Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company’s principal executive offices, as well as its research and development facility, are located in approximately 29,000 square feet of office space in San Diego, California and the term of the lease continues through June 30, 2024. The Company’s other offices are located in Paris, France; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, New York; Barcelona, Spain; London, United Kingdom; and St. Petersburg, Russia. Other than the lease for office space in San Diego, California, the Company does not believe that the leases for the offices are material to the Company. The Company believes its existing properties are in good condition and are sufficient and suitable for the conduct of its business.

The Company’s leases have remaining terms of one to eight years. Certain leases contain renewal options for varying periods, which are at the Company’s sole discretion. For leases where the Company is reasonably certain to exercise a renewal option, such option periods have been included in the determination of the Company’s right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and lease liabilities. As of December 31, 2021, the weighted-average remaining lease term for the Company’s operating leases was 5.3 years and the weighted-average discount rate was 3.2%.

Lease liabilities expected to be paid within one year are recorded in current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. All other lease liabilities are recorded in non-current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had operating ROU assets of $6.6 million. Total operating lease liabilities of $8.0 million were comprised of current lease liabilities of $2.0 million and non-current lease liabilities of $6.0 million. As of September 30, 2021, the Company had operating ROU assets of $7.1 million. Total operating lease liabilities of $8.5 million were comprised of current lease liabilities of $1.9 million and non-current lease liabilities of $6.6 million.

The Company recognized $0.6 million of operating lease costs in the three months ended December 31, 2021, and $0.5 million of operating lease costs in the three months ended December 31, 2020. Operating lease costs are included within cost of revenue, selling and marketing, research and development, and general and administrative expenses, dependent upon the nature and use of the ROU asset, in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income.

The Company paid $0.6 million in operating cash flows for operating leases in the three months ended December 31, 2021.

Maturities of operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2021 were as follows (amounts shown in thousands):


	Operating leases
2022—remaining	$	1,614
2023	2,081
2024	1,749
2025	662
2026	655
2027	660
Thereafter	1,058
Total lease payments	8,479
Less: amount representing interest	(505)
Present value of future lease payments	$	7,974

Legal Proceedings

Claim Against ICAR

On June 11, 2018, a claim was filed before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia number 5 of Barcelona, Spain, the first instance court in the Spanish civil procedure system, against ICAR. The claim, also directed to Mr. Xavier Codó Grasa, former controlling shareholder of ICAR and its current General Manager, was brought by the Spanish company Global Equity & Corporate Consulting, S.L. for the alleged breach by ICAR of a services agreement entered into in the context of the sale of the shares in ICAR to Mitek Holding B.V. ICAR responded to the claim on September 7, 2018 and the court process is ongoing but has been delayed as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The amount claimed is €0.8 million (or $0.9 million), plus the interest accrued during the court proceedings.

Pursuant and subject to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement concerning the acquisition of the shares in ICAR, Mitek Holding B.V. is to be indemnified in respect of any damages suffered by ICAR and/or Mitek Holding B.V. in respect of this claim.

Third Party Claims Against Our Customers

The Company receives indemnification demands from end-user customers who received third party patentee offers to license patents and allegations of patent infringement. Some of the offers and allegations have resulted in ongoing litigation. The Company is not a party to any such litigation. License offers to and infringement allegations against the Company’s end-customers were made by Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC; Lupercal, LLC; Pebble Tide, LLC; Dominion Harbor Group, LLC; and IP Edge, LLC, which appear to be non-practicing entities (“NPEs”)—often called “patent trolls”—and not the Company’s competitors. These NPEs may seek to extract settlements from our end-customers, resulting in new or renewed indemnification demands to the Company. At this time, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify any customers or end-customers resulting from license offers or patent infringement allegations by the companies listed above. However, the Company could incur substantial costs if it is determined that it is required to indemnify any customers or end-customers in connection with these offers or allegations. Given the potential for impact to other customers and the industry, the Company is actively monitoring the offers, allegations and any resulting litigation.

On July 7, 2018, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Wells Fargo’s remote deposit capture systems (which in part utilize technology provided by the Company to Wells Fargo through a partner) infringe four USAA owned patents related to mobile deposits (the “First Wells Lawsuit”). On August 17, 2018, USAA filed a second lawsuit (the “Second Wells Lawsuit” and together with the First Wells Lawsuit, the “Wells Lawsuits”) against Wells Fargo in the Eastern District of Texas asserting that an additional five patents owned by USAA were infringed by Wells Fargo’s remote deposit capture system. In neither lawsuit was the Company named in the Complaint as an infringer and at no time did USAA allege specifically that the Company’s products by themselves infringed any of the asserted patents. Subsequently, on November 6, 2019, a jury in the First Wells Lawsuit found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed at least one of the Subject Patents (as defined below) and awarded USAA $200 million in damages. In the Second Wells Lawsuit, USAA dropped two of the patents from the litigation, and the judge in the case found that one of the remaining three patents was invalid. On January 10, 2020, a jury in the Second Wells Lawsuit found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed at least one of the patents at issue in that case and awarded USAA $102 million in damages. No Mitek product was accused of infringing either of the two patents in question in the Second Wells Lawsuit as the litigation involved broad banking processes and not Mitek’s specific mobile deposit features. USAA and Wells Fargo subsequently reached a settlement, and on April 1, 2021 the court granted the parties’ joint motion and stipulation of dismissal of the Wells Lawsuits with prejudice.

Wells Fargo filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of the four patents in the First Wells Lawsuit. Three of those four petitions were instituted, while one (relating to the ‘090

Patent) was denied institution. On November 24, 2020 and January 26, 2021, the PTAB issued final written decisions determining that Wells Fargo had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any claims of the ‘571 Patent, the ‘779 Patent, or ‘517 Patent were unpatentable.

On September 30, 2020, USAA filed suit against PNC Bank (the “First PNC Lawsuit”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,482,432 and 10,621,559. These two patents are continuations of an asserted patent in the Second Wells Lawsuit and relate to similar subject matter. On October 19, 2020, PNC Bank’s integration partner, NCR Corporation, sent an indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification from all claims related to the First PNC Lawsuit. The complaint against PNC does not claim that any Company product infringes any of the asserted patents. At this time, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify NCR Corporation or end-users of NCR Corporation resulting from the patent infringement allegations by USAA. On December 4, 2020, USAA filed an amended complaint against PNC Bank also asserting two patents at issue in the First Wells Lawsuit—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,699,779 (“the ’779 Patent”) and 8,977,571 (“the ’571 Patent”). Also on December 4, 2020, PNC Bank filed a complaint for declaratory judgement of non-infringement of the ’779 Patent and the ’571 Patent in the Western District of Pennsylvania (“PNC DJ Action”). On January 19, 2021, USAA filed a motion to dismiss the PNC DJ Action in view of the pending lawsuit between the parties in the Eastern District of Texas. On February 2, 2021, NCR Corporation sent a second indemnification demand to the Company requesting indemnification of the claims described in the amended complaint. On March 31, 2021, USAA filed another suit against PNC Bank in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of two patents from the Second Wells Lawsuit, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,013,605 and 10,013,681 (the “Second PNC Lawsuit”). On June 1, 2021, the Western District of Pennsylvania court stayed the PNC DJ Action in view of the earlier-filed action between USAA and PNC in the Eastern District of Texas. On July 7, 2021, USAA filed a third lawsuit against PNC Bank (the “Third PNC Lawsuit” and together with the First PNC Lawsuit and the Second PNC Lawsuit, the “PNC Lawsuits”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patents 10,769,598; 10,402,638; and 9,224,136. A jury trial has been set for the PNC Lawsuits in April 2022.

While neither the Wells Lawsuits nor the PNC Lawsuits name the Company as a defendant, given (among other factors) the Company’s prior history of litigation with USAA and the continued use of the Company’s products by its customers, on November 1, 2019, the Company filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe the ’779 Patent, the ’571 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,336,517 (“the ’517 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,818,090 (“the ’090 Patent”) (collectively, the “Subject Patents”). On January 15, 2020, USAA filed motions requesting the dismissal of the declaratory judgement of the Subject Patents and transfer of the case to the Eastern District of Texas, both of which the Company opposed. On April 21, 2020, the court in the Northern District of California transferred the Company’s declaratory judgement action to the Eastern District of Texas and did not rule on USAA’s motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2021, the court in the Eastern District of Texas granted USAA’s motion to dismiss the Company’s declaratory judgment action on jurisdictional grounds. The Court’s ruling did not address the merits of the Company’s claim of non-infringement. The Company appealed the ruling on the motion to dismiss and the decision to transfer the declaratory judgment action from California to Texas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed and pending oral argument. The Company continues to believe that its products do not infringe the Subject Patents and will vigorously defend the right of its end-users to use its technology.

In April, May, and June 2020, the Company filed petitions for IPR with the PTAB of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of the Subject Patents. On November 6 and 17, 2020, the PTAB decided to exercise its discretion and deny institution of the four petitions due to the alleged relationship between the Company and Wells Fargo, who previously filed petitions for IPR on the Subject Patents. The PTAB did not address the merits of the Company’s petitions or the prior art cited in those petitions. The Company continues to believe that the prior art cited in the petitions renders all the claims of the Subject Patents invalid. On December 6, 2020, December 17, 2020, and February 23, 2021, the Company filed requests for rehearing and Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) review of the four denied IPR petitions. The Patent Office denied the requests for rehearing and for POP review.

In September 2020, the Company filed an additional two petitions for IPR with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,013,681 and 10,013,605—two of the patents at issue in the Second Wells Lawsuit. In March 2021, the PTAB decided not to institute the two petitions.

On July 7 and July 14, 2021, PNC Bank filed six additional petitions for IPR with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office challenging the validity of the ’779 Patent, the ’571 Patent, the ‘559 Patent, and the ‘432 Patent. On August 27, 2021, PNC filed two additional petitions for IPR challenging the validity of the ‘681 Patent and the ‘605 Patent. In November and December of 2021, PNC Bank filed four more petitions for IPR challenging the validity of the ‘638 Patent, the ‘136 Patent, and the ‘598 Patent. The Patent Office denied institution with respect to the petitions challenging the ‘432 Patent, but instituted inter partes review on the petitions relating to the ‘779 Patent, the ‘571 Patent, and the ‘559 Patent—finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged patent claim was invalid. Decisions from the Patent Office whether to institute the remaining petitions for IPRs are expected in March and May 2022.

On August 16, 2021, USAA filed suit against BBVA USA (“BBVA”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the same patents at issue in the lawsuits against PNC. While Mitek’s IPR petitions were mentioned in the complaint, Mitek was not named as a defendant or mentioned in connection with any alleged infringement. BBVA then sent Mitek an indemnification demand

on September 7, 2021. For the same reasons discussed above in connection with PNC, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify BBVA.

The Company incurred legal fees of $0.4 million in the three months ended December 31, 2021 related to third party claims against our customers. Such fees are included in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income.

Claim Against UrbanFT, Inc.

On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit against one of its customers, UrbanFT, Inc. (“UrbanFT”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (case No. 19-CV-1432-CAB-DEB). UrbanFT is delinquent in payment and attempted to justify its non-payment by asserting that the Company is or may be infringing on purported UrbanFT patents. The Company filed such lawsuit to collect the delinquent payments and to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of five purported UrbanFT patents. UrbanFT filed an answer and later asserted infringement of two of the five patents-at-issue in the Company’s lawsuit against UrbanFT. The Company thereafter filed counterclaims seeking a declaration that the two patents now asserted by UrbanFT are invalid in addition to being not infringed. During the course of the litigation, the Company learned that a judgment had been entered against UrbanFT’s affiliates and its predecessor owner in which an Oregon court ordered that the patents in issue revert to a prior owner, Mr. Stevens, because UrbanFT’s affiliates did not pay the purchase price owed to the prior owner. On September 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. On September 15, 2020, the district court issued an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction over patent issues in light of the Oregon judgment. On December 17, 2020, the district court dismissed Mitek’s claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and UrbanFT’s counterclaims for patent infringement and related affirmative defenses based on infringement of the patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because UrbanFT does not own the patents. The district court then dismissed the remaining state law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

On December 18, 2020, the Company filed a new suit against UrbanFT in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (case no. 37-2020-00046670-CU-BC-CTL) asserting claims for breach of contract, open book account, and monetary damages. UrbanFT filed an answer and has not asserted any cross-claims. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment which is set to be heard on April 15, 2022. No trial date has been set. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend any cross-claims if any are filed at a later date.

Claim Against Maplebear, Inc (dba Instacart):

On December 13, 2021, Mitek filed a lawsuit against Mapleabear Inc., d/b/a Instacart, in California Superior Court – San Diego County (Case No, 37-2021-00052089-CU-BC-CTL). Mitek is alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and requesting over $2.0 million in damages.

On August, 3, 2018 Maplebear entered into a Master Services Agreement with Mitek agreeing to purchase a subscription to Mitek’s Mobile Verify Advanced service. On June 19, 2020, the parties entered into a second Order Form in connection with the Master Services Agreement. The Order Form has a term of June 18, 2020 to December 31, 2023 and calls for an annual commitment of $1.2 million. On September 23, 2021, Maplebear sent a letter to Mitek purporting to outline breaches under the Master Services Agreement. Mitek responded on November 11, 2021, refuting Maplebear’s claims and offering to engage in further discussions. Maplebear thereafter sent a Notice of Termination of the Master Services Agreement dated November 24, 2021. The Parties have agreed to participate in mediation on March 15, 2022 and further agreed that any responsive pleading by Maplebear shall not be due until after the mediation.

Other Legal Matters

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is both (i) probable that a loss has occurred and (ii) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. While any legal proceeding has an element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the disposition of such matters, in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.