Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies Indemnifications In the normal course of business, we may enter into agreements that require us to indemnify either customers or suppliers for specific risks. While we cannot estimate our maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions, to date they have not had a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition. Litigation From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. For the year ended December 31, 2020, we recorded and paid $5.4 million of our estimated settlement of the federal securities class action to general and administrative expenses described further below. As of December 31, 2020. and 2019, we did not have accrued contingency liabilities. The following is a description of our significant legal proceedings. Although we believe that resolving these claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Federal Securities Class Actions On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us, our chief executive officer and former chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that our quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for first-quarter 2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading statements about our business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this complaint. On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that we made false or misleading statements in our financial statements, press releases and conference calls during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including February 15, 2018, asserted claims that we made false or misleading statements about customer demand for our products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, we made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of our products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. On March 19, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against our former chief operating officer, dismissed product-capability-related allegations against our former chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to first-quarter 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants. On July 9, 2020, following a private settlement mediation with the lead plaintiff in the federal securities class actions and plaintiff in the New York State securities class action discussed below, the parties in both actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims asserted in both actions. The settlement provided for a payment to the plaintiff class of $20.0 million. Our insurers contributed $14.6 million to the settlement, and we contributed the remaining settlement amount of $5.4 million. Accordingly, we recorded a provision of $5.4 million related to our estimated settlement amount to general and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2020, which was paid during the three months ended September 30, 2020. On July 29, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On November 20, 2020, following a final approval hearing the previous day, the court entered an order approving the settlement and such matter is now closed. New York State Securities Class Action On January 31, 2019, a fourth class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer, members of our board of directors and the underwriters of our July 2016 initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO. Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock pursuant to or traceable to our IPO and SPO, alleged that we made false or misleading statements in the registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings concerning demand for our products and inventory in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities class actions discussed above. As discussed above in connection with the federal securities class action, on July 9, 2020, the parties in both this action and the federal securities class actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims in both actions. On November 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order approving the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties in this action filed stipulation discontinuing this action with prejudice. The New York State court, significantly hampered by COVID-19, has not yet entered an order discontinuing the action with prejudice. Shareholder Derivative Actions On October 26, 2018, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer and certain of our directors. We were a nominal defendant. On November 8, 2018, a third shareholder derivative action was filed in this same court against the same defendants. Captioned Weiss v. Diorio, et al., Fotouhi v. Diorio, et al., and De la Fuente v. Diorio, et al., the derivative complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of us, alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to us and allegedly made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act regarding our business and operations. The derivative actions included claims for, among other things, unspecified damages in favor of us, corporate actions to purportedly improve our corporate governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiffs, including attorneys’ fees. On January 28, 2019, the Delaware federal court entered a stipulated order that stayed these derivative actions until resolution of the pending federal securities class actions described above. On July 10, 2020, following a private settlement mediation, the parties in this action executed a stipulation of settlement to settle and resolve the claims asserted in this consolidated derivative action. The settlement required us to implement certain corporate governance changes and the payment of up to $900,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses. Our insurers have agreed to contribute up to $900,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and, following notice to shareholders, final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On August 5, 2020, at the court’s request, the parties filed supplemental briefing in respect of their joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has not yet entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP On June 6, 2019, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of NXP Semiconductors N.V., or NXP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the Court. The original complaint alleged that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringe 26 of our U.S. patents. At the order of the Court, we filed an amended complaint limited to eight of the original 26 patents. We subsequently elected to go forward with asserting infringement of six of those eight patents. We are seeking, among other things, past damages, including lost profits, but no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for infringement of the asserted patents. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing the RAIN RFID integrated circuit product NXP introduced in 2017. Defendants responded to our complaint on September 30, 2019 citing numerous defenses including denying infringement, claiming our asserted patents are invalid, and that the infringed patents were licensed on a royalty-free basis under Impinj’s commitments to GS1 EPCglobal. In February 2020, NXP filed inter partes review, or IPR, petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTAB, against 12 of the originally-asserted 26 patents, including the six patents asserted in the Amended Complaint. In August and September of 2020, the PTAB declined to institute a review of four of the six patents at issue. On September 24, 2020, the Court lifted the stay on two of the patents in suit, and based on a schedule set by the Court on October 22, 2020, the case is proceeding with a claim construction hearing scheduled for March 24, 2021. Also on October 22, 2020, the Court continued the stay on infringement claims on two additional patents pending determinations on IPRs on two allegedly related patents, and we removed without prejudice the two patents against which the PTAB instituted IPRs. NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj On October 4, 2019, NXP USA, Inc. and NXP, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that certain of our products infringe eight U.S. patents owned by NXP or NXP USA, Inc. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, past damages adequate to compensate them for our alleged infringement of each of the patents-in-suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit. We have denied that we are infringing any of the patents, and we have asserted that we are licensed under four of them and that all eight are invalid. We have also filed IPR petitions with the PTAB against six of the eight patents. On September 23, 2020, the District of Delaware granted Impinj’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. On December 3, 2020, we moved to amend our answer to include counterclaims that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringe eight of our U.S. patents, all of which were initially included in our California litigation and are therefore beyond the statutory period for any further IPR review at the PTAB. On December 11, 2020, we also moved to stay the case with respect to six of the eight patents in suit pending final resolution of petitions that we filed for IPR review by the PTAB. On February 12, 2021, the Court denied our motion to amend our answer to include counterclaims but granted our motion to stay the case as to the six patents with respect to which we filed for IPR review. As of the date of this report, there is no schedule in this case. On December 7, 2020, Impinj Radio Frequency Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Impinj Shanghai, was served with patent infringement lawsuits filed in the Intellectual Property Court in Shanghai, China, or Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, in which NXP asserts that certain of our products infringe three Chinese patents owned by NXP, which closely correspond to three of the eight U.S. patents NXP has already asserted in U.S. District Court described above. Impinj Shanghai has objected to the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court and has filed a motion to stay the proceedings. Impinj Shanghai also filed invalidity requests against the three Chinese patents before the China National Intellectual Property Administration. As of the date of this report, there is no schedule in the cases in China. Obligations with Third-Party Manufacturers We manufacture products with third-party manufacturers. We are committed to purchase $9.9 million of inventory as of December 31, 2020.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, we may enter into agreements that require us to indemnify either customers or suppliers for specific risks. While we cannot estimate our maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions, to date they have not had a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

Litigation

From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. For the year ended December 31, 2020, we recorded and paid $5.4 million of our estimated settlement of the federal securities class action to general and administrative expenses described further below. As of December 31, 2020. and 2019, we did not have accrued contingency liabilities. The following is a description of our significant legal proceedings. Although we believe that resolving these claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties.

Federal Securities Class Actions

On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us, our chief executive officer and former chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that our quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for first-quarter 2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading statements about our business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this complaint.

On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that we made false or misleading statements in our financial statements, press releases and conference calls during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including February 15, 2018, asserted claims that we made false or misleading statements about customer demand for our products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, we made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of our products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against our former chief operating officer, dismissed product-capability-related allegations against our former chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to first-quarter 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants.

On July 9, 2020, following a private settlement mediation with the lead plaintiff in the federal securities class actions and plaintiff in the New York State securities class action discussed below, the parties in both actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims asserted in both actions. The settlement provided for a payment to the plaintiff class of $20.0 million. Our insurers contributed $14.6 million to the settlement, and we contributed the remaining settlement amount of $5.4 million. Accordingly, we recorded a provision of $5.4 million related to our estimated settlement amount to general and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2020, which was paid during the three months ended September 30, 2020. On July 29, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On November 20, 2020, following a final approval hearing the previous day, the court entered an order approving the settlement and such matter is now closed.

New York State Securities Class Action

On January 31, 2019, a fourth class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against us, our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer, members of our board of directors and the underwriters of our July 2016 initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO. Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock pursuant to or traceable to our IPO and SPO, alleged that we made false or misleading statements in the registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings concerning demand for our products and inventory in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities class actions discussed above.

As discussed above in connection with the federal securities class action, on July 9, 2020, the parties in both this action and the federal securities class actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims in both actions. On November 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order approving the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties in this action filed stipulation discontinuing this action with prejudice. The New York State court, significantly hampered by COVID-19, has not yet entered an order discontinuing the action with prejudice.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On October 26, 2018, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against our chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer and certain of our directors. We were a nominal defendant. On November 8, 2018, a third shareholder derivative action was filed in this same court against the same defendants. Captioned Weiss v. Diorio, et al., Fotouhi v. Diorio, et al., and De la Fuente v. Diorio, et al., the derivative complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of us, alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to us and allegedly made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act regarding our business and operations. The derivative actions included claims for, among other things, unspecified damages in favor of us, corporate actions to purportedly improve our corporate governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiffs, including attorneys’ fees. On January 28, 2019, the Delaware federal court entered a stipulated order that stayed these derivative actions until resolution of the pending federal securities class actions described above.

On July 10, 2020, following a private settlement mediation, the parties in this action executed a stipulation of settlement to settle and resolve the claims asserted in this consolidated derivative action. The settlement required us to implement certain corporate governance changes and the payment of up to $900,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses. Our insurers have agreed to contribute up to $900,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and, following notice to shareholders, final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On August 5, 2020, at the court’s request, the parties filed supplemental briefing in respect of their joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has not yet entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement.

Patent Infringement Claims and Counterclaims

Impinj Patent Infringement Claims Against NXP

On June 6, 2019, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NXP USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of NXP Semiconductors N.V., or NXP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the Court. The original complaint alleged that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringe 26 of our U.S. patents. At the order of the Court, we filed an amended complaint limited to eight of the original 26 patents. We subsequently elected to go forward with asserting infringement of six of those eight patents. We are seeking, among other things, past damages, including lost profits, but no less than a reasonable royalty; enhanced damages for willful infringement; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for infringement of the asserted patents. We are also seeking an injunction against NXP making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing the RAIN RFID integrated circuit product NXP introduced in 2017. Defendants responded to our complaint on September 30, 2019 citing numerous defenses including denying infringement, claiming our asserted patents are invalid, and that the infringed patents were licensed on a royalty-free basis under Impinj’s commitments to GS1 EPCglobal.

In February 2020, NXP filed inter partes review, or IPR, petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTAB, against 12 of the originally-asserted 26 patents, including the six patents asserted in the Amended Complaint. In August and September of 2020, the PTAB declined to institute a review of four of the six patents at issue.

On September 24, 2020, the Court lifted the stay on two of the patents in suit, and based on a schedule set by the Court on October 22, 2020, the case is proceeding with a claim construction hearing scheduled for March 24, 2021. Also on October 22, 2020, the Court continued the stay on infringement claims on two additional patents pending determinations on IPRs on two allegedly related patents, and we removed without prejudice the two patents against which the PTAB instituted IPRs.

NXP Patent Infringement Claims Against Impinj

On October 4, 2019, NXP USA, Inc. and NXP, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that certain of our products infringe eight U.S. patents owned by NXP or NXP USA, Inc. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, past damages adequate to compensate them for our alleged infringement of each of the patents-in-suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. They are also seeking an injunction against us, enjoining continuing acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit. We have denied that we are infringing any of the patents, and we have asserted that we are licensed under four of them and that all eight are invalid. We have also filed IPR petitions with the PTAB against six of the eight patents. On September 23, 2020, the District of Delaware granted Impinj’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. On December 3, 2020, we moved to amend our answer to include counterclaims that certain NXP integrated circuit products infringe eight of our U.S. patents, all of which were initially included in our California litigation and are therefore beyond the statutory period for any further IPR review at the PTAB. On December 11, 2020, we also moved to stay the case with respect to six of the eight patents in suit pending final resolution of petitions that we filed for IPR review by the PTAB. On February 12, 2021, the Court denied our motion to amend our answer to include counterclaims but granted our motion to stay the case as to the six patents with respect to which we filed for IPR review. As of the date of this report, there is no schedule in this case.

On December 7, 2020, Impinj Radio Frequency Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Impinj Shanghai, was served with patent infringement lawsuits filed in the Intellectual Property Court in Shanghai, China, or Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, in which NXP asserts that certain of our products infringe three Chinese patents owned by NXP, which closely correspond to three of the eight U.S. patents NXP has already asserted in U.S. District Court described above. Impinj Shanghai has objected to the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court and has filed a motion to stay the proceedings. Impinj Shanghai also filed invalidity requests against the three Chinese patents before the China National Intellectual Property Administration. As of the date of this report, there is no schedule in the cases in China.

Obligations with Third-Party Manufacturers

We manufacture products with third-party manufacturers. We are committed to purchase $9.9 million of inventory as of December 31, 2020.