NLST Netlist Inc (QB)

 

 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

(Mark One)

 

 

For the quarterly period ended September 26, 2015

 

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

50,354,363 shares outstanding at October 31, 2015

 

 

 

 

 

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2015

 

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

September 26, 2015

 

 

Note 1—Description of Business

 

Netlist, Inc. (the “Company” or “Netlist”) designs and manufactures a wide variety of high performance, logic-based memory subsystems for the global datacenter, storage and high-performance computing and communications markets. The Company’s memory subsystems consist of combinations of dynamic random access memory integrated circuits (“DRAM ICs” or “DRAM”), NAND flash memory (“NAND flash”), application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”) and other components assembled on printed circuit boards (“PCBs”). Netlist primarily markets and sells its products to leading original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) customers, hyperscale datacenter operators and storage vendors. The Company’s solutions are targeted at applications where memory plays a key role in meeting system performance requirements. The Company leverages a portfolio of proprietary technologies and design techniques, including efficient planar design, alternative packaging techniques and custom semiconductor logic, to deliver memory subsystems with high memory density, small form factor, high signal integrity, attractive thermal characteristics, reduced power consumption and low cost per bit. Our NVvault™ product is the first to offer both DRAM and NAND flash in a standard form factor memory subsystem as a persistent DIMM in mission critical applications.

 

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 $16.2 million and $9.6 million for the nine months ended September 26, 2015 and September 27, 2014, respectively.  The Company also used cash in operations of approximately $9.5 million and $3.4 million for the nine months ended September 26, 2015 and September 27, 2014, respectively.

 

On February 24, 2015, the Company completed a registered firm commitment underwritten public offering (the “2015 Offering”) of shares of the Company’s common stock. In the 2015 Offering, the Company issued and sold to the underwriter (“Underwriter”)  8,846,154 shares of common stock pursuant to an underwriting agreement, dated as of February 19, 2015, by and between the Company and the Underwriter, at a price of $1.209 per share, including 1,153,846 shares resulting from the Underwriter’s exercise in full of its option to purchase additional shares of Common Stock to cover over-allotments. The price per share to the public in the 2015 Offering was $1.30 per share. The net proceeds from the 2015 Offering were approximately $10.5 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

 

We believe that our existing cash resources, taking into account certain planned activities, are sufficient to meet our anticipated needs during the next twelve months. However, our estimates of our operating expenses and working capital requirements could be incorrect, and we may use our cash resources faster than we presently anticipate. Further, some or all of our ongoing or planned activities may not be successful and could result in further losses. In addition, irrespective of our cash resources, we may be contractually or legally obligated to make certain cash outlays which cannot be postponed.

We plan to increase our liquidity and capital resources by one or more measures, to the extent necessary. Our plans include, but are not limited to, the following: reducing operating expenses; restructuring our balance sheet by negotiating with creditors and vendors; entering into strategic partnerships or alliances; obtaining financing through the issuance of equity, debt, or convertible securities; and working to increase revenue growth through new product sales. If we issue equity, debt or convertible securities to raise additional funds, our existing stockholders may experience dilution, and the new equity, debt or convertible securities may have rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of our existing stockholders. There is no guarantee that we would be able to obtain capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

If we are unable to obtain sufficient capital, it would have a material adverse effect on our business and operations. It could cause us to fail to execute our business plan, fail to take advantage of future opportunities, or fail to respond to competitive pressures or customer requirements. It also may require us to significantly modify our business model and operations to reduce spending to a sustainable level, which may include delaying, scaling back or eliminating some or all of our ongoing and planned investments in corporate infrastructure, research and development projects, regulatory submissions, business development initiatives, and sales and marketing activities, among other investments. If adequate funds are not available when needed, we may be required to reduce or cease operations altogether.    The financial statements do not include any adjustment relating to recoverability or classification of recorded assets and classification of recorded liabilities.

 

Reclassifications

 

Intellectual property legal fees for the three and nine months ended September 27, 2014 are now reported under their own caption, separate from research and development expenses, in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three and nine months ended September 27, 2014, in order to conform to the current period presentation. In addition, other assets are now combined with prepaids and other current assets, in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months ended September 27, 2014, in order to conform to the current period presentation.

 

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 (the “U.S.”) 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 U.S. 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 December 27, 2014, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 27, 2015.

 

The condensed consolidated financial statements included herein as of September 26, 2015 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 September 26, 2015 and the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 26, 2015 and September 27, 2014 and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine months ended September 26, 2015 and September 27, 2014.   The results of operations for the nine months ended September 26, 2015 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 fiscal 2015, the Company’s fiscal year is scheduled to end on January 2, 2016 and will consist of 53 weeks. Each of the Company’s first three quarters in a fiscal year is comprised of 13 weeks.

 

Use of Estimates

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of net sales 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, stock-based transactions and realization of deferred tax assets. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience, knowledge of current conditions and our beliefs of what could occur in the future considering available information.  The Company reviews its estimates on an on-going basis. The actual results experienced by the Company may differ materially and adversely from its estimates. To the extent there are material differences between the estimates and the actual results, future results of operations will be affected.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

The Company’s revenues primarily consist of product sales of high-performance memory subsystems to OEMs, hyperscale data center operators and storage vendors.

 

The Company recognizes revenues in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 605.  Accordingly, the Company recognizes revenues when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, product delivery and acceptance have occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility 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 FOB Shipping Point terms and upon receipt for customers with FOB 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 collectibility 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.

 

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 $700,000, as of September 26, 2015, consists of cash to secure three standby letters of credits.  

 

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. At September 26, 2015 and December 27, 2014 the Company had an allowance for doubtful accounts of $61,000.

 

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.

 

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

 

Costs incurred to issue debt are deferred and included in other assets 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 the relative fair value of any warrants issued in conjunction with the debt 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.

 

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.

 

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

 

The Company evaluates the recoverability of the carrying value of long-lived assets held and used by the Company 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. 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 September 26, 2015. There can be no assurance, however, that market conditions will not change or demand for the Company’s products will continue, which could result in future impairment of long-lived assets.

 

Warranty Reserve

 

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 component 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 our 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 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 items, unusual or infrequently occurring, 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.

 

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 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 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 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 United States Patent and Trademark Office (“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. 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 ASIC and field-programmable gate array (“FPGA”) devices, including the HyperCloud® and HyperVault 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. 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 flash required to create the HyperCloud® memory subsystem and NVvault products.  As of September 26, 2015, 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 that may subject the Company to uncertainties or certain regulatory policies, (iii) changes in other 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 subsidiaries in the PRC exceeded its assets as of September 26, 2015 and December 27, 2014. 

 

Foreign Currency Remeasurement

 

The functional currency of the Company’s foreign subsidiary 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 September 26, 2015 or September 27, 2014.

 

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 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 of the adoption of AUS 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 is currently assessing this guidance for future implementation.

 

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03, Interest - Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs ("ASU 2015-03"). The amendments in ASU 2015-03 require that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. ASU 2015-03 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2015. The amendments in this update should be applied on a retrospective basis, wherein the balance sheet of each individual period presented should be adjusted to reflect the period-specific effects of applying the new guidance. Upon transition, an entity is required to comply with the applicable disclosures for a change in an accounting principle. These disclosures include the nature of and reason for the change in accounting principle, the transition method, a description of the prior-period information that has been retrospectively adjusted, and the effect of the change on the financial statement line items (that is, debt issuance cost asset and the debt liability). The Company is currently assessing this guidance for future implementation.

 

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 U.S. GAAP with the measurement of inventory in International Financial Reporting. 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.

 

 

Note 3—Supplemental Financial Information

 

Inventories

 

Inventories consist of the following (in thousands):

 

 

Warranty Liabilities

 

The following table summarizes the activity related to the 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 reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic and diluted net loss per share (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

The following table 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 then ended (in thousands):

 

 

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

 

Major Customers

 

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

 

 

 

 

The Company’s accounts receivable as of September 26, 2015 were concentrated with two customers, representing approximately 40% and 16%  of aggregate gross receivables. At December 27, 2014,  three customers represented approximately 13%,  49% and 11% of aggregate gross receivables. A significant reduction in sales to, or the inability to collect receivables from a significant customer 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 Agreements

 

Silicon Valley Credit Agreement

 

On October 31, 2009, the Company entered into a credit agreement with Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”), which was amended on April 23, 2015 (as amended, the “SVB Credit Agreement”). Currently, the SVB Credit Agreement provides that the Company can borrow up to the lesser of (i) 80% of eligible accounts receivable, or (ii) $5.0 million.

 

On July 18, 2013, the Company and SVB entered into a loan amendment (“SVB Amendment”) to the Company’s loan and security agreement with SVB.  Pursuant to the SVB Amendment, SVB allowed for the financing and security interests contemplated under the loan agreement entered into with Fortress (as defined below) 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.  Additionally, pursuant to the SVB Amendment, advances under the revolving line now accrue interest at a rate equal to SVB’s most recently announced “prime rate” plus 2.75%.  The SVB Amendment also relaxed the Company’s tangible net worth covenant under the SVB Credit Agreement.  Certain reporting requirements under the SVB Credit Agreement were modified while certain reserves with respect to the borrowing base and the availability of revolving loans were removed pursuant to the SVB Amendment. Under the terms of the SVB Credit Agreement, the Company may draw revolving advances in an aggregate outstanding principal amount of up to the lesser of $5 million or the available borrowing base, subject to reserve amounts.  The Company’s borrowing base under the SVB Credit Agreement is subject to certain adjustments and up to the lesser of 80% of eligible accounts receivable, or (ii) $5.0 million.    

 

SVB Credit Agreement requires letters of credit to be secured by cash, which is classified as restricted cash in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. At September 26, 2015, letters of credit in the amount of $700,000 were outstanding. 

 

The following tables present details of interest expense related to borrowings on the line of credit with SVB, along with availability under our credit line with SVB (in thousands):

 

 

The following table presents details of the Company’s available borrowings under our line of credit with SVB (in thousands):

 

 

All obligations under the SVB Credit Agreement are secured by a first priority lien on the Company’s tangible and intangible assets, other than its intellectual property, which is subject to a first priority lien held by Fortress Credit Opportunities I, LP, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group, LLC (“Fortress”) and successor to DBD Credit Funding, LLC. The SVB Credit Agreement subjects the Company to certain affirmative and negative covenants, including financial covenants with respect to the Company’s liquidity and tangible net worth and restrictions on the payment of dividends.    On April 23, 2015, the SVB Credit Agreement was amended to modify the tangible net worth covenant effective as of February 1, 2015.  On October 21, 2015 SVB further amended the Loan and Security Agreement extending the revolving line maturity date to January 31, 2016 and agreeing to forbear on any defaults or anticipated defaults on the tangible net worth and quick ratio loan covenants through until the date (the "Forbearance Termination Date") which is the earliest to occur of (a) January 31, 2016, (b) the failure after the date hereof of the Company to

comply with any of the terms or undertakings of this agreement, (c) the occurrence after the date hereof of any event of default, as defined and (d) the date that the Company joins in, assists, cooperates, or participates as an adverse party or adverse witness in any suit or other proceeding against SVB relating to the obligations in connection with or related to any of the transactions contemplated by any of the other loan documents.

 

Fortress Credit Opportunities I LP Loan and Security Agreement and Related Agreements

 

On July 18, 2013, the Company, entered into a loan agreement (as amended, “Loan Agreement”) with Fortress, providing for up to $10 million in term loans and up to $5 million in revolving loans.  The term loans are available in an initial $6 million tranche (the “Initial Term Loan”) with a second tranche in the amount of $4 million becoming available upon achievement of certain performance milestones relating to intellectual property matters (the “IP Monetization Milestones” and such second tranche loan, “IP Milestone Term Loan”). The $5 million in revolving loans are available at Fortress’s discretion and subject to customary conditions precedent.  The $6 million Initial Term Loan was fully drawn at closing on July 18, 2013. Proceeds from the Initial Term Loan were used in part to repay the Company’s existing Consolidated Term Loan with SVB. The remainder of such funds were used to fund the Company’s ongoing working capital needs.  On February 17, 2015,  the Loan Agreement was amended to accelerate the availability of the term loan and the Company borrowed the remaining $4 million in term loans.

 

The loans bear interest at a stated fixed rate of 11.0% per annum.  Until the last business day of February 2015, the payments on the term loans were interest-only at a cash rate of 7.0% per annum and a payment-in-kind deferred cash interest rate of 4.0%, which payment-in-kind interest is capitalized semi-annually, beginning with December 31, 2013.  Beginning with the last business day of February 2015, the term loans were amortized with 65% of the principal amount due in equal monthly installments over the following seventeen (17) months with a balloon payment equal to 35% of the remaining principal amount of the term loans, plus accrued interest, being payable on July 18, 2016 (the "Maturity Date").  Term loan payments, of approximately $370,000,  including the $4 million borrowed on February 17, 2015, are due monthly through June 18, 2016, with the remaining amount of approximately $4.3 million due on July 18, 2016.

 

The Company’s obligations under the Loan Agreement are secured by a first-priority security interest in the Company’s intellectual property assets (other than certain patents and related assets relating to the NVvault™ product line) pursuant to an intellectual property security agreement with  (the “IP Security Agreement”) and a second-priority security interest in substantially all of the Company’s other assets.

 

In connection with the Loan Agreement, the Company paid certain facility, due diligence and legal fees of Fortress on the closing date and was obligated to pay a conditional facility fee upon satisfaction of the IP Monetization Milestones.  In connection with the Loan Amendment, the Company paid a facility fee and an amendment and restructuring fee; the Company must also pay an annual management and monitoring fee.  The conditional facility fee due upon satisfaction of the IP Monetization Milestone was deemed fully earned pursuant to the Loan Agreement.

 

The Loan Agreement contains customary representations, warranties and indemnification provisions.  The Loan Agreement also contains affirmative and negative covenants that, among other things restrict the ability of the Company to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Loan Agreement also includes events of default, including, among other things, payment defaults, breaches of representations, warranties or covenants, certain bankruptcy events, the failure to maintain the Company’s listing on a nationally recognized securities exchange or alternatively for its shares to be qualified for trading on the OTC Bulletin Board and certain material adverse changes, including an impairment of the perfection or priority of the lender’s lien. Upon the occurrence of an event of default and following any applicable cure periods, a default interest rate of an additional 5.0% per annum may be applied to the outstanding loan balances, and Fortress may declare all outstanding obligations immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the Loan Agreement.

 

Concurrently with the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Company and Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP (“Drawbridge”) entered into a Monetization Letter Agreement (as amended, the “Letter Agreement”).  In connection with the amendment to the Loan Agreement, the Company also amended the Letter Agreement on February 17, 2015.  The Letter Agreement provides, among other things, that DBD may be entitled to share in certain monetization revenues that we may derive in the future related to our patent portfolio (the “Patent Portfolio”).  Monetization revenues subject to this arrangement include revenues recognized during the seven year term of the Letter Agreement from amounts (whether characterized as settlement payments, license fees, royalties, damages, or otherwise) actually paid to the Company or its subsidiaries in connection with any assertion of, agreement not to assert, or license of, the Patent Portfolio (in whole or in part) either (A) in consideration of the grant of a license or covenant not sue, or other immunity with respect to the Patent Portfolio, or (B) as a damages award with respect to such assertion of the Patent Portfolio, less certain legal fees and expenses (subject to a cap on such fees and expenses).  Monetization revenues also include the value attributable to the Patent Portfolio in any sale of the Company during the seven year term, subject to a maximum amount payable to Drawbridge.  The Letter Agreement also requires that the Company use commercially reasonable efforts to pursue opportunities to monetize the Patent Portfolio during the term of the Letter Agreement, provided the Company is under no obligation to pursue any such opportunities that it does not deem to be in its best interest.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these efforts, and it may expend resources in pursuit of monetization revenues that may not result in any benefit to the Company.

 

Concurrently with the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Company issued to an affiliate of DBD a seven-year warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase an aggregate of 1,648,351 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share. All warrants  are exercisable, as amended, immediately on a cash or cashless basis in whole or in part. In connection with the amendment to the Loan Agreement on February 17, 2015, the Company cancelled the Warrant and issued a new warrant in substantially the same form other than to remove the restrictions upon exercise contained in the Warrant with respect to an aggregate of 659,340 shares of the Company’s common stock thereunder relating to the achievement of the Company of the IP Monetization Milestones and the borrowing by the Company of amounts under the IP Milestone Term Loan. The Warrant was issued in a private placement transaction that was exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).

 

The Company accounted for the warrants as a debt discount and has valued them based on their relative fair value to the debt instrument, at approximately $1,215,000, to be amortized over the term of the debt instrument, or three years, using the effective interest method.  For the three and nine months ended September 26, 2015 and September 27, 2014, the Company amortized approximately $92,000,  $317,000, $123,000 and $366,000 respectively, as interest expense in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

 

Also in connection with the Loan Agreement, the Company agreed to pay to a consultant a consulting fee equal to (i) $300,000 to the consultant in connection with the Company’s receipt of the Initial Term Loan and (ii) 5% of any additional principal amount loaned to the Company as an IP Milestone Term Loan.  The initial $300,000 and $485,925 of additional debt financing costs has been recorded as debt issuance cost to be amortized over the term of the debt instrument, or three years, using the effective interest method.

 

In connection with the Loan Amendment on February 17, 2015, the Company modified its agreement with a consultant and agreed to pay a consulting fee of 3.5% of the $4,000,000 of additional principal loaned the Company. The amended consulting fee was equal to $140,000.  The amended consulting fee and $132,899 of additional debt financing costs has been recorded as debt issuance cost to be amortized over the term of the debt instrument, or seventeen months, using the effective interest method.

 

During the three and nine months September 26, 2015 and September 27, 2014, the Company amortized approximately $111,000,  $360,000,  $80,000 and $239,000 respectively, as interest expense in the condensed consolidated statements of operations relating to the consulting and other additional debt financing costs described above. 

 

Note 5— Debt

 

Debt consists of the following (in thousands):

 

 

Interest expense related to debt 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 September 26, 2015 and December 27, 2014. Accordingly, no benefit has been recognized for net deferred tax assets.

 

The Company does not have any unrecognized tax benefits as of September 26, 2015 and December 27, 2014.

 

Note 7—Commitments and Contingencies

 

Facility Lease

 

The Company leases office space located at 175 Technology Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, California, 92618. The lease payments range from approximately $9,000 to $10,000 per month over the term of the lease. This lease is valid through July 31, 2016. The annual payment for this space equates to approximately $111,000 per year.

 

Litigation and Patent Reexaminations

 

The Company owns numerous patents and continues to enlarge and strengthen its patent portfolios, which cover different aspects of the Company’s technology innovations with various claim scopes. The Company plans to generate revenue by selling or licensing its technology, and intends to vigorously enforce its patent rights against infringers of such rights. The Company 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 United States Patent and Trademark Office (“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. 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. Additionally, the outcome of pending litigation, and the 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 May 2008, the Company initiated discussions with Google, Inc. (“Google”) based on information and belief that Google had infringed on a U.S. patent owned by the Company, U.S. Patent No. 7,289,386 (“the ‘386 patent”), which relates generally to technologies to implement rank multiplication in memory modules. Preemptively, Google filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”), seeking a declaration that Google did not infringe the ‘386 patent and that the ‘386 patent was invalid. The Company filed a counterclaim for infringement of the ‘386 patent by Google. Claim construction proceedings were held in November 2009, and the Company prevailed on every disputed claim construction issue. In June 2010, the Company filed motions for summary judgment of patent infringement and dismissal of Google’s affirmative defenses. In May 2010, Google requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘386 patent by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. The Northern District Court granted Google’s request to stay the litigation pending result of the reexamination, and therefore has not ruled on the Company’s motions for summary judgment.

 

In December 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google in 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 is related to the ‘386 patent and 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. 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 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 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 HyperCloudTM 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 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 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 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 are already under review.  On October 8, 2015, the USPTO issued decisions on the additional petitions, instituting reviews of the ‘150 and ‘536 patents which will proceed 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) that will proceed 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, 2015, including Netlist’s motion 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 $900,000 bond posted early in the litigation and its bill of costs, this expense is included in other income (expense), net in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 26, 2015.  On September 29, 2015, Netlist filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit.  Netlist’s appeal will continue in accordance with established procedures.

 

‘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 can appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Thus, the reexamination of the ‘386 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for merged reexamination proceedings and judicial appeals therefrom.

 

‘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 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 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 sixty (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 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) at the USPTO. 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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”).  On October 15, 2014, Inphi filed a Notice of Appeal to the CAFC.  On February 3, 2015, Inphi filed an appellant’s brief in its appeal to the CAFC.  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 CAFC conducted a hearing on Inphi’s appeal.  The reexamination of the ‘537 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for Inter Partes Reexamination and judicial appeals therefrom.

 

‘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.

 

Other Contingent Obligations

 

During its normal course of 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 Fortress, and SVB pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the loan documents; and (vi) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities, and 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 consolidated balance sheets.  

 

Note 8—Stockholders’ Equity

 

Serial Preferred Stock

 

The Company’s authorized capital includes 10,000,000 shares of Serial Preferred Stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share. No shares of Serial Preferred Stock were outstanding at September 26, 2015 or December 27, 2014.

 

Common Stock

 

On February 24, 2015, the Company completed the 2015 Offering of shares of the Company’s common stock. In the 2015 Offering, the Company issued and sold to the underwriter (“Underwriter”) 8,846,154 shares of common stock pursuant to an underwriting agreement, dated as of February 19, 2015, by and between the Company and the Underwriter, at a price of $1.209 per share, including 1,153,846 shares resulting from the Underwriter’s exercise in full of its option to purchase additional shares of Common Stock to cover over-allotments. The price per share to the public in the 2015 Offering was $1.30 per share. The net proceeds from the 2015 Offering were approximately $10.5 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

 

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 (the “2006 Plan”), under which a variety of option and direct stock-based awards may be granted to employees and nonemployees 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 2006 Plan, the Company periodically issues inducement grants outside the 2006 Plan to certain new hires.

 

Subject to certain adjustments, as of September 26, 2015, the Company was authorized to issue a maximum of 9,005,556 shares of common stock pursuant to awards under the 2006 Plan. That maximum number will automatically

increase on the first day of each subsequent calendar year by the lesser of (i) 5.0% of the number of shares of common stock that are issued and outstanding as of the first day of the calendar year, and (ii) 1,200,000 shares of common stock, subject to adjustment for certain corporate actions. At September 26, 2015, the Company had 684,761 shares available for grant under the 2006 Plan.  Options granted under the 2000 Plan and the 2006 Plan primarily vest at a rate of at least 25% per year over four years and expire 10 years from the date of grant. Restricted stock awards vest in eight equal increments at intervals of approximately six months from the date of grant.

 

A summary of the Company’s common stock option activity for the nine months ended September 26, 2015 is presented below (shares in thousands):

 

 

The intrinsic value of options exercised in the nine months ended September 26, 2015 was $4,895.

 

A summary of the Company’s restricted stock awards as of and for the nine months ended September 26, 2015 is presented below (shares in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The following table presents details of the assumptions used to calculate the weighted-average grant date fair value of common stock options granted by the Company:

 

 

The fair value per share of restricted stock grants is calculated based on the fair value of the Company’s common stock on the respective grant dates.  The grant date fair value of restricted stock vested was $1,000 and $200,000 in the nine months ended September 26, 2015 and September 27, 2014, respectively.

 

At September 26, 2015, the amount of unearned stock-based compensation currently estimated to be expensed from fiscal 2015 through fiscal 2018 related to unvested common stock options is approximately $2.3 million, net of estimated forfeitures. The weighted-average period over which the unearned stock-based compensation is expected to be recognized is approximately 2.4 years. If there are any modifications or cancellations of the underlying unvested awards, the Company may be required to accelerate, increase or cancel any remaining unearned stock-based compensation expense.

 

 

Note 9—Segment and Geographic Information

 

The Company operates in one reportable segment, which is the design and manufacture of high-performance memory subsystems for the server, high-performance computing and communications markets. The Company evaluates financial performance on a Company-wide basis.

 

At September 26, 2015, the Company did not any have long-lived assets located in the PRC.  At December 27, 2014, approximately $0.2 million of the Company’s long-lived assets, net of depreciation and amortization, were located in the PRC. Substantially all other long-lived assets were located in the U.S.

 

Note 10—Subsequent Events

 

We have evaluated subsequent events through the filing date of this Form 10-Q, and have determined that other than discussed below, no subsequent events have occurred that would require recognition in the condensed consolidated financial statements or disclosure in the notes thereto, other than as discussed in the accompanying notes.

 

On October 21, 2015 SVB further amended the Loan and Security Agreement extending the revolving line maturity date to January 31, 2016 and agreeing to forbear on any defaults or anticipated defaults on the tangible net worth and quick ratio loan covenants through January 31, 2016 (see Note 4).