NOTE 8—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases its 57,000 square foot corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility located at 4 Cromwell, Irvine, California. In March 2015, the corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility lease was amended to extend the term through April 30, 2020, modify provisions for a tenant improvement allowance of up to $398,000, and adjust the basic rent terms. Future minimum rental commitments under operating lease agreements with non-cancelable terms greater than one year for the years ending December 31 are listed below. The Company also leases certain office equipment and automobiles under various operating lease arrangements.

In February 2015, the Company entered into a 30-month capital lease agreement for information technology equipment. Future minimum lease payments (using a 1.6% interest rate) under the capital lease, together with the present value of the net minimum lease payments, for the years ending December 31, 2016 and 2017 are $114,000 and $160,000, respectively. The current obligation with respect to the present value of net minimum lease payments of $164,000 is reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets classified as an accrued liability, and the remaining portion of the present value of net minimum lease payments is classified as a long-term obligation within capital lease obligations in the amount of $117,000, for the three months ended March 31, 2016.

Future minimum rental commitments under lease agreements, including both operating and capital leases (principle and interest), with non-cancelable terms greater than one year for each of the years ending December 31 are as follows (in thousands):

2016	$	657
2017		816
2018		619
2019		646
Thereafter		219
Total future minimum lease obligations	$	2,957

Employee arrangements and other compensation

Certain members of management are entitled to severance benefits payable upon termination following a change in control, which would approximate $1.4 million, in the aggregate, at March 31, 2016. The Company also has agreements with certain employees to pay bonuses based on targeted performance criteria. As of at March 31, 2016, approximately $75,000 was accrued for performance bonuses, which is included in accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Purchase commitments

The Company generally purchases components and subassemblies for its products from a limited group of third party suppliers through purchase orders. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had $12.0 million of purchase commitments for which the Company has not received certain goods or services that are expected to be purchased within one year. These purchase commitments were made to secure better pricing and to ensure the Company will have the necessary parts to meet anticipated near-term demand. Although open purchase orders are considered enforceable and legally binding, the Company may be able to cancel, reschedule, or adjust requirements prior to supplier fulfillment.

Litigation

The Company discloses material loss contingencies deemed to be reasonably possible and accrues for loss contingencies when, in consultation with its legal advisors, management concludes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates, and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management’s estimates.

Class Action Lawsuits

On August 23, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Brady Adams v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1300 JST (FFMx) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against BIOLASE and its then Chief Executive Officer, Federico Pignatelli, and its then Chief Financial Officer, Frederick D. Furry. On August 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Ralph Divizio v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1317 DMG (MRWx) was filed in the same court against Biolase, Messrs. Pignatelli and Furry, and its then President and Chief Operating Officer, Alexander K. Arrow. Each of the lawsuits alleges violations of the federal securities laws and asserts causes of action against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on December 10, 2013, the court entered an order consolidating the lawsuits, appointing a lead plaintiff, and approving the lead plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint against the Company and Messrs. Pignatelli, Furry, and Arrow, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and asserting causes of action against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California approved, on a preliminary basis, the settlement of the consolidated securities class action lawsuit. The hearing on the final approval of the settlement was held on October 9, 2015, and the court entered final judgment and ordered the case dismissed on October 30, 2015.

On February 24, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Dr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case alleges that the Company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other related Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing communications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff. The plaintiff and his counsel seek to certify a nation-wide class of comprised of other dentists who received the same or similar faxes from BIOLASE. BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14, 2016, and denied liability on all claims. BIOLASE also denies that class certification is appropriate. The case is still in its early stages and no discovery or substantive motion practice has yet been conducted.

Intellectual Property Litigation

On April 24, 2012, CAO Group, Inc. (“CAO”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the District of Utah for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,485,116 (the “116 Patent”) regarding the Company’s ezlase dental laser. On September 9, 2012, CAO filed its First Amended Complaint, which added claims for (1) business disparagement/injurious falsehood under common law and (2) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a). The additional claims stem from a press release that the Company issued on April 30, 2012, which CAO claims contained false statements that are disparaging to CAO and its diode product. The First Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and interest. On November 13, 2012, the Court stayed the lawsuit for 120 days to allow the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) to consider the Company’s request for reexamination of the patent-in-suit. The USPTO granted the request to reexamine the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit and, on February 28, 2013, the Court stayed the lawsuit until the termination of the reexamination proceedings. On April 23, 2013, the USPTO issued an office action rejecting all of the asserted claims over the prior art, and CAO responded to the office action. On August 28, 2013, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Procedure, rejecting all of CAO’s patent claims. CAO responded to the USPTO’s ruling and on December 10, 2013, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice, finally rejecting some claims of the 116 Patent while finding that other claims appeared to be patentable. The Company appealed the USPTO’s findings on January 9, 2014 and on January 27, 2014, the USPTO declined to reconsider the finding of certain claims as patentable and instructed the parties to proceed to appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Patent Board”). On March 17, 2014, the Company filed its brief in support of its appeal of the USPTO’s decision not to reject certain claims of the 116 Patent. On March 24, 2014, CAO filed its brief in support of its appeal of the USPTO’s decision to reject certain claims of the 116 patent. On April 18, 2014, the Company filed a respondent brief in opposition to the CAO’s appeal arguments. On May 30, 2014, both parties filed rebuttal briefs in support of their appeals. On June 30, 2014, the Company requested an oral hearing before the Patent Board. On July 1, 2014, the Patent Board noted that request and docketed the case for consideration. A hearing on reconsideration was held in November 2014. On July 1, 2015, the Patent Board issued a decision that was generally favorable to the Company. On July 31, 2015, CAO requested a rehearing of the decision. On November 27, 2015, the Patent Board issued its decision regarding CAO’s request for rehearing, partially granting CAO’s request. On January 27, 2016, CAO filed its Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for review of the Patent Board’s decision dated July 1, 2015 and the Patent Board’s decision regarding CAO’s request for rehearing.

The Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Fotona dd. (“Fotona”) in Düsseldorf District Court (the “Düsseldorf Court”) on April 12, 2012 alleging infringement with respect to the Fotona Fidelis dental laser system. Fotona has denied liability and sought the reimbursement of statutory fees from the Company. Together with its response brief, Fotona also filed a nullity action against the patent in dispute, patent number EP 1 560 470. The nullity action is pending at the German Federal Patent Court (the “Patent Court”), Docket No. 1 Ni 58/13 (EP). On September 2, 2013, the Company filed its counterplea in the infringement proceedings and phrased its arguments defending the validity of the patent. These arguments were also the subject of the defense brief to the Patent Court in the parallel nullity action proceedings. On September 9, 2013, the Company filed its response to the Patent Court. Fotona filed a rejoinder on February 3, 2014, including its counterplea on nullity.

On April 29, 2014, the Düsseldorf Court rendered a first instance decision whereby Fotona must cease and desist from selling its Fidelis and Lightwalker dental laser systems, render accounts on past sales, recall respective products, and pay damages on infringement. Additionally, the Company was awarded statutory fees, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. In Germany, damages can be calculated based on the profits made by the infringer after the formal announcement of the granting of a patent, in this case beginning January 1, 2009, without considering direct labor or any other operational costs. This could amount to several million euros. In the two additional first instance cases following the extension of the initial lawsuit against Fotona, the Düsseldorf Court also required the Company to provide a statutory bond totaling €146,000. Such bonds are traditionally imposed on foreign plaintiffs to cover all statutory, court, and attorneys’ fees. Fotona submitted its responses to the action and filed respective invalidation actions against the rights of the Company.

Subsequent to the foregoing responses, on March 24, 2015 the parties reached an agreement to settle the foregoing litigation and to dismiss the litigation with prejudice. As part of the settlement, Fotona agreed to pay the Company a total of $1.4 million, with $550,000 payable within 10 days of March 24, 2015 and the remaining, $825,000 payable in three increments of $275,000 each to be paid no later than the first, second, and third anniversary of the effective date of the agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company (i) granted Fotona a three-year, non-exclusive, paid-up license in the United States market and a five-year, non-exclusive, paid-up license in markets outside of the United States and (ii) agreed to grant Fotona a non-exclusive, royalty-based license following the expiration of the paid-up licenses. The Company calculated the present value of the settlement amount to be $1.2 million and allocated such amount to each significant element of the settlement on a relative fair value basis. $731,000 and $68,000 were allocated towards the recovery of the Company’s legal expenses and as settlement for the dismissal of the patent infringement lawsuit and are reflected as legal settlement and license fees and royalty revenue, respectively, on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. The remaining amount of $379,000 was allocated towards the three-year, non-exclusive, paid-up license in the United States market and the five-year, non-exclusive, paid-up license in markets outside of the United States which was reflected within other assets and long-term deferred revenue on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The deferred revenue is being recognized as license revenue over the terms of the paid-up licenses.