Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies We establish contingent liabilities when a particular contingency is both probable and estimable. The Company is not aware of any pending claims or assessments, other than as described below, which may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Outsource Manufacturers. We have manufacturing agreements with electronics manufacturing service (“EMS”) providers related to the outsourced manufacturing of our products. Certain manufacturing agreements establish annual volume commitments. We are also obligated to repurchase Company-forecasted but unused materials. The Company has non-cancellable, non-returnable, and long-lead time commitments with its EMS providers and certain suppliers for inventory components that will be used in production. The Company’s purchase commitments under such agreements is approximately $7,670 as of December 31, 2021. Uncertain Tax Positions. As further discussed in Note 13 - Income Taxes, we had $895 of uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2021. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the underlying tax positions, it is not possible to forecast the payment of this liability to any particular year. Legal Proceedings. Intellectual Property Litigation The Company is involved in litigation against Shure Incorporated (“Shure”). Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., 17-cv-3078 (N.D. of Illinois) Shure filed the first lawsuit on April 24, 2017, by filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 9,635,186 (“’186 Patent”) and Patent No. 9,264,553 (“’553 Patent”). The matter is Shure Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-03078 (the “2017 N.D. Illinois Matter”). In early 2018, Shure added a claim that the ’186 Patent is unenforceable. The Court dismissed Shure’s request for declaratory judgment relating to the ’553 Patent, which at the time in 2017, had not been threatened or asserted by the Company against Shure and had been submitted to the USPTO for reissue. The Company has filed counterclaims against Shure for willful infringement of the Company’s ’186 Patent and the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 9,813,806 (“’806 Patent”). On August 6, 2017, the Company filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin Shure from continuing to infringe on the Company’s ’186 Patent. On March 16, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction regarding the ’186 Patent. On February 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration in light of the PTAB’s January 24, 2019, decision confirming the patentability of the related ’553 Patent. On August 25, 2019, the Court denied the Company’s motion for reconsideration. On April 17, 2018, the Company filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin Shure from continuing to infringe on the Company’s ’806 Patent. On August 6, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction regarding the ’806 Patent preventing Shure from manufacturing, marketing, and selling the Shure MXA910 Ceiling Array Microphone for use in its “drop-ceiling mounting configuration.” The Court determined that such sales are likely to infringe the ’806 Patent and that Shure had not raised a substantial question of the ’806 Patent validity. The Court’s order also prevents Shure from encouraging others to use the Shure MXA910 beamforming microphone array in the “drop-ceiling mounting configuration” and “applies to Shure’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, as well as anyone who is in active concert or participation with those listed persons.” On August 20, 2019, the Company deposited $4,452,149.60 with the Court to satisfy a bond securing the preliminary injunction. On February 21, 2020, the Company asked for a Court order that Shure has been manufacturing, marketing, and selling its redesigned MXA910, the MXA910-A released in December 2019, in violation of a preliminary injunction issued on August 20, 2019. On September 1, 2020, the Court held Shure in contempt of court for violating the Court’s August 2019 preliminary injunction order. The Court held that “Shure has violated the preliminary injunction order and is found in contempt because it designed the MXA910-A in such a way that allows it to be easily installed flush in most ceiling grids.” The Court’s order prohibited Shure from continuing to “manufacture, market, or sell the MXA910-A.” In addition, the Court held that “[t]he record is also clear as to the MXA910-60CM, but in an abundance of caution, the Court will refrain from granting that aspect of the contempt motion to allow for additional discovery” on that and the “possibility that Shure also violated the preliminary injunction order” by “pushing” sales of the MXA910 immediately after the issuance of the August 2019 preliminary injunction order. Shure and ClearOne completed supplemental briefing before the district court relating to the Court’s ruling holding Shure in contempt. The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the supplemental briefing. On July 21, 2021, the Federal Circuit dismissed Shure’s appeal of the Court’s ruling holding Shure in contempt. On July 9, 2020, the Company moved for summary judgment, or partial summary judgment, of infringement by Shure of the ’186 and ’806 patents, and Shure moved on the same day for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’186 and ’806 patents. On August 12, 2020, Shure also moved for summary judgment on various other aspects of the Company’s infringement claims, including arguing that the MXA910 after a recent firmware update does not infringe the ’186 Patent, that the MXA910-A and MXA910-US do not infringe the ’806 Patent, and that the Company is not entitled to lost profits or treble damages. The motions remain pending. Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., No. IPR2017-01785 (PTAB) On July 14, 2017, Shure filed a petition with Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) for inter partes review against the ’553 Patent. The matter is Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., No. IPR2017-01785. On January 29, 2018, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the ’553 Patent. On January 24, 2019, PTAB issued a final written decision confirming the patentability of all claims of the ‘553 Patent. Shure filed a request for a rehearing, which the PTAB denied on March 25, 2019. Shure appealed the PTAB’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued a judgment affirming the PTAB’s decision on March 6, 2020. ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc., IPR2019-00683 (PTAB) On February 15, 2019, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review of Shure’s U.S. Patent No. 9,565,493 (“’493 Patent”), arguing that all claims of the ’493 Patent should be cancelled in light of several prior art references, including the ’806 Patent. The matter is ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc., IPR2019-00683. Shure opposed the petition, but the PTAB instituted inter partes review on August 16, 2019. Shortly over a year later, on August 14, 2020, the PTAB issued its final written decision, holding that all but two of the original claims in the ’493 Patent, claims 6 and 34, are unpatentable in light of the ’806 and other prior art, and granting Shure’s request to amend 11 claims. On August 24, the Company filed a request for rehearing with the PTAB, arguing that the 11 amended claims are not patentable based upon the Company’s allegation that Shure withheld from the PTAB two allegedly material references that render those claims unpatentable. Also on August 24, the Company filed a request for sanctions with the PTAB, arguing that Shure’s failure to disclose two material references to the PTAB violated Shure’s duty of candor. PTAB denied both the request for hearing and request for sanctions. The Company has appealed the PTAB’s final written decision to the U.S Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. The parties completed briefing on this appeal in November 2021, and the hearing was held on April 7, 2022. The Federal Circuit has not yet issued any judgment. ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure, Incorporated, 19-cv-02421 (N.D. of Illinois) On April 10, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit against Shure in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Shure’s MXA910 and MXA310 infringes the ’553 Patent and that Shure has misappropriated ClearOne’s trade secrets. The matter is ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 19-cv-02421 (the “2019 N.D. Illinois Matter”), and has been coordinated with the initial matter filed in 2017 for trial purposes. On December 16, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add claims against Shure for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and trade libel. On January 13, 2020, Shure moved to dismiss the Company’s new claims. On July 21, 2020, ClearOne informed the Court that it would proceed with its advertising-related claims in Delaware rather than Illinois. ClearOne thus filed a Second Amended Complaint removing the prospective economic advantage and trade libel claims. In July 2021, the parties completed briefing on Shure’s early motion to obtain summary judgment and dismissal of ClearOne’s trade secret misappropriation claims. Shure's motion is still pending. The parties’ claim construction briefing is also still pending. Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., 19-cv-1343 (D. of Delaware) On July 18, 2019, Shure, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. Court for the District of Delaware alleging that ClearOne’s BMA CT product, launched in February of 2019, infringes Shure’s ’493 Patent and that ClearOne engaged in unfair competition, tortious interference, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising. The matter is Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., 19-cv-1343 (D. of Delaware). Shure is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. ClearOne successfully moved to stay Shure’s infringement claim relating to the ’493 Patent because the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the ’493 Patent. On November 19, 2019, the Court granted Shure’s request for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim of infringement of Shure’s recently issued U.S. Patent No. D865723 (the “Design Patent”) and additional claims of trade libel. In July 2020, the Company filed counterclaims accusing Shure of business torts based on false advertising. Both parties’ claims are still pending. The Company believes that Shure’s lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. On April 14, 2020, Shure moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from selling the BMA CT and BMA CTH, alleging that these products infringed Shure’s Design Patent. The Company opposed the motions, and on May 1, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a report and recommendation denying Shure’s request for a temporary restraining order, finding that Shure had failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief and that ClearOne had raised a “substantial question” as to the validity of the Design Patent. On September 21, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Shure’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin further sale of the BMA CT and Versa bundles that included the BMA CTH. On January 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a report and recommendation denying Shure’s motion for failure to show both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. After Shure did not file an objection to the report and recommendation, Judge Andrews adopted it and denied Shure’s preliminary injunction motion. Shure did not file a notice of appeal. On July 28, 2020, Judge Burke held a claim construction hearing on the Design Patent and issued a report and recommendation on claim construction in October 2020. Since neither party objected, the district court judge adopted the report and recommendation in November 2020. On November 1, 2021, a jury trial commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Shure’s claim of infringement and ClearOne's counterclaim of invalidity on the sole claim of U.S. Patent No. D865,723 (the “’723 patent”). On the third day of trial, November 3, 2021, a jury returned a verdict in favor of ClearOne on all issues. The jury found that ClearOne had not infringed the ’723 patent and that the ’723 patent was invalid. Shortly before trial, Shure dropped its business tort claims against ClearOne, and ClearOne has asked the Court to dismiss Shure’s now withdrawn business tort claims with prejudice. That request is still pending. The Court also severed ClearOne’s business tort claims from the trial of Shure’s ’723 patent infringement claims, and the parties are waiting for the Court to schedule a trial on ClearOne’s business tort claims. Shure’s claim of infringement of U.S Patent No. 9,565,493 is stayed pending ClearOne’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision regarding the patentability of several amended claims of that patent in an inter partes review proceeding. That appeal is fully briefed, with the hearing held on April 7, 2022. Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne. Inc., PGR2020-00079 (PTAB) Also on July 28, 2020, Shure challenges the patentability of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 10,728,653 in a post-grant review proceeding before the PTAB. The matter is Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne. Inc., PGR2020-00079 (PTAB). The Company filed a preliminary response on November 17, 2020, and the PTAB instituted trial by an institution decision dated February 16, 2021. The institution decision found that five of the seven challenges in the petition were not reasonably likely to prevail, but instituted trial under its all-or-nothing institution policy. On February 14, 2022, the PTAB issued a final written decision, finding that Shure had not proved that any claims of the ’653 patent were unpatentable. On February 24, 2022, Shure filed a notice of appeal, indicating that it would appeal the final written decision to the Federal Circuit. The Company intends to continue to vigorously enforce and defend its intellectual property rights in these proceedings. The Company capitalized $7,836 and $6,728 of litigation expenses related to this matter during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. In addition, the Company is also involved from time to time in various claims and legal proceedings which arise in the normal course of our business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable. However, based on the information available to us, we do not believe any such other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. Conclusion We believe there are no other items that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Legal proceedings are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties of legal proceedings and there can be no assurance as to the probable result of any legal proceedings. The Company believes it has adequately accrued for the aforementioned contingent liabilities. If adverse outcomes were to occur, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected materially for the period in which the adverse outcomes are known.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

We establish contingent liabilities when a particular contingency is both probable and estimable. The Company is not aware of any pending claims or assessments, other than as described below, which may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Outsource Manufacturers. We have manufacturing agreements with electronics manufacturing service (“EMS”) providers related to the outsourced manufacturing of our products. Certain manufacturing agreements establish annual volume commitments. We are also obligated to repurchase Company-forecasted but unused materials. The Company has non-cancellable, non-returnable, and long-lead time commitments with its EMS providers and certain suppliers for inventory components that will be used in production. The Company’s purchase commitments under such agreements is approximately $7,670 as of December 31, 2021.

Uncertain Tax Positions. As further discussed in Note 13 - Income Taxes, we had $895 of uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2021. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the underlying tax positions, it is not possible to forecast the payment of this liability to any particular year.

Legal Proceedings.

Intellectual Property Litigation

The Company is involved in litigation against Shure Incorporated (“Shure”).

Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., 17-cv-3078 (N.D. of Illinois)

Shure filed the first lawsuit on April 24, 2017, by filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 9,635,186 (“’186 Patent”) and Patent No. 9,264,553 (“’553 Patent”). The matter is Shure Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-03078 (the “2017 N.D. Illinois Matter”). In early 2018, Shure added a claim that the ’186 Patent is unenforceable. The Court dismissed Shure’s request for declaratory judgment relating to the ’553 Patent, which at the time in 2017, had not been threatened or asserted by the Company against Shure and had been submitted to the USPTO for reissue. The Company has filed counterclaims against Shure for willful infringement of the Company’s ’186 Patent and the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 9,813,806 (“’806 Patent”).

On August 6, 2017, the Company filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin Shure from continuing to infringe on the Company’s ’186 Patent. On March 16, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction regarding the ’186 Patent. On February 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration in light of the PTAB’s January 24, 2019, decision confirming the patentability of the related ’553 Patent. On August 25, 2019, the Court denied the Company’s motion for reconsideration.

On April 17, 2018, the Company filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin Shure from continuing to infringe on the Company’s ’806 Patent. On August 6, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction regarding the ’806 Patent preventing Shure from manufacturing, marketing, and selling the Shure MXA910 Ceiling Array Microphone for use in its “drop-ceiling mounting configuration.” The Court determined that such sales are likely to infringe the ’806 Patent and that Shure had not raised a substantial question of the ’806 Patent validity. The Court’s order also prevents Shure from encouraging others to use the Shure MXA910 beamforming microphone array in the “drop-ceiling mounting configuration” and “applies to Shure’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, as well as anyone who is in active concert or participation with those listed persons.” On August 20, 2019, the Company deposited $4,452,149.60 with the Court to satisfy a bond securing the preliminary injunction.

On February 21, 2020, the Company asked for a Court order that Shure has been manufacturing, marketing, and selling its redesigned MXA910, the MXA910-A released in December 2019, in violation of a preliminary injunction issued on August 20, 2019. On September 1, 2020, the Court held Shure in contempt of court for violating the Court’s August 2019 preliminary injunction order. The Court held that “Shure has violated the preliminary injunction order and is found in contempt because it designed the MXA910-A in such a way that allows it to be easily installed flush in most ceiling grids.” The Court’s order prohibited Shure from continuing to “manufacture, market, or sell the MXA910-A.” In addition, the Court held that “[t]he record is also clear as to the MXA910-60CM, but in an abundance of caution, the Court will refrain from granting that aspect of the contempt motion to allow for additional discovery” on that and the “possibility that Shure also violated the preliminary injunction order” by “pushing” sales of the MXA910 immediately after the issuance of the August 2019 preliminary injunction order. Shure and ClearOne completed supplemental briefing before the district court relating to the Court’s ruling holding Shure in contempt. The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the supplemental briefing. On July 21, 2021, the Federal Circuit dismissed Shure’s appeal of the Court’s ruling holding Shure in contempt.

On July 9, 2020, the Company moved for summary judgment, or partial summary judgment, of infringement by Shure of the ’186 and ’806 patents, and Shure moved on the same day for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’186 and ’806 patents. On August 12, 2020, Shure also moved for summary judgment on various other aspects of the Company’s infringement claims, including arguing that the MXA910 after a recent firmware update does not infringe the ’186 Patent, that the MXA910-A and MXA910-US do not infringe the ’806 Patent, and that the Company is not entitled to lost profits or treble damages. The motions remain pending.

Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., No. IPR2017-01785 (PTAB)

On July 14, 2017, Shure filed a petition with Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) for inter partes review against the ’553 Patent. The matter is Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., No. IPR2017-01785. On January 29, 2018, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the ’553 Patent. On January 24, 2019, PTAB issued a final written decision confirming the patentability of all claims of the ‘553 Patent. Shure filed a request for a rehearing, which the PTAB denied on March 25, 2019. Shure appealed the PTAB’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued a judgment affirming the PTAB’s decision on March 6, 2020.

ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc., IPR2019-00683 (PTAB)

On February 15, 2019, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review of Shure’s U.S. Patent No. 9,565,493 (“’493 Patent”), arguing that all claims of the ’493 Patent should be cancelled in light of several prior art references, including the ’806 Patent. The matter is ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc., IPR2019-00683. Shure opposed the petition, but the PTAB instituted inter partes review on August 16, 2019. Shortly over a year later, on August 14, 2020, the PTAB issued its final written decision, holding that all but two of the original claims in the ’493 Patent, claims 6 and 34, are unpatentable in light of the ’806 and other prior art, and granting Shure’s request to amend 11 claims. On August 24, the Company filed a request for rehearing with the PTAB, arguing that the 11 amended claims are not patentable based upon the Company’s allegation that Shure withheld from the PTAB two allegedly material references that render those claims unpatentable. Also on August 24, the Company filed a request for sanctions with the PTAB, arguing that Shure’s failure to disclose two material references to the PTAB violated Shure’s duty of candor. PTAB denied both the request for hearing and request for sanctions. The Company has appealed the PTAB’s final written decision to the U.S Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. The parties completed briefing on this appeal in November 2021, and the hearing was held on April 7, 2022. The Federal Circuit has not yet issued any judgment.

ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure, Incorporated, 19-cv-02421 (N.D. of Illinois)

On April 10, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit against Shure in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Shure’s MXA910 and MXA310 infringes the ’553 Patent and that Shure has misappropriated ClearOne’s trade secrets. The matter is ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 19-cv-02421 (the “2019 N.D. Illinois Matter”), and has been coordinated with the initial matter filed in 2017 for trial purposes. On December 16, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add claims against Shure for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and trade libel. On January 13, 2020, Shure moved to dismiss the Company’s new claims. On July 21, 2020, ClearOne informed the Court that it would proceed with its advertising-related claims in Delaware rather than Illinois. ClearOne thus filed a Second Amended Complaint removing the prospective economic advantage and trade libel claims. In July 2021, the parties completed briefing on Shure’s early motion to obtain summary judgment and dismissal of ClearOne’s trade secret misappropriation claims. Shure's motion is still pending. The parties’ claim construction briefing is also still pending.

Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., 19-cv-1343 (D. of Delaware)

On July 18, 2019, Shure, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. Court for the District of Delaware alleging that ClearOne’s BMA CT product, launched in February of 2019, infringes Shure’s ’493 Patent and that ClearOne engaged in unfair competition, tortious interference, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising. The matter is Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., 19-cv-1343 (D. of Delaware). Shure is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. ClearOne successfully moved to stay Shure’s infringement claim relating to the ’493 Patent because the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the ’493 Patent. On November 19, 2019, the Court granted Shure’s request for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim of infringement of Shure’s recently issued U.S. Patent No. D865723 (the “Design Patent”) and additional claims of trade libel. In July 2020, the Company filed counterclaims accusing Shure of business torts based on false advertising. Both parties’ claims are still pending. The Company believes that Shure’s lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

On April 14, 2020, Shure moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from selling the BMA CT and BMA CTH, alleging that these products infringed Shure’s Design Patent. The Company opposed the motions, and on May 1, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a report and recommendation denying Shure’s request for a temporary restraining order, finding that Shure had failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief and that ClearOne had raised a “substantial question” as to the validity of the Design Patent. On September 21, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Shure’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin further sale of the BMA CT and Versa bundles that included the BMA CTH. On January 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a report and recommendation denying Shure’s motion for failure to show both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. After Shure did not file an objection to the report and recommendation, Judge Andrews adopted it and denied Shure’s preliminary injunction motion. Shure did not file a notice of appeal.

On July 28, 2020, Judge Burke held a claim construction hearing on the Design Patent and issued a report and recommendation on claim construction in October 2020. Since neither party objected, the district court judge adopted the report and recommendation in November 2020.

On November 1, 2021, a jury trial commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Shure’s claim of infringement and ClearOne's counterclaim of invalidity on the sole claim of U.S. Patent No. D865,723 (the “’723 patent”). On the third day of trial, November 3, 2021, a jury returned a verdict in favor of ClearOne on all issues. The jury found that ClearOne had not infringed the ’723 patent and that the ’723 patent was invalid.

Shortly before trial, Shure dropped its business tort claims against ClearOne, and ClearOne has asked the Court to dismiss Shure’s now withdrawn business tort claims with prejudice. That request is still pending. The Court also severed ClearOne’s business tort claims from the trial of Shure’s ’723 patent infringement claims, and the parties are waiting for the Court to schedule a trial on ClearOne’s business tort claims.

Shure’s claim of infringement of U.S Patent No. 9,565,493 is stayed pending ClearOne’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision regarding the patentability of several amended claims of that patent in an inter partes review proceeding. That appeal is fully briefed, with the hearing held on April 7, 2022.

Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne. Inc., PGR2020-00079 (PTAB)

Also on July 28, 2020, Shure challenges the patentability of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 10,728,653 in a post-grant review proceeding before the PTAB. The matter is Shure, Incorporated v. ClearOne. Inc., PGR2020-00079 (PTAB). The Company filed a preliminary response on November 17, 2020, and the PTAB instituted trial by an institution decision dated February 16, 2021. The institution decision found that five of the seven challenges in the petition were not reasonably likely to prevail, but instituted trial under its all-or-nothing institution policy. On February 14, 2022, the PTAB issued a final written decision, finding that Shure had not proved that any claims of the ’653 patent were unpatentable. On February 24, 2022, Shure filed a notice of appeal, indicating that it would appeal the final written decision to the Federal Circuit.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously enforce and defend its intellectual property rights in these proceedings.

The Company capitalized $7,836 and $6,728 of litigation expenses related to this matter during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

In addition, the Company is also involved from time to time in various claims and legal proceedings which arise in the normal course of our business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable. However, based on the information available to us, we do not believe any such other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.

Conclusion

We believe there are no other items that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Legal proceedings are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties of legal proceedings and there can be no assurance as to the probable result of any legal proceedings.

The Company believes it has adequately accrued for the aforementioned contingent liabilities. If adverse outcomes were to occur, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected materially for the period in which the adverse outcomes are known.