(10) Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

TruePosition leases various properties under operating leases expiring at various times through 2018. TruePosition’s principal facility is under lease through December 2017. Total rental expense was $719 thousand and $780 thousand for each of the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively and $1.4 million and $1.6 million for each of the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

General Litigation

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its consolidated companies are parties to legal proceedings and claims involving alleged infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, defamation, and other claims. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses upon conclusion of such matters, an estimate of any loss or range of loss cannot be made. In the opinion of management, it is expected that amounts, if any, which may be required to satisfy such contingencies will not be material in relation to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

Litigation

On July 21, 2011, TruePosition filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against LM Ericsson Telephone Company (“Ericsson”), the Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) and certain other defendants arising from the standard setting processes for LTE wireless data communication technology as it pertains to location technology. The case was settled, with a cash payment to TruePosition of approximately $6 million and non-monetary considerations, and was formally dismissed in its entirety on July 30, 2014. Defendants 3GPP and Ericsson did not contribute to the cash portion of the settlement. With respect to the defendants that contributed to the cash settlement, such cash was provided with no finding or implication of liability to avoid the expenditure of litigation costs exceeding the settlement amount, and in consideration for TruePosition’s withdrawal of accusations of wrongdoing.

On May 23, 2012, TruePosition filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Polaris Wireless, Inc. (“Polaris”), related to the sale by Polaris of systems used to locate mobile devices.  In parallel with the lawsuit, at Polaris’s request, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated an Inter parties Review.  Both the District Court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled adversely to TruePosition and those rulings are under appeal. Subsequently, on May 14, 2015, Polaris filed a motion in the District Court for an award of approximately $3 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit.  TruePosition denies that that there is any basis for the award of attorneys’ fees.  The matter has been fully briefed by both parties, and the District Court’s decision on the motion (including a preliminary decision whether to hold a hearing) is pending.

On September 10, 2010, Skyhook filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Google, Inc. (“Google”). In March 2013, Skyhook amended its lawsuit to add additional claims. In total, at the time the case was to be tried, Skyhook alleged that Google infringed on eight Skyhook patents involving location technology and sought an injunction and/or award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The case had been scheduled to be tried before a jury commencing March 9, 2015. However, on March 5, 2015, the parties advised the District Court that the case had been settled and thereby dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 45 days, to reopen the action if the settlement was not consummated. On March 27, 2015, the parties consummated a final settlement agreement and on April 24, 2015, Google paid Skyhook settlement consideration of $90 million. In return for payment of the settlement consideration, Google received dismissal of the action with prejudice, a license to the existing Skyhook patents and patent applications (and their continuations, divisionals, continuations-in-part), a three-year covenant not to sue (subject to limited exceptions) and a mutual release of claims. All terms of the settlement were known and agreed to prior to March 31, 2015, therefore the settlement was recorded during the first quarter of 2015. The settlement amount of $90 million is recorded net of approximately $29.5 million for legal fees in the statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2015.   

Indemnification Claims

In the normal course of business, TruePosition provides indemnification to certain customers against specified claims that might arise against those customers from the use of TruePosition’s products. To date, TruePosition has not had to reimburse any of its customers for any losses related to these indemnification provisions. However, six such claims are currently pending. TruePosition’s former customer, T-Mobile, and TruePosition’s current customer, AT&T, have made indemnification claims against TruePosition. There have been no changes or developments to any of the claims since December 31, 2014. AT&T has determined that TruePosition’s total allocated contribution is $197 thousand and has invoiced TruePosition accordingly. TruePosition has informed AT&T that TruePosition believes that the allocation method employed by AT&T is flawed and that the actual amount owed is less than $197 thousand. TruePosition is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on its future results of operations, although TruePosition’s liabilities in certain of those arrangements are customarily limited in various respects, including monetarily.

Certain Risks and Concentrations

The TruePosition business is subject to certain risks and concentrations including dependence on relationships with its customers. TruePosition has one significant customer, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, this customer accounted for 78% and 84%, respectively, of the Company’s total revenue, and for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, this customer accounted for 76% and 84%, respectively, of the Company’s total revenue. This customer’s contract is currently scheduled to expire on January 1, 2016.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Liberty Broadband did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.