade secret cases.  On April 15, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing Smart Worldwide without prejudice.  On April 30, 2014, the Northern District Court denied Diablo’s request that Netlist’s Amended Trade Secret Disclosure and exhibits thereto be re-designated as “Confidential” from the current designation of “Highly Confidential --Attorneys’ Eyes Only”.

 

Between June 18, 2014 and June 24, 2014, SanDisk filed petitions in the USPTO requesting Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the five Netlist patents asserted in the August 23, 2013 amended complaint.  Diablo similarly filed petitions requesting IPR of the two Netlist patents added in the second amended answer filed on January 21, 2014.  Netlist filed patent owner preliminary responses to all of the petitions associated with the seven asserted Netlist patents.  The USPTO issued decisions on the petitions in December, 2014, denying the petitions in their entirety as to three patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,516,187; 8,301,833; 8,516,185), granting a partial institution on one patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,001,434), and instituting a review of all claims in three patents  (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,150; 8,081,536; 8,359,501).  Reviews will therefore proceed related to four Netlist patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,001,434; 7,881,150; 8,081,536; 8,359,501) in accordance with established procedures.  On April 7, 2015, SanDisk filed additional petitions in the

USPTO requesting IPR of the ‘150 and ‘536 patents that were already under review.  On October 8, 2015, the USPTO issued decisions on the additional petitions, instituting reviews of the ‘150 and ‘536 patents.  On December 14, 2015, the PTAB issued decisions in the first wave of reviews of the ‘434 and ‘501 patents, finding that certain of the challenged claims in the ‘434 and ‘501 patents were valid, and that others were not.  On the same day, the PTAB also issued decisions on the first wave of reviews of the ‘150 and ‘536 patents, finding all of the challenged claims invalid.  On April 27, 2016, the PTAB denied SanDisk’s request for rehearing as to the ‘434 patent, and granted SanDisk’s request for rehearing as to two claims of the ‘501 patent.  An oral hearing was conducted on June 28, 2016, in the second wave of reviews of the ‘150 and ‘536 patents, and on July 1, 2016, the PTAB requested the parties to file post-hearing briefs.  Decisions in the second wave of the ‘150 and ‘536 patent reviews were issued on September 28, 2016.  Netlist and the petitioners will have an opportunity to appeal all of these decisions to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in accordance with established procedures.

 

On August 23, 2014, Smart Modular also filed petitions in the USPTO requesting IPR of the five Netlist patents asserted in the August 23, 2013 amended complaint.  Netlist filed patent owner preliminary responses to all of the Smart Modular petitions in December, 2014.  On March 13, 2015, the USPTO issued decisions on the Smart Modular petitions, denying the petitions in their entirety as to the same three patents that survived the petitions filed by SanDisk in June, 2014 (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,516,187; 8,301,833; 8,516,185), and instituted additional reviews of the two other patents already under review (U.S. Patent No. 8,001,434; 8,359,501). On March 9, 2016, the PTAB issued decisions on the additional reviews of the ‘434 and ‘501 patents, finding that certain of the challenged claims were valid, and that others were not.  Netlist and Smart Modular have appealed these decisions to the Federal Circuit in accordance with established procedures.

 

SanDisk filed a motion on June 24, 2014, to stay the Northern District patent cases pending completion of the IPRs (Diablo later joined this motion).  Netlist filed its opposition to the motion to stay on July 10, 2014.  The Northern District Court heard oral arguments on the motion to stay in early August 2014, and issued an order on August 21, 2014, denying the motion without prejudice.  SanDisk renewed its motion to stay on January 20, 2015 and on April 9, 2015, the Court granted the motion for a stay pending resolution of the IPRs. 

 

On October 6, 2014, Netlist filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the Northern District Court trade secret suit, asking that Diablo and its partner SanDisk be immediately enjoined from any further manufacture or sale of the ULLtraDIMM module.  The Court granted in part Netlist’s motion on January 6, 2015, and entered a preliminary injunction halting the manufacture, use, sale, or distribution of the Diablo Rush and Bolt chips and any ULLtraDIMM module containing those chips, and advanced the trial date to March 9, 2015 on the trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other related claims (4:13-CV-05962-YGR).  SanDisk and Diablo filed motions with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the January 6, 2015, preliminary injunction and asking for expedited briefing and a stay of the preliminary injunction during the pendency of the appeals.  The Federal Circuit denied both requests for expedited briefing, denied Diablo’s request for a stay, but granted SanDisk’s narrower request for a stay of the preliminary injunction as to SanDisk’s existing inventory of enjoined products.

 

The trial commenced on schedule and continued for two weeks, with closing arguments on March 23, 2015.   On March 25, 2015, the jury came back with a verdict finding for the defendant on the breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secret and inventorship counts, while finding for Netlist on the trademark and false advertising counts. After the verdict, the court ordered briefing to determine the effect of the jury verdict on the preliminary injunction entered on January 6, 2015, and following oral argument on April 24, 2015, issued an order dissolving the preliminary injunction.  The court further issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Netlist’s unfair competition claims granting no relief under the statute based on the jury’s verdict.  The parties briefed their post-trial motions in May and June of 2015, including Netlist’s motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”) to reverse the jury’s verdict as to breach of contract and for a new trial on misappropriation of trade secrets.  Oral arguments on the post-trial motions were heard by the court on July 8, 2015.  On September 1, 2015, the Court denied motions from both parties for JMOL, Netlist’s motion for a new trial, and Diablo’s motion for attorney’s fees, but granted Diablo’s motion to recover on the preliminary injunction a $900,000 bond posted early in the litigation and its bill of costs. This expense is included in other expense, net in the accompanying consolidated statements of operation for the year ended January 2, 2016. On September 29, 2015, Netlist filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit and on December 8, 2015, filed an

Opening Brief and on March 14, 2016, filed its Reply Brief.   The Federal Circuit issued a decision on July 11, 2016, affirming the decision of the lower court. 

 

‘386 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in May 2010, Google requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘386 patent by the USPTO. In October 2010, Smart Modular requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘386 patent. The reexaminations requested by Google and Smart Modular were merged by the USPTO into a single proceeding. In April 2011, a Non-Final Action was issued by the USPTO, rejecting all claims in the patent. In July 2011, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims in view of cited references. Both Google and Smart Modular filed their comments to the Company’s response in October 2011. In October 2012, the USPTO issued an ACP rejecting all 60 claims. The Company filed a response to the ACP on December 3, 2012. On June 21, 2013, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice (“RAN”) in which the examiner maintained his rejection of the claims. Netlist filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013. Google filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 2, 2013, and a cross-appeal brief on October 1, 2013. The Company filed an appeal brief and an amendment canceling some of the remaining claims on October 2, 2013 to further focus the issues on appeal. On February 24, 2014, the examiner entered the amendment canceling claims, withdrew the rejections related to those claims, but otherwise maintained the positions previously set forth in the RAN.  On September 24, 2014, the USPTO set a hearing date of November 19, 2014.  After the hearing, on February 25, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the examiner’s rejections of the pending claims.  The Company requested rehearing of the PTAB’s decision on March 25, 2015.  On August 27, 2015, the PTAB denied the Company’s request for rehearing.   Netlist appealed to the Federal Circuit on October 26, 2015.  The appeal was dismissed on January 28, 2016 by Netlist.  Thus, the reexamination of the ‘386 patent terminated in accordance with established procedures for merged reexamination proceedings with the cancellation of the original claims.

 

‘912 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in April 2010, Inphi requested but was later denied an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted a new request and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. In September 2010, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of all fifty-one claims of the ‘912 patent. In October 2010, Google and Smart Modular each filed and were later granted requests for reexamination of the ‘912 patent. In February 2011, the USPTO merged the Inphi, Google and Smart Modular ‘912 reexaminations into a single proceeding. In an April 2011 Non-Final Action in the merged reexamination proceeding, the USPTO rejected claims 1-20 and 22-51 and confirmed the patentability of claim 21 of the ‘912 patent. In July 2011, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi, Google, and Smart Modular filed their comments on the Company’s response in August 2011. In October 2011, the USPTO mailed a second Non-Final Action confirming the patentability of twenty claims of the ‘912 patent, including claims that were added in the reexamination process. In January 2012, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Google, Inphi and Smart Modular filed their comments to the Company’s response in February 2012. The USPTO determined that Smart Modular’s comments were defective, and issued a notice to Smart Modular to rectify and resubmit its comments. Smart Modular filed corrected comments and a petition for the USPTO to withdraw the notice in March 2012. The USPTO issued a non-final Office Action on November 13, 2012 maintaining the patentability of many key claims while rejecting some claims that were previously determined to be patentable. The Company filed a response to the Office Action on January 14, 2013. The requesters filed their comments on February 13, 2013.  On March 21, 2014, the USPTO issued an ACP, confirming the patentability of 92 claims and maintaining the rejection of 11 other claims.  On June 18, 2014, the USPTO issued a RAN, maintaining the substantive positions taken by the examiner in the ACP.  Smart Modular, Inphi and Google filed notices of appeal on July 16, July 18 and July 18, 2014, respectively.  Netlist filed a notice of cross-appeal on July 30, 2014.  Smart Modular, Inphi and Google filed their respective appeal briefs on September 16, September 30 and September 30, 2014.  Netlist filed its cross-appeal brief on September 30, 2014.  On January 14, 2015, the examiner maintained his positions previously set forth in the RAN.  The parties filed respective rebuttal briefs in February 2015.  On September 29, 2015, the PTAB set a hearing date for November 24, 2015 on the parties’ appeals.  The hearing was conducted on November 24, 2015.  On May 31, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming certain of the examiner’s decisions and reversing others.  Thus, the reexamination of

the ‘912 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for merged reexamination proceedings.

 

‘627 Patent Reexamination

 

In September 2011, Smart Modular filed a request for reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,627 (“the ‘627 patent”) issued to the Company on January 4, 2011. The ‘627 patent is related to the ‘912 patent. In November 2011, the USPTO granted Smart Modular’s request for reexamination of the ‘627 patent and concurrently issued a Non-Final Action confirming the patentability of three claims. In February 2012, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Smart Modular filed its comments to the Company’s response in March 2012. The USPTO determined that Smart Modular’s comments were defective and issued a notice in April 2012 to Smart Modular to rectify and resubmit its comments. Smart Modular filed corrected comments and a petition for the USPTO to withdraw the notice in April 2012. The USPTO posted an Office Action on December 19, 2012, confirming one claim and rejecting the rest of the claims in the ‘627 patent. The Company filed a response to the Office Action on March 19, 2013. Smart Modular filed its comments on the Office Action on April 24, 2013. The USPTO issued another Non-Final Office Action on September 26, 2013, withdrawing certain rejections while adopting new rejections for certain of the pending claims. The Company responded to the Non-Final Office Action on November 26, 2013, by amending some of the claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. On March 27, 2014, the USPTO issued an ACP, maintaining the claim rejections.  On June 27, 2014, the USPTO issued a RAN, maintaining the substantive positions taken by the examiner in the ACP.  Netlist filed a notice of appeal on July 28, 2014.  On October 14, 2014, the Company filed its appeal brief and, on November 13, 2014, Smart Modular filed its respondent’s brief.  On April 27, 2015, the USPTO issued an Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief in which the examiner continued to maintain the substantive positions taken previously.  On May 27, 2015, the Company filed a Patent Owner Rebuttal Brief in response to the Examiner’s Answer.    On October 9, 2015, the PTAB set a hearing date for December 11, 2015 on the Company’s appeal.  The hearing was conducted on November 24, 2015.  On May 31, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the decisions of the examiner.  Thus, the reexamination of the ‘627 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures.

   

‘537 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in April 2010, Inphi requested and was later denied an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘537 patent by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted a new request and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘537 patent by the USPTO. In September 2010, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Action confirming the patentability of four claims. In October 2010, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi filed its comments on the Company’s response in January 2011. In June 2011, the USPTO issued an ACP, which reconfirmed the patentability of the four claims. In August 2010, the Company responded by amending some of the claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi filed its comments to the Company’s response in September 2011. The USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice in February 2012, in which the claim rejections were withdrawn, thus confirming the patentability of all 60 claims in view of all the previously submitted comments by both Inphi and the Company. Inphi filed a notice of appeal in March 2012 followed by an appeal brief in May 2012. In response, the USPTO issued a Notice of Defective Appeal Brief. Inphi filed a corrective appeal brief in late May 2012, and the Company filed its reply brief to the corrected Inphi appeal brief in early July 2012. The examiner responded to Inphi’s corrected appeal brief as well as the Company’s reply brief by Examiner’s Answer on April 16, 2013, in which he maintained his position confirming all sixty (60) claims. Inphi filed a rebuttal brief on May 16, 2013. Netlist filed a request for oral hearing on June 14, 2013. The Company and the examiner jointly defended the ‘537 patent in a hearing on November 20, 2013 before the PTAB. On January 16, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision upholding the validity of all 60 claims, dismissing every single validity challenge raised by Inphi and affirming the examiner’s decision to allow the claims. On August 13, 2014, the PTAB denied Inphi’s request for rehearing and made its decision final for judicial review to the Federal Circuit.  On October 15, 2014, Inphi filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit.  On February 3, 2015, Inphi filed an appellant’s brief in its appeal to the Federal Circuit.  The Company filed its appellee’s brief on May 18, 2015, and Inphi filed a reply brief on June 4, 2015.  On October 9, 2015, the Federal Circuit conducted a hearing on Inphi’s appeal.  On November 13, 2015, a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of Netlist in a precedential decision.  Inphi petitioned for

panel rehearing and en banc rehearing on December 14, 2015.  Both petitions were denied on January 22, 2016.  Inphi has not pursued any further appeals in this matter. 

 

‘274 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in April 2010, Inphi requested and was later denied an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘274 patent by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted a new request and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘274 patent by the USPTO. In September 2011, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Action, confirming the patentability of six claims. The Company has responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi filed its comments on the Company’s response in November 2011. The USPTO issued an ACP in March 2012, which confirmed the patentability of one hundred and four (104) claims in view of all the previously submitted comments by both Inphi and the Company. The USPTO subsequently issued a RAN in June 2012. This RAN triggered Inphi’s right as the losing party to file a notice of appeal and corresponding appeal brief, which Inphi filed when due. The Company responded to Inphi’s appeal brief by filing a reply brief in October 2012. The examiner responded to Inphi’s appeal brief and the reply brief by Examiner’s Answer on April 16, 2013, in which he maintained his position confirming the one hundred and four (104) claims. Inphi filed a rebuttal brief on May 16, 2013. Netlist filed a request for oral hearing on June 14, 2013. The Company and the USPTO examiner jointly defended the ‘274 patent in a hearing on November 20, 2013 before the PTAB, in accordance with established procedures for Inter Partes Reexamination. On January 16, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the examiner in part, but reversing the examiner on new grounds and rejecting the one hundred and four (104) claims.  On March 28, 2014, Netlist filed a Patent Owner’s Response Requesting to Reopen Prosecution along with certain claim amendments and arguments.  On June 26, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision granting-in-part Inphi’s request to modify the January 16, 2014, decision as to two of the rejected claims. On June 15, 2015, the USPTO issued an Examiner’s Determination, rejecting the amended claims.  On July 8, 2015, the USPTO vacated sua sponte the June 15 Examiner’s Determination.  On September 11, 2015, the examiner issued a new Examiner’s Determination which rejected the amended claims based on multiple grounds.  On October 13, 2015, the Company filed a response to the Examiner’s Determination.  The reexamination of the ‘274 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for Inter Partes Reexamination.

 

SK hynix Litigation

 

On September 1, 2016, Netlist filed legal proceedings for patent infringement against SK hynix Inc., a South Korean memory semiconductor supplier ("SK hynix"), in the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“CDCA”). The proceedings were based on the alleged infringement by SK hynix registered dual in-line memory module (“RDIMM”) and LRDIMM enterprise memory products of the following six Netlist patents: United States Patent Nos. 8,756,364, 8,516,185, 8,001,434, 8,359,501, 8,689,064, and 8,489,837. In the ITC proceedings, the Company is seeking an exclusion order that directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop allegedly infringing SK hynix RDIMM and LRDIMM products from entering the United States. In the CDCA proceedings, the Company is primarily seeking damages.

 

On October 3, 2016, the ITC instituted an investigation of the unfair trade practices of SK hynix related to its importation, sale for importation, and/or sale after importation of RDIMM and LRDIMM enterprise memory products.  The ITC will determine over the course of the investigation whether these SK hynix products should be banned from importation into the United States by reason of infringement of the six Netlist patents.  The ITC investigation will proceed against SK hynix and its wholly owned subsidiaries SK hynix America Inc. and SK hynix memory solutions Inc.  ITC investigations proceed on an expedited basis.  On November 14, 2016, the ITC set trial for the week of May 8, 2017, with a final initial determination to be issued no later than October 10, 2017, and the target date for a final determination no later than February 7, 2018.

 

On October 5, 2016, SK hynix filed a motion in the CDCA to disqualify Netlist’s litigation counsel.  SK hynix later filed a similar motion in the ITC on October 28, 2016.  Netlist has opposed both motions.

 

Other Legal Matters

 

On March 31, 2016, Morgan Joseph Triartisan LLC (“Morgan Joseph”) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Netlist and certain of its officers for breach of contract and related causes of action.  The complaint alleges that Netlist refused to honor its payment obligations under a written agreement with Morgan Joseph related to the provision of financial advisory and investment banking services.  Morgan Joseph is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $1,012,500, plus punitive damages in an amount not less than $1 million, together with pre-judgment interest, costs, and fees. Netlist believes that the claims are without merit and unsupported by the facts or law and will respond in due course in accordance with established procedures.

 

Other Contingent Obligations

 

During the normal course of its business, the Company has made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include: (i) intellectual property indemnities to the Company’s customers and licensees in connection with the use, sales and/or license of Company products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on the Company’s negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to directors and officers of the Company to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities to SVIC and SVB pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the applicable loan documents; and (vi) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, may be indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments the Company could be obligated to make. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.  

 

 

Note 8—Stockholders’ Equity

 

Serial Preferred Stock

 

The Company’s authorized capital stock includes 10,000,000 shares of serial preferred stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share. No shares of preferred stock were outstanding at October 1, 2016 or January 2, 2016.

 

Common Stock

 

On September 23, 2016, the Company completed the 2016 Offering, pursuant to which it sold 9,200,000 shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $1.25 per share.  The net proceeds to the Company from the 2016 Offering were approximately $10.3 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses paid or payable by the Company.

 

Stock-Based Compensation

 

The Company has stock-based compensation awards outstanding pursuant to the Amended and Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2000 Plan”) and the Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as re-approved by the Company’s stockholders on June 8, 2016 (the “Amended 2006 Plan”), under which a variety of stock-based awards, including stock options, may be granted to employees and non-employee service providers of the Company. Further grants under the 2000 Plan were suspended upon the adoption of the 2006 Plan. In addition to awards made pursuant to the Amended 2006 Plan, the Company periodically issues inducement awards granted outside the Amended 2006 Plan to certain new hires.