The Company occupies approximately 76,000 square feet of office, engineering, and research and development space in Carlsbad, California. Monthly rent is approximately $118,000 per month for the year ended December 31, 2020 and increases by approximately $3,000 per month each year through expiration of the lease on July 31, 2021. On December 4, 2019, the Company entered into a new lease agreement for a new headquarters location which consists of 121,541 square feet of office, engineering, and research and development space in Carlsbad, California. The term of the new lease commenced on February 1, 2021 and will terminate on January 31, 2031, subject to two (2) sixty (60) month options to renew. The Company recognized a ROU asset and liability upon taking control of the premises on the lease commencement date. Base rent under the new building lease for the first twelve months of the term will be $195,000 per month subject to full abatement during months two through ten. Base rent for the second year of the term will be $244,115 per month and thereafter will increase annually by 3.0%. At the beginning of each exercised option period, base rent will be adjusted to the market rental value, and thereafter will increase annually by 3.0% through the end of such option period.

The Company leases its buildings and certain equipment under operating leases which expire on various dates through 2021. Upon the Company’s adoption of ASC 842 on January 1, 2019, the Company recognized a ROU asset and lease liability for its building lease, assuming a 10.5% discount rate. Any short-term leases defined as 12 months or less or month-to-month leases were excluded and continue to be expensed each month. Total costs associated with these leases for the year ended December 31, 2020 was immaterial.

The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception. The Company has operating leases for its buildings and certain equipment with lease terms of 1 year to 10 years, some of which include options to extend and/or terminate the lease. The exercise of lease renewal options is at the Company’s sole discretion and were not included in the calculation of the Company’s lease liability as the Company is not able to determine without uncertainty if the renewal option will be exercised. The depreciable life of assets and leasehold improvements are limited to the expected term unless there is a transfer of title or purchase option reasonably certain of exercise. The Company’s lease agreements do not contain any variable lease payments, residual value guarantees or any restrictive covenants.

The Company’s ROU asset represents the right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent the obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Operating lease ROU assets and liabilities are recognized at commencement date of the lease or the ASC 842 adoption date, whichever is later, based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. When readily determinable, the Company uses the implicit rate in determining the present value of lease payments, or 10.5% as of the adoption date. When leases do not provide an implicit rate, the Company uses its incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at

the lease commencement date or adoption date, including the lease term. The operating lease ROU asset also includes any lease payments made and excludes lease incentives. Lease expense for lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Future minimum annual undiscounted lease payments under the Company’s operating and capital leases are as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31,
2021	$	918
2022		40
Total undiscounted lease payments		958
Less: present value adjustment		(32	)
Operating lease liability		926
Less: current portion of operating lease liability		(885	)
Operating lease liability, less current portion	$	41

As of December 31, 2020, the Company’s remaining average lease term is 0.7 years. Rent expense under operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 was $1.3 million. The Company paid $1.4 million of cash payments related to its operating lease agreements for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019.

The Company entered into a distribution agreement with a third-party provider in January 2020 in which the Company is obligated to certain minimum purchase requirements related to inventory and equipment leases. As of December 31, 2020, the minimum purchase commitment required by the Company under the agreement was $3.2 million to be paid over a three-year period. Upon commencement, the Company also recognized a ROU asset related to the leased assets within the purchase agreement in the amount of $0.5 million. The ROU asset is being amortized into rent expense through the lease term. The Company has recognized $0.1 million of rent expense pertaining to these assets for the year ended December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2020, the Company recognized a ROU asset in the amount of $0.4 million related to the leased assets within the purchase agreement on its consolidated balance sheet.

The Company is and may become involved in various legal proceedings arising from its business activities. While management is not aware of any litigation matter that in and of itself would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and depending on the nature and timing of a proceeding, an unfavorable resolution could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period. The Company assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual or disclosure in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating contingencies, the Company may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against the Company may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to reasonably possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of the Company’s potential liability.

In February 2018, NuVasive, Inc. filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (NuVasive, Inc. v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.)), alleging that certain of the Company’s products (including components of its Battalion™ Lateral System), infringe, or contribute to the infringement of, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,819,801, 8,355,780, 8,439,832, 8,753,270, 9,833,227 (entitled “Surgical access system and related methods”), U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 (entitled “Systems

and methods for spinal fusion”), and U.S. Design Patent Nos. D652,519 (“Dilator”) and D750,252 (“Intervertebral Implant”). NuVasive seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction against future purported infringement.

In March 2018, the Company moved to dismiss NuVasive’s claims of infringement of its design patents for failure to state a cognizable legal claim. In May 2018, the Court ruled that NuVasive failed to state a plausible claim for infringement of the asserted design patents and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims to NuVasive’s remaining claims in May 2018.

Also in March 2018, NuVasive moved for a preliminary injunction. In March 2018, the Court denied that motion without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s chambers rules. In April 2018, NuVasive again moved for a preliminary injunction. In July 2018, after a hearing on the matter in June 2018, the Court denied that motion on the grounds that NuVasive failed to establish either likelihood of success on the merits or that it would suffer irreparable harm absent injunction.

In September 2018, NuVasive filed an Amended Complaint, asserting additional infringement claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,924,859, 9,974,531 and 8,187,334. The Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims to these claims in October 2018. Also in October 2018, NuVasive moved to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims that NuVasive intentionally had misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a means of obtaining certain patents asserted against the Company. In January 2019, the Court denied NuVasive’s motion as to all but one counterclaim, but granted the Company leave to amend that counterclaim to cure dismissal. The Company amended that counterclaim in February 2019 and, that same month, NuVasive again moved to dismiss it. In March 2019, the Court denied NuVasive’s motion. NuVasive filed its Answer to the amended counterclaim in April 2019.

In December 2018, the Company filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of certain claims of the ’156 and ’334 Patents. In July 2019, PTAB instituted IPR of the validity of asserted claims of the two patents at issue. In July 2019, PTAB instituted IPR of the validity of asserted claims of the two patents at issue and held a hearing on the matter in April 2020. In July 2020, the PTAB ruled that all challenged claims of the ‘156 Patent were valid (not unpatentable) and ruled that several challenged claims of the ‘334 Patent were invalid, while finding that other challenged claims of the ‘334 Patent valid. NuVasive and the Company have both appealed the PTAB’s written decision on the matter. The appeals are currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. No briefing or hearing schedule has been set.

In January 2020, NuVasive filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of infringement and validity of the ’832, ’780 and ’270 Patents and the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims and of invalidity of the ’832 Patent and for dismissal of NuVasive’s claim for lost profits and its allegations of assignor estoppel. In April 2020, the Court granted NuVasive’s Motion as to the alleged infringement of the ’832 Patent only and denied NuVasive’s Motion in all other respects. Also, in April 2020, the Court granted the Company’s Motion as to dismissal of the allegations of assignor estoppel and denied the Company’s Motion in all other respects.

In January 2021, NuVasive filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of infringement and validity of the ’156 and ’334 Implant Patents and the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of invalidity of those same patents. The parties currently are briefing the respective motions. Hearing on the motions is set for March 2021. Trial is scheduled to take place in June 2021.

The Company believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. A liability is recorded in the consolidated financial statements if it is believed to be probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is impossible at this time to assess whether the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance, the Company has not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with this legal proceeding based on its belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable and any range of potential future charge cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements under which it occasionally indemnifies third-parties for intellectual property infringement claims or claims arising from breaches of representations or warranties. In addition, from time to time, the Company provides indemnity protection to third-parties for claims relating to past performance arising from undisclosed liabilities, product liabilities, environmental obligations, representations and warranties, and other claims. In these agreements, the scope and amount of remedy, or the period in which claims can be made, may be limited. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of future payments, if any, due under these indemnities due to the conditional nature of the obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each agreement.

In October 2017, NuVasive filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against Mr. Miles, the Company’s Chairman and CEO, who was a former officer and board member of NuVasive. The Company itself was not initially a named defendant in this lawsuit; however, on June 28, 2018, NuVasive amended its complaint to add the Company as a defendant. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has not recorded any liability on the consolidated balance sheet related to this matter. On October 12, 2018, the Delaware Court ordered that NuVasive begin advancing legal fees for Mr. Miles’ defense in the lawsuit, as well as Mr. Miles’ legal fees incurred in pursuing advancement of his fees, pursuant to an indemnification agreement between NuVasive and Mr. Miles.

The Company has entered into various intellectual property agreements requiring the payment of royalties based on the sale of products that utilize such intellectual property. These royalties primarily relate to products sold by Alphatec Spine and are based on fixed fees or calculated either as a percentage of net sales or on a per-unit sold basis. Royalties are included on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations as a component of cost of revenues. As of December 31, 2020, the Company is obligated to pay guaranteed minimum royalty payments under these agreements of approximately $4.9 million through 2025 and beyond.