Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase and Other Commitments The Company had a total of $29.1 million in purchase commitments as of June 30, 2022. Purchase commitments represent outstanding purchase orders or non-cancelable commitments for goods or services with contract manufacturers and vendors that range mostly from one month up to a year. The Company uses several contract manufacturers to manufacture components, subassemblies and products. The Company provides these contract manufacturers with demand information and they use this information to acquire components and build products. Contract manufacturer commitments consist of obligations for on-hand inventories and non-cancelable purchase orders with contract manufactures. If the Company cancels all or part of the orders, it may still be liable to the contract manufacturers for the cost of the materials and components purchased by the subcontractors to manufacture the Company’s products. The Company also obtains individual components for its products from a wide variety of individual suppliers. In addition, the Company had a total of $0.9 million in other contractual obligations for goods or services associated with its ordinary course of business as of June 30, 2022. Product Warranties The following table summarizes the activity related to product warranty liabilities and their balances as included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities (in thousands): Six Months Ended June 30, 2022 2021 Balance as of the beginning of the period $ 1,934 $ 2,204 Warranty provision 1,893 898 Consumption (541) (649) Changes in provision estimates (1,400) (1,300) Balance as of the end of the period $ 1,886 $ 1,153 Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is involved in actions, claims, suits and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including assertions by third parties relating to intellectual property infringement, breaches of contract or warranties or employment-related matters. The Company is defending all current litigation matters. Although there can be no assurances and the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable (except as specifically described below), the Company currently believes that none of these claims or proceedings are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. Ouster Litigation On June 15, 2022, the Company filed complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Ouster, Inc. and its contract manufacturer, and a lawsuit in the Northern District of California. The complaint and lawsuit each allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,969,558 (the “‘558 patent”) and 9,983,297 and respectively seek relief including an exclusion importation of infringing Ouster products and monetary damages. On July 22, 2022, the ITC instituted a formal investigation into the Company’s claims. On July 8, 2022 Ouster filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, against the Company and two employees of the Company, alleging trade secret misappropriation against all defendants, breach of contract against one of the individuals, violation of the unfair business practices act against the Company, and violation of false advertising laws against the Company. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. Arbitration Proceeding Against David Hall On June 9, 2021, the Company initiated an arbitration proceeding against David Hall, alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of the Company’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. To protect its intellectual property and in aid of the arbitration process, on July 2, 2021 the Company filed an application with the Santa Clara County Superior Court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit Mr. Hall from any further copying, disclosure or use of the Company’s intellectual property and to require him to return all such property to the Company. On September 7, 2021, the arbitrator issued a preliminary injunction against Mr. Hall, ordering that: 1) Mr. Hall is enjoined from retrieving or accessing three devices to which he copied Velodyne materials and must transfer those devices to a discovery special master, who will review Mr. Hall’s retention and usage of Velodyne information and prepare reports on such retention and use; 2) Mr. Hall must provide an under-oath inventory of any and all of his personal electronic devices in his possession or control upon which Velodyne information currently resides and, upon Velodyne’s request, must provide Velodyne with access to those devices upon request to retrieve, destroy, or ensure the permanent deletion of Velodyne information from those devices; 3) Mr. Hall is enjoined from using anything he created or worked on for Velodyne during the time of his employment; and 4) In light of the preliminary injunctive relief granted under its breach of contract claim, Velodyne’s requests for relief under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and for a deposition were denied at this juncture, but the arbitrator expressly held that Velodyne could reinstate those demands following the special master’s report on Mr. Hall’s retention and usage of Velodyne’s materials. Mr. Hall subsequently provided an under-oath inventory pursuant to that order, which identified seventy-one personal devices that may contain Velodyne information. Because Mr. Hall did not consent to the special master conditionally appointed by the arbitrator, Velodyne and Mr. Hall are negotiating on protocol by which to preliminarily review and inspect those personal devices. On October 26, 2021, Mr. Hall filed a motion for a protective order seeking to require the Company to segregate and return his allegedly personal, private, privileged, and confidential information from his Company-issued laptop. On November 30, 2021, the judge denied Mr. Hall’s protective order, noting that Mr. Hall has no expectation of privacy as to the contents of his laptop and that he waived his right to assert privileged over the contents of the laptop. In the same ruling, the judge compelled Mr. Hall to respond to interrogatories issued by Velodyne . On December 16, 2021, the judge ruled that Velodyne sufficiently identified 2,740 allegedly-misappropriated trade secrets. On February 17, 2022, the judge imposed sanctions on Mr. Hall for discovery abuse, and ordered Mr. Hall to pay Velodyne $5,000 as sanctions. The parties have a mediation scheduled for August 30, 2022. Discrimination Proceedings by Marta Hall On August 2, 2021, the Company received a Charge of Discrimination dated July 27, 2021 (“Charge”), indicating that former Chief Marketing Officer, Marta Hall, has filed a charge of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging sexual discrimination and retaliation. On February 15, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a determination that it will not proceed with an investigation of Ms. Hall’s claim. On September 27, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) informed the Company that it dismissed a complaint brought by Ms. Hall alleging retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). OSHA found that Ms. Hall failed to show that she engaged in a protected activity under SOX. On October 21, 2021, Ms. Hall submitted an objection to the findings and requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. The Company intends to defend the actions vigorously. Hall Proceeding Against Individuals On January 18, 2022, David Hall and Marta Hall filed a complaint against various current and former officers and directors of Velodyne and other individuals in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, entitled Hall v. Vetter, No. 22-cv-005713. The complaint alleges conspiracy to defraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and securities fraud. The complaint alleges David and Marta Hall have suffered damages and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On May 3, 2022, certain defendants filed motions to compel arbitration and other defendants filed motions to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court conducted a hearing on the motions on July 20, 2022. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. Quanergy Litigation In September 2016, Quanergy Systems, Inc. (“Quanergy”) filed a complaint against the Company and one of its customers in the Northern District of California (the District Court litigation), seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of one of the ‘558 patent and asserting state and federal trade secret misappropriation claims against the Company and its customer and breach of contract and constructive fraud claims against its customer. In November 2016, Quanergy filed an amended complaint, removing its trade secret misappropriation claims against the Company, dropping its customer from the suit and dropping the related claims of breach and constructive fraud. The amended complaint maintained only the declaratory judgment of non-infringement action against the Company. In December 2016, the Company filed an answer generally denying the allegations and relief requested in Quanergy’s amended complaint. The Company’s answer also included counterclaims against Quanergy asserting direct, indirect, and willful infringement of the ‘558 patent. In January 2017, Quanergy filed an answer generally denying the allegations in the Company’s patent infringement counterclaims and requesting relief. The court held a claim construction hearing on September 13, 2017 and issued a claim construction order on October 4, 2017, which adopted the majority of the Company’s proposed constructions. In June 2018, the district court entered an order granting a joint stipulation to stay the litigation. Quanergy filed two petitions for inter partes review with the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in November 2017, challenging all claims of the ‘558 patent that the Company asserted. The Company filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Response to Quanergy’s petitions on March 7, 2018. The PTAB issued an institution decision on May 25, 2018, instituting review of all challenged claims. The Company subsequently filed its Patent Owner Response and a Contingent Motion to amend the claims. The PTAB held oral argument on February 27, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of all the challenged claims, finding that Quanergy did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims of the ‘558 patent were unpatentable, and denying the Company’s contingent motion as moot. In June 2019, Quanergy filed a request for rehearing. On July 21, 2020, Quanergy filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the PTAB decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Quanergy’s opening appeal brief was filed on January 22, 2021. On February 4, 2022, the Federal Circuit of Appeals issued a ruling upholding the validity of the Company’s ‘558 patent. In view of that ruling, on February 18, 2022, the district court lifted the stay. On April 18, 2022, the district court issued a scheduling order for the remainder of the proceedings. Employment Matters On June 8, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks. The plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated plaintiffs who have not been identified and is seeking to certify the action as a class action. The plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint that adds a claim pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act. The First Amended Complaint does not specify the amount the plaintiff seeks to recover. Velodyne’s response to the First Amended Complaint was filed on November 16, 2020 and the parties are in the process of beginning discovery concerning class certification issues. On August 5, 2021, the parties reached a tentative settlement, subject to court approval, whereby the Company will pay $0.8 million. Securities Litigation Matters On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne, Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, entitled Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01486-SI. The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the Company’s business, operations and prospects, including with respect to David Hall’s role with the Company and removal as Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors. The complaint alleged that purported class members have suffered losses and sought, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled Reese v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed against the Company, Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Hamer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class action and seeking recovery on behalf of the same putative class. On March 19, 2021, another putative class action entitled Nick v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 4:21-cv-01950-JST, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company, Mr. Gopalan, Mr. Hamer, two current or former directors, and three other entities. The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the Company’s business, operations, controls and prospects and sought, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between July 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021. The class actions have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been appointed and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 1, 2021, based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class actions. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on February 11, 2022. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it relates to the claims related to David Hall’s role with the Company, but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims. The Company intends to defend the actions vigorously. On March 12, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit entitled D’Arcy v. Gopalan, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00369-MN, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against current and former directors and/or officers Anand Gopalan, Andrew Hamer, David S. Hall, Marta Thoma Hall, Joseph B. Culkin, Michael E. Dee, James A. Graf, Barbara Samardzich, and Christopher A. Thomas, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against all of the individual defendants, and asserted a contribution claim under the federal securities laws against Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Hamer. On March 16, 2021, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit entitled Kondner, et al. v. Culkin, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00391-MN, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against most of the same defendants named in the earlier derivative complaint, and asserted claims against the individual defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets. Both derivative actions are based on allegations similar to those in the class actions discussed above, and have now been consolidated. On January 3, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Contingency Assessment |