NLST Netlist Inc (QB)

PART I. — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

See accompanying notes.

See accompanying notes.

See accompanying notes.

NETLIST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

in shares of its common stock over the 36-month term of the 2020 Purchase Agreement subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in the 2020 Purchase Agreement (see Note 8).

On April 23, 2020, the Company entered into an unsecured promissory note (“PPP Note”) with a principal amount of $0.6 million through Hanmi Bank under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) administered by the Small Business Administration and established as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The PPP Note bears interest at 1.0% per annum and matures in April 2022 with the first six months of interest and principal payments deferred. The amount borrowed under the PPP Note is eligible for forgiveness if the Company meets certain conditions.

Inadequate working capital would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and operations and could cause the Company to fail to execute its business plan, fail to take advantage of future opportunities or fail to respond to competitive pressures or customer requirements. A lack of sufficient funding may also require the Company to significantly modify its business model and/or reduce or cease its operations, which could include implementing cost-cutting measures or delaying, scaling back or eliminating some or all of its ongoing and planned investments in corporate infrastructure, research and development projects, business development initiatives and sales and marketing activities, among other activities. While the Company’s estimates of its operating revenues and expenses and working capital requirements could be incorrect and the Company may use its cash resources faster than it anticipates, management believes the Company’s existing cash balance together with cash receipts from revenues, borrowing availability under a bank credit facility (see Note 4), funds available to be raised from the Lincoln Park arrangements (see Note 8) and funds raised through the debt and equity offerings, will be sufficient to meet the Company’s anticipated cash needs for at least the next 12 months.

Note 2—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in the consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto as of and for the year ended December 28, 2019, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 10, 2020 (the “2019 Annual Report”).

In the opinion of management, all adjustments for the fair presentation of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements have been made. The adjustments are of a normal recurring nature except as otherwise noted. The results of operations for the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for other periods or the full fiscal year. The Company has evaluated events occurring subsequent to March 28, 2020, through the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and concluded that there were no events that required recognition and disclosures, other than those discussed elsewhere in the notes hereto.

Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Netlist, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Fiscal Year

The Company’s fiscal year is the 52- or 53-week period that ends on the Saturday nearest to December 31. The Company’s fiscal year 2020 will include  53 weeks and ends on January 2, 2021 and its fiscal year 2019 included 52 weeks and ended on December 28, 2019. The first three quarters of fiscal year 2020 each includes 13 weeks and the fourth quarter includes 14 weeks. The four quarters of fiscal year 2019 each included 13 weeks. Unless otherwise stated, references to particular years, quarters, months and periods refer to the Company’s fiscal years ended in January or December and the associated quarters, months and periods of those fiscal years.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported. Actual results may differ materially from those estimates.

Recently Adopted Accounting Guidance

In the first quarter of 2020, the Company adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2018-15, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other - Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40): Customer's Accounting for Implementation Costs Incurred in a Cloud Computing Arrangement That Is a Service Contract (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force) (“ASU 2018-15”), which amends the accounting for implementation, setup, and other upfront costs in a hosting arrangement that is a service contract. The adoption of ASU 2018-15 did not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

In the first quarter of 2020, the Company adopted FASB ASU No. 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Disclosure Framework - Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement (“ASU 2018-13”), which removes, modifies, and adds various disclosure requirements on fair value measurements in Topic 820. The adoption of ASU 2018-13 did not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Recently Issued Accounting Guidance

In December 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-12, Income Taxes (Topic 740) Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes (“ASU 2019-12”), which eliminates certain exceptions related to the approach for intraperiod tax allocation, the methodology for calculating income taxes in an interim period and the recognition of deferred tax liabilities for outside basis differences. ASU 2019-12 also clarifies and simplifies other aspects of the accounting for income taxes. ASU 2019-12 is effective for the Company beginning January 3, 2021 with early adoption permitted for any interim period before the effective date. Certain amendments of ASU 2019-12 may be adopted on a retrospective basis, modified retrospective basis or prospective basis. The Company is currently evaluating the impact ASU 2019-12 will have on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Fair Value Measurements

The hierarchy below lists three levels of fair value based on the extent to which inputs used in measuring fair value are observable in the market. The Company categorizes each of its fair value measurements in one of those three levels based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.

The Company’s financial instruments consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, a revolving line of credit, and convertible promissory notes. Cash equivalents consist of short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less and restricted cash consists of cash to secure standby letters of credit (see Note 4). The carrying value of these instruments approximates their fair value due to their short-term nature. The fair value of the revolving line of credit and convertible promissory note is estimated by using current applicable rates for similar instruments as of the balance sheet date and an assessment of the credit rating. The carrying value of the revolving line of credit at March 28, 2020 and December 28, 2019 approximates fair value because the interest rate yield is near current market rates for comparable debt instruments. The fair value of the convertible promissory note is estimated by using a discounted cash flow analysis using borrowing rates available to the Company for debt instruments with similar terms and maturities and is classified in Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy. The carrying value and estimated fair value of the secured convertible promissory note as of March 28, 2020 were $14.6 million and $12.3 million, respectively. The carrying value and estimated fair value of the secured convertible promissory note as of December 28, 2019 were $14.6 million and $11.7 million, respectively.      

Other Significant Accounting Policies

The Company’s other significant accounting policies were reported in the 2019 Annual Report and have not changed materially from the policies previously reported.

Computation of Net Loss Per Share

The Company computes net loss per share using the two-class method required for participating securities. The Company considers restricted stock awards to be participating securities because holders of such shares have nonforfeitable dividend rights in the event of the Company’s declaration of a dividend for common shares. Under the two-class method, undistributed earnings are allocated to common stock and the participating securities according to their respective participating rights in undistributed earnings, as if all the earnings for the period had been distributed.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share of common stock (in thousands, except per share data):

No allocation of undistributed earnings to participating securities was performed for periods with net losses as such securities do not have a contractual obligation to share in the losses of the Company.

The table below sets forth potentially dilutive weighted average common share equivalents, consisting of shares issuable upon the exercise of outstanding stock options and warrants using the treasury stock method, shares issuable upon conversion of the SVIC Note and the Iliad Note (see Note 5) using the “if-converted” method, and the vesting of restricted stock awards. These potential weighted average common share equivalents have been excluded from the diluted net loss per share calculations above as their effect would be anti-dilutive (in thousands):

Major Customers and Products

The Company’s net sales have historically been concentrated in a small number of customers. The following table sets forth the percentage of net sales made to customers that each comprise 10% or more of total net sales:

*Less than 10% of net sales during the period.

As of March 28, 2020 and December 28, 2019,  one customer represented approximately 25% of aggregate gross receivables, respectively. The loss of the significant customers or a reduction in sales to or difficulties collecting payments from these customers could significantly reduce the Company’s net sales and adversely affect its operating

results. The Company mitigates risks associated with foreign receivables by purchasing comprehensive foreign credit insurance.

The Company resells certain component products to end-customers that are not reached in the distribution models of the component manufacturers, including storage customers, appliance customers, system builders and cloud and datacenter customers. For the three months ended March 28, 2020 and March 30, 2019, resales of these products represented approximately 74% and 77%, respectively, of net sales.

Note 4—Credit Agreement

SVB Credit Agreement

On October 31, 2009, the Company and Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) entered into a credit agreement (as the same may from time to time be amended, modified, supplemented or restated, the “SVB Credit Agreement”), which provides for a revolving line of credit up to $5.0 million. The borrowing base is limited to 85% of the eligible accounts receivable, subject to certain adjustments. As of March 28, 2020, the borrowings under the SVB Credit Agreement bear interest based on the Wall Street Journal “prime rate” plus 2.75% and mature on April 30, 2021 (amended from March 30, 2020 on February 27, 2020). The SVB Credit Agreement requires letters of credit to be secured by cash, which is classified as restricted cash in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 28, 2020 and December 28, 2019, (i) outstanding letters of credit were $2.9 million and $2.8 million, respectively, (ii) outstanding borrowings were $4.4 million and $3.0 million, respectively, and (iii) availability under the revolving line of credit was $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively.

On April 12, 2017, the Company and SVB entered into an amendment to the SVB Credit Agreement to, among other things, obtain SVB’s consent in connection with the Company’s rights agreement with Computershare Trust Company, N.A., as rights agent (see Note 8), and make certain administrative changes in connection with the Company’s funding arrangement with TR Global Funding V, LLC, an affiliate of TRGP Capital Management, LLC (“TRGP”) (see Note 7).

For all periods before April 20, 2017, all obligations under the SVB Credit Agreement were secured by a first priority security interest in the Company’s tangible and intangible assets, other than its patent portfolio, which was subject to a first priority security interest held by Samsung Venture Investment Co.(“SVIC”) (see Note 5). Certain of these lien priorities were modified in April and May 2017 in connection with the Company’s establishment of a funding arrangement with TRGP for certain of the Company’s litigation expenses in connection with certain of its legal proceedings against SK hynix, Inc, a South Korean memory semiconductor supplier (“SK hynix”). On May 3, 2017, TRGP entered into an intercreditor agreement with each of SVIC and SVB, and on April 20, 2017, SVIC and SVB entered into an intercreditor agreement with each other (such intercreditor agreements, collectively, the “Intercreditor Agreements”). Pursuant to the terms of the Intercreditor Agreements, SVB’s security interests in the Company’s assets have been modified as follows: SVB has a first priority security interest in all of the Company’s tangible and intangible assets other than its patent portfolio and its claims underlying and any proceeds it may receive from the SK hynix proceedings; a second priority security interest in the Company’s patent portfolio other than the patents that are the subject of the SK hynix proceedings; and a third priority security interest in the Company’s patents that are the subject of the SK hynix proceedings (see Note 7).

The SVB Credit Agreement subjects the Company to certain affirmative and negative covenants, including financial covenants with respect to the Company’s liquidity and restrictions on the payment of dividends. As of March 28, 2020, the Company was in compliance with its covenants under the SVB Credit Agreement.

Secured Convertible Note

On November 18, 2015, in connection with entering into the JDLA with Samsung, the Company issued to SVIC a secured convertible note (“SVIC Note”) and stock purchase warrant (“SVIC Warrant”). The SVIC Note has an original principal amount of $15.0 million, accrues interest at a rate of 2.0% per year, is due and payable in full on December 31, 2021, and is convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $1.25 per share, subject to certain adjustments, on the maturity date of the SVIC Note. Upon a change of control of the Company prior to the maturity date of the SVIC Note, the SVIC Note may, at the Company’s option, be assumed by the surviving entity or be redeemed upon the consummation of such change of control for the principal and accrued but unpaid interest as of the redemption date. The SVIC Warrant grants SVIC a right to purchase 2,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.30 per share, subject to certain adjustments, is only exercisable in the event the Company exercises its right to redeem the SVIC Note prior to its maturity date, and expires on December 31, 2025.

The SVIC Warrant was valued at $1.2 million, based on its relative fair value, and was recorded as a debt discount. The Company also recorded $0.2 million of debt issuance costs as a debt discount for professional services fees rendered in connection with the transaction. These amounts are being amortized to interest expense over the term of the SVIC Note using the interest method. For the three months ended March 28, 2020, interest expense related to the amortization of the issuance costs associated with the liability component was not material. The effective interest rate, including accretion of the SVIC Note to par and amortization of debt issuance costs, was approximately 3.4%. As of March 28, 2020, the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the SVIC Note was $16.3 million, and the outstanding SVIC Note balance, net of unamortized debt discounts and issuance costs, was $15.9 million. 

In connection with the SVIC Note, SVIC was granted a first priority security interest in the Company’s patent portfolio and a second priority security interest in all of the Company’s other tangible and intangible assets. Upon issuance of the SVIC Note, the Company, SVB and SVIC entered into an Intercreditor Agreement pursuant to which SVB and SVIC agreed to their relative security interests in the Company’s assets. In May 2017, SVIC, SVB and TRGP entered into additional Intercreditor Agreements to modify certain of these lien priorities (see Note 7). Additionally, upon issuance of the SVIC Note and the SVIC Warrant, the Company and SVIC entered into a Registration Rights Agreement pursuant to which the Company is obligated to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon demand by SVIC, the shares of the Company’s common stock issuable upon conversion of the SVIC Note or upon exercise of the SVIC Warrant.

The SVIC Note subjects the Company to certain affirmative and negative operating covenants. As of March 28, 2020, the Company was in compliance with its covenants under the SVIC Note.

Unsecured Convertible Note

On August 27, 2018, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with Iliad Research and Trading, L.P. (“Iliad”) (the “Iliad Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company issued a convertible promissory note in the principal amount of $2.3 million (“Iliad Note”) with an original issue discount of $0.2 million. The Iliad Note bore interest at an annual rate of 8% and would mature on August 27, 2020, unless earlier repurchased, redeemed or converted in accordance with its terms.

The Iliad Note provided Iliad with the right to convert, at any time, all or any part of the outstanding principal and accrued but unpaid interest into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $0.36 per share (“Lender Conversion Price”). Further, beginning on April 1, 2019, the Iliad Note also provided Iliad with the right to redeem all or any portion of the Iliad Note (“Redemption Amount”) up to a maximum monthly amount of $0.35 million. The payments of each Redemption Amount might either be made in cash, by converting such Redemption Amount into shares of the Company’s common stock (“Redemption Conversion Shares”), or a combination thereof, at the Company’s election.

The number of Redemption Conversion Shares equaled the portion of the applicable Redemption Amount being converted divided by the lesser of the Lender Conversion Price or the Market Price, that was  85% of the Company’s lowest closing bid price during the 20 trading days immediately preceding the applicable redemption date (“Redemption Conversion Price”), provided that the Market Price should not be less than $0.11 per share (the “Redemption Price Floor”). In the event any applicable redemption conversion price was below the Redemption Price Floor then either: (i) the Company would honor the redemption conversion at the then effective redemption conversion price for a Redemption Amount not to exceed $0.15 million if the redemption conversion price was equal to or greater than $0.06 per share or (ii) the Company would pay the applicable Redemption Amount up to $0.15 million in cash and not in Redemption Conversion Shares.

The $2.1 million of proceeds received from the issuance of the Iliad Note was initially allocated between long-term debt (the liability component) at $1.9 million and additional paid-in capital (the equity component) at $0.2 million, in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The carrying amount of the liability component was calculated using the fair value of a similar liability without a conversion feature. The carrying amount of the equity component, representing the conversion option, was determined by deducting the fair value of the liability component from the proceeds received. The amount allocated to the equity component along with the original issue discount and fees paid to Iliad was amortized to interest expense over the expected life of 14 months using the interest method. The equity component was not remeasured as long as it continued to meet the conditions for equity classification. The issuance costs incurred related to the issuance of the Iliad Note were not material.

The Iliad Note was not secured and did not have any financial covenants requirements the Company needed to comply. The Company made certain customary representations and warranties and had agreed to customary covenants and obligations. The Iliad Purchase Agreement and Iliad Note contained customary events of default upon the occurrence and during the continuance of which all obligations under the Iliad Purchase Agreement and Iliad Note might be declared immediately due and payable.

During the year ended December 28, 2019, Iliad fully-converted the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Iliad Note to shares of the Company’s common stock as follows: (1) $1.9 million of the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Iliad Note to 7,778,270 shares of the Company’s common stock at the Redemption Conversion Price and (2) $0.5 million of the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Iliad Note to 1,388,890 shares of the Company’s common stock at the Lender Conversion Price. As a result of these conversions, as of December 28, 2019, there were no outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Iliad Note.

Note 6—Leases

The Company has operating and finance leases primarily associated with office and manufacturing facilities and certain equipment. The determination of which discount rate to use when measuring the lease obligation was deemed a significant judgment.

Lease cost and supplemental cash flow information related to operating leases was as follows (in thousands):

For the three months ended March 28,  2020, finance lease costs and cash flows from finance lease were immaterial.

Supplemental balance sheet information related to leases was as follows:

Maturities of lease liabilities as of March 28, 2020 were as follows (in thousands):

Note 7—Commitments and Contingencies

TRGP Agreement and Related Intercreditor Agreements 

On May 3, 2017, the Company and TRGP entered into an investment agreement (the “TRGP Agreement”), which generally provides that TRGP will directly fund the costs incurred by or on behalf of the Company in connection with certain legal proceedings against SK hynix (see “Litigation and Patent Reexaminations” in this Note 7 below), including costs incurred since January 1, 2017 and costs to be incurred in the future in the Company’s first action in the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and its U.S. district court proceedings, but excluding the Company’s second ITC action and its proceedings in international courts (all such funded costs, collectively, the “Funded Costs”). In exchange for such funding, the Company has agreed that, if the Company recovers any proceeds in connection with the funded SK hynix proceedings, it will pay to TRGP the amount of the Funded Costs paid by TRGP plus an escalating premium based on when any such proceeds are recovered, such that the premium will equal a specified low-to-mid double-digit percentage of the amount of the Funded Costs and such percentage will increase by a specified low double-digit amount each quarter after a specified date until any such proceeds are recovered. In addition, pursuant to the terms of a separate security agreement between the Company and TRGP dated May 3, 2017 (the “Security Agreement”), the Company has granted to TRGP (i) a first priority lien on, and security in, the claims underlying the funded SK hynix proceedings and any proceeds that may be received by the Company in connection with these proceedings, and (ii) a second priority lien on, and security in, the Company’s patents that are the subject of the funded SK hynix proceedings.

The TRGP Agreement does not impose financial covenants on the Company. Termination events under the TRGP Agreement include, among others, any failure by the Company to make payments to TRGP thereunder upon receipt of recoveries in the SK hynix proceedings; the occurrence of certain bankruptcy events; certain breaches by the Company of its covenants under the TRGP Agreement or the related Security Agreement; and the occurrence of a change of control of the Company. If any such termination event occurs, subject to certain cure periods for certain termination events, TRGP would have the right to terminate its obligations under the TRGP Agreement, including its obligation to make any further payments of Funded Costs after the termination date. In the event of any such termination by TRGP, the Company would continue to be obligated to pay TRGP the portion of any proceeds the Company may recover in connection with the SK hynix proceedings that TRGP would have been entitled to receive absent such termination, as described above, and TRGP may also be entitled to seek additional remedies pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the TRGP Agreement.

In connection with the TRGP Agreement, in May 2017, TRGP, SVIC and SVB entered into the Intercreditor Agreements. Pursuant to the terms of the Intercreditor Agreements, TRGP, SVB and SVIC have agreed to their relative security interest priorities in the Company’s assets, such that: (i) TRGP has a first priority security interest in the Company’s claims underlying the funded SK hynix proceedings and any proceeds that may be received by the Company in connection with these proceedings, and a second priority security interest in the Company’s patents that are the subject of the funded SK hynix proceedings, (ii) SVIC has a first priority security interest in the Company’s complete patent portfolio and a second priority security interest in all of the Company’s other tangible and intangible assets (other than the Company’s claims underlying and any proceeds it may receive from the SK hynix proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement), and (iii) SVB has a first priority security interest in all of the Company’s tangible and intangible assets other than its patent portfolio and its claims underlying and any proceeds it may receive from the SK hynix

proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement, a second priority security interest in the Company’s patent portfolio other than the patents that are the subject of the SK hynix proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement, and a third priority security interest in the Company’s patents that are the subject of the SK hynix proceedings funded under the TRGP Agreement. The Company consented and agreed to the terms of each of the Intercreditor Agreements.

Legal expenses incurred by the Company but paid by TRGP pursuant to the terms of the TRGP Agreement are excluded from the condensed consolidated financial statements. During the years ended December 29, 2018 and December 30, 2017, the Company excluded legal expenses of $1.8 million and $10.2 million, respectively, as a result of TRGP’s payment of these expenses under the TRGP Agreement. The Company does not anticipate any further legal expenses will be paid by TRGP under this agreement. Any settlement or other cash proceeds the Company may recover in the future in connection with the funded SK hynix proceedings would be reduced by the aggregate amount of legal expenses excluded by the Company as a result of TRGP’s payment of these expenses under the TRGP Agreement, plus the premium amount due to TRGP under the terms of the TRGP Agreement at the time of any such recovery. On January 23, 2020, the Company and TRGP entered into an amendment to the TRGP Agreement to alter the recovery sharing formula related to claims against SK hynix for alleged infringement of the Company’s patents.

Litigation and Patent Reexaminations

The Company owns numerous patents and continues to seek to grow and strengthen its patent portfolio, which covers various aspects of the Company’s innovations and includes various claim scopes. The Company plans to pursue avenues to monetize its intellectual property portfolio, in which it would generate revenue by selling or licensing its technology, and it intends to vigorously enforce its patent rights against alleged infringers of such rights. The Company dedicates substantial resources to protecting and enforcing its intellectual property rights, including with patent infringement proceedings it files against third parties and defense of its patents against challenges made by way of reexamination and review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The Company expects these activities to continue for the foreseeable future, with no guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection or litigation activities will be successful, or that the Company will be able to monetize its intellectual property portfolio. The Company is also subject to litigation based on claims that it has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others.

Any litigation, regardless of its outcome, is inherently uncertain, involves a significant dedication of resources, including time and capital, and diverts management’s attention from other activities of the Company. As a result, any current or future infringement claims or patent challenges by or against third parties, whether or not eventually decided in the Company’s favor or settled, could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the outcome of pending or future litigation and related patent reviews and reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect the Company’s ability to continue to sell its products, protect against competition in the current and expected markets for its products or license or otherwise monetize its intellectual property rights in the future.

Google Litigation

On December 4, 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google, Inc. (“Google”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”), seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Google’s alleged infringement of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 (the “‘912 patent”), which relates generally to technologies to implement rank multiplication. In February 2010, Google answered the Company’s complaint and asserted counterclaims against the Company seeking a declaration that the patent is invalid and not infringed, and claiming that the Company committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract based on the Company’s activities in the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (“JEDEC”) standard-setting organization. The counterclaim seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to Google’s counterclaim because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. In October 2010, Google requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. In connection with the reexamination request, the Northern District Court granted the Company’s and Google’s joint request to stay the ‘912 patent infringement lawsuit against Google until the completion of the reexamination

proceedings. On January 31, 2019, the PTAB, in response to Google’s rehearing request, denied rehearing of the PTAB’s previous decision upholding the validity of claims in Netlist’s ‘912 patent. On April 16, 2019, Google filed an appeal to this decision.

Inphi Litigation

On September 22, 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Inphi Corporation (“Inphi”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”). The complaint, as amended, alleges that Inphi is contributorily infringing and actively inducing the infringement of U.S. patents owned by the Company, including the ‘912 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 (the “‘537 patent”), which relates generally to memory modules with load isolation and memory domain translation capabilities, and U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 (the “‘274 patent”), which is related to the ‘537 patent and relates generally to load isolation and memory domain translation technologies. The Company is seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Inphi’s use of the Company’s patented technology. Inphi denied infringement and claimed that the three patents are invalid. In June 2010, Inphi requested and was later granted Inter Partes Reexaminations of the ‘912, ‘537 and ‘274 patents by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below (except for the reexamination proceeding related to the ‘537 patent, which have concluded with the confirmation of all of the claims of such patent). In connection with the reexamination requests, Inphi filed a motion to stay the patent infringement lawsuit with the Central District Court until completion of the reexamination proceedings, which was granted. On April 16, 2019, Inphi filed an appeal to the PTAB’s January 31, 2019 decision upholding the validity of claims in Netlist’s ‘912 patent.

‘912 Patent Reexamination

As noted above, in April 2010, June 2010 and October 2010, Google and Inphi submitted requests for an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO, claiming that the ‘912 patent is invalid and requesting that the USPTO reject the patent’s claims and cancel the patent. Additionally, in October 2010, Smart Modular, Inc. (“Smart Modular”) submitted another such reexamination request. On January 18, 2011, the USPTO granted such reexamination requests, and in February 2011, the USPTO merged the Inphi, Google and Smart Modular ‘912 patent reexaminations into a single proceeding. On March 21, 2014, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”), an office action that states the USPTO examiner’s position on patentability and closes further prosecution, and on June 18, 2014 the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice (“RAN”), a notice that triggers the rights of the involved parties to file a notice of appeal to the ACP, each of which confirmed the patentability of 92 of the ‘912 patent’s claims and rejected the patent’s 11 other claims. The parties involved filed various notices of appeal, responses and requests, and on November 24, 2015, the PTAB held a hearing on such appeals. On May 31, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming certain of the examiner’s decisions and reversing others. On February 9, 2017, the PTAB granted the Company’s request to reopen prosecution before the USPTO examiner and remanded the consolidated proceeding to the examiner to consider the patentability of certain of the pending claims in view of the PTAB’s May 31, 2016 decision and comments from the parties. On October 3, 2017, the examiner issued a determination as to the patentability of certain of the pending claims, which were found to be unpatentable. On June 1, 2018, the PTAB reversed the Examiner and found the pending amended claims to be patentable. On July 2, 2018, Google requested rehearing of the PTAB’s decision. On January 31, 2019 the PTAB, in response to Google’s rehearing request, denied rehearing of the PTAB’s previous decision upholding the validity of claims in Netlist’s ‘912 patent. On April 16, 2019, Inphi and Google filed an appeal to the ‘912 patent decision. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to the ‘912 patent reexamination proceedings because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

‘627 Patent Reexamination

In September 2011, Smart Modular submitted a request for an Inter Partes Reexamination by the USPTO of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 7,864,627 (the “‘627 patent”), related to the ‘912 patent, alleging that the ‘627 patent is invalid and requesting that the USPTO reject the patent’s claims. On November 16, 2011, the USPTO granted Smart Modular’s request and initiated reexamination. By June 27, 2014, the USPTO’s patent examiner had rejected all of the ‘627 patent’s claims. The Company appealed the examiner’s rejections to the PTAB, and on May 31, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming some of the examiner’s rejections. On July 31, 2016, the Company submitted a request to the PTAB to reopen prosecution before the examiner to amend the claims. On February 9, 2017, the PTAB granted the

Company’s request to reopen prosecution and remanded the proceeding to the examiner to consider the patentability of the amended claims in view of the PTAB’s May 31, 2016 decision and comments from Smart Modular. On October 2, 2017, the examiner issued a determination that the amended claims should also be rejected. On June 1, 2018, the PTAB reversed the examiner and found the amended claims to be patentable. Smart Modular did not appeal this latest PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit. On October 3, 2018, the USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexam Certificate, and on November 5, 2018, the USPTO issued Reexamination Certificate No. 7,864,627 concluding the reexamination. The original ‘627 patent had eighteen claims, and during the reexamination, five were canceled (claims 1, 4, 15, 19, 20) and the remaining fifteen were amended (claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14-18) into their current form as issued in the reexamination certificate. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to the ‘627 patent reexamination proceedings because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

‘274 Patent Reexamination

As noted above, in April 2010 and June 2010, Inphi submitted requests for an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘274 patent by the USPTO. On August 27, 2010, the request was granted. In March 2012 and June 2012, the USPTO issued an ACP and a RAN, respectively, each of which confirmed the patentability of many of the ‘274 patent’s claims. The parties involved filed various notices of appeal, responses and requests, and on November 20, 2013, the PTAB held a hearing on such appeals. On January 16, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the examiner in part but reversing the examiner on new grounds and rejecting all of the patent’s claims. On September 11, 2015, the USPTO examiner issued a determination rejecting the amended claims. On January 23, 2017, the USPTO granted-in-part the Company’s petition to enter comments in support of its positions in the proceeding. On May 9, 2017, the PTAB issued a decision on appeal affirming the rejection of all claims. Netlist requested rehearing of the PTAB’s decision on June 6, 2017. The PTAB denied the rehearing request on August 8, 2017. On October 6, 2017, Netlist appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which Netlist dismissed on March 19, 2018, thereby terminating the proceedings with the rejection of all ‘274 patent claims becoming final. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to the ‘274 patent reexamination proceedings because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

Smart Modular ‘295 Patent Litigation and Reexamination

On September 13, 2012, Smart Modular filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the “Eastern District Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company willfully infringes and actively induces the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,250,295 (“the ‘295 patent”) issued to Smart Modular and seeks damages and injunctive relief. The Company answered Smart Modular’s complaint in October 2012, denying infringement of the ‘295 patent, asserting that the ‘295 patent is invalid and unenforceable, and asserting counterclaims against Smart Modular. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to Smart Modular’s complaint because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

On December 7, 2012, the USPTO granted the Company’s request for the reexamination of the ‘295 patent. On April 29, 2014, the USPTO examiner issued an ACP confirming some claims and rejecting others, and on August 4, 2015, the examiner issued a RAN confirming all pending claims. On September 4, 2015, the Company appealed to the PTAB. The parties involved filed various notices of appeal, responses and requests, and on September 22, 2016, the PTAB held a hearing on such appeals. On November 14, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision reversing the examiner and rejected all of the pending claims. On January 23, 2017, Smart Modular filed a request to reopen prosecution. The parties had the opportunity present evidence and arguments and the examiner issued a determination on May 8, 2017, which found all pending claims to be unpatentable. On December 12, 2017, the PTAB agreed with the examiner and found all pending claims to be unpatentable. Smart Modular appealed the PTAB’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 28, 2018, the Eastern District Court stayed the proceedings related to the ‘295 patent. On January 18,

2019, the Company and Smart Modular filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, terminating the proceedings related to the ‘295 patent in the Eastern District Court.

Smart Modular and SanDisk Litigation

On July 1 and August 23, 2013, the Company filed complaints against Smart Modular, SMART Storage Systems (which was subsequently acquired by SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”)), Smart Worldwide Holdings (“Smart Worldwide”) and Diablo Technologies (“Diablo”) in the Central District Court, seeking, among other things, damages and other relief for alleged infringement of several of the Company’s patents by the defendants based on the manufacture and sale of the ULLtraDIMM memory module, alleged antitrust violations by Smart Modular and Smart Worldwide, and alleged trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement by Diablo. More particularly, the Company asserted claims from U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,150; 8,001,434; 8,081,536; 8,301,833; 8,359,501; 8,516,185; and 8,516,187 (the “Asserted Patents”).

On August 23, 2013, Smart Modular and Diablo each filed a complaint in the Oakland Division of the Northern District Court seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Asserted Patents. Based on various motions filed by the parties, on November 26, 2013, the Central District Court severed and transferred the patent claims related to the ULLtraDIMM memory module to the Northern District Court. On February 12, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing all claims against Smart Modular without prejudice. On April 15, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing all claims against Smart Worldwide without prejudice.

Between June 18, 2014 and August 23, 2014, SanDisk, Diablo, and Smart Modular filed numerous petitions in the USPTO requesting Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the Company’s Asserted Patents. On April 9, 2015, the Northern District Court stayed the proceedings as to the Company’s patent infringement claims pending resolution of all outstanding IPRs. The trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement claims against Diablo were fully adjudicated on August 17, 2016 (during the pendency of the IPR’s) and are no longer pending. 

All of the IPRs filed by SanDisk, Diablo and SMART Modular associated with the Asserted Patents with Patent Nos. ending in ‘185, ‘187 and ‘833 have been resolved in the Company’s favor and are no longer pending. The IPRs associated with the Asserted Patents with Patent Nos. ending in ‘150, ‘434, ‘501 and ‘536, and the appeals therefrom, have also concluded, with the Board confirming the patentability of several asserted claims. The litigation, however, remains stayed pending resolution of IPRs filed by Hynix on the same or related patents. On December 8, 2017, Diablo filed for bankruptcy, and on November 9, 2018, the Northern District Court dismissed all claims against Diablo without prejudice. The Company’s patent infringement claims as to all Asserted Patents remain pending against SMART Storage Systems and SanDisk, subject to the stay.

SK hynix Litigation

On September 1, 2016, the Company filed legal proceedings for patent infringement against SK hynix in the ITC (the “First ITC Action”) and the Central District Court. These proceedings are based on the alleged infringement by SK hynix’s RDIMM and LRDIMM enterprise memory products of six of the Company’s U.S. patents. On October 31, 2017, the Company filed additional legal proceedings for patent infringement against SK hynix in the ITC (the “Second ITC Action”) based on the alleged infringement by SK hynix’s RDIMM and LRDIMM products of two additional U.S. patents owned by the Company. In all of the ITC proceedings, the Company has requested exclusion orders that direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop allegedly infringing SK hynix RDIMM and LRDIMM products from entering the United States. In the Central District Court proceedings, the Company is primarily seeking damages.

On October 3, 2016, the ITC instituted an investigation of the trade practices of SK hynix and certain of its subsidiaries in connection with the First ITC Action, and held a hearing on the merits of the investigation from May 8, 2017 until May 11, 2017. On November 14, 2017, the ITC issued a final initial determination for the First ITC Action, finding no infringement of the asserted patents and no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act, and on January 16, 2018, the ITC issued a final determination for the First ITC Action, affirming the findings of no infringement and no violation and terminating the investigation. The Company appealed this final determination to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with oral arguments occurring on December 5, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity ruling by the PTAB involving the patents in litigation at the first ITC Action and dismissed the appeal of the final determination of the first ITC Action as moot.

On January 11, 2018, the ITC set a 19-month target date of July 3, 2019 for an investigation related to the Second ITC Action, with a final initial determination for the Second ITC Action being filed no later than March 1, 2019. Based on this target date, the ITC scheduled a hearing on the merits of the investigation related to the Second ITC Action to begin on November 9, 2018 and conclude on November 19, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the ITC granted SK hynix’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement and terminated the Second ITC Action in its entirety. On April 23, 2018, the Company filed a petition seeking ITC review of this decision. On May 29, 2018, the ITC Commission remanded the Second ITC Action back to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to resolve the parties’ claim construction disputes and continue the investigation. On June 14, 2018, the ITC extended the target date for the final determination to August 5, 2019, with a final initial determination due by April 5, 2019. Based on this extended target date, the ITC scheduled a hearing on the merits to begin on December 14, 2018 and conclude on December 21, 2018. On September 13, 2018, the ITC rescheduled the hearing on the merits to begin on January 14, 2019 and conclude on January 18, 2019. On January 29, 2019, due to the government shutdown, the ITC again rescheduled the hearing on the merits to begin on March 11, 2019 and conclude on March 15, 2019. On February 8, 2019, Chief Administrative Law Judge of the ITC issued an Order in Investigation No. 337-TA-1089 denying SK hynix’s motion for “Summary Determination of Non Infringement of Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,535,623 Based On Issue Preclusion.” On March 12, 2019, the ALJ postponed the trial due to reasons unrelated to the dispute between the parties. The trial recommenced on July 15, 2019 and ended on July 19, 2019. On October 21, 2019, the ITC issued an initial determination for the Second ITC Action, finding infringement by SK hynix of asserted Netlist U.S. Patent No. 9,606,907 (the “‘907 Patent”) resulting in a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. On January 31, 2020, the ITC issued a Notice of Commission Determination regarding Investigation No. 337-TA-1089, which stated the ITC would review in part the positive Final Initial Determination and extended the target date for completion of the Investigation from February 21, 2020 to April 7, 2020. On April 7, 2020, the ITC issued a Notice of the Commission’s Final Determination regarding its Investigation No. 337-TA-1089 of SK hynix enterprise memory products. The Notice stated that the ITC found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and that the investigation is therefore terminated.  Netlist is currently exploring its options to appeal this decision.

Between December 30, 2016 and January 20, 2017, SK hynix filed numerous petitions in the USPTO requesting IPR of certain of the Company’s patents, including the patents asserted in the First ITC Action and the Central District Court proceedings, which have now concluded and certain of which are now on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Between December 19, 2017 and February 7, 2018, SK hynix filed additional petitions in the USPTO requesting IPR of the patents asserted in the Second ITC Action which are now proceeding. On March 21, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,535,623 invalid. Netlist has filed notice of intent to appeal. On June 27, 2019, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions on two IPR proceedings regarding Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 9,606,907 (the “‘907 Patent”) based on the reference Ellsberry, holding that claims 1-39 and 42-65 of the ‘907 Patent are unpatentable, but claims 40 and 41 are not unpatentable. On July 12, 2019, Netlist filed a Motion to Terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) the remaining two IPR proceedings regarding the ‘907 Patent based on the references Halbert and Amidi. On July 19, 2019, SK hynix filed and served their opposition to Netlist’s Motion To Terminate. The PTAB issued a decision to Terminate IPR IPR2018-0036 on August 5, 2019. 

On July 17, 2017, the Central District Court granted in part SK hynix’s request to stay the infringement proceedings pending further order of the court.

On July 11, 2017, the Company filed legal proceedings for patent infringement against SK hynix and certain of its distributors in the courts of Germany and the PRC based on the alleged infringement by SK hynix’s LRDIMM products of certain of the Company’s patents in those jurisdictions. On January 25, 2018, the court in Germany held a preliminary hearing and then held the trial on December 6, 2018. In December 2017, SK hynix filed petitions challenging the validity of the patents asserted by the Company in Germany and the PRC. On June 3, 2018, the patent asserted in the PRC was found to be invalid. On June 19, 2018, the Company withdrew the patent infringement suits filed in the PRC. On January 31, 2019, the court in Germany dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Company to bear the costs of the action. Netlist has elected not to appeal the German court’s finding.

On March 17, 2020, Netlist filed new legal proceedings alleging patent infringement against SK hynix in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas based on the infringement of Netlist U.S. Patent No. 9,858,218 and U.S. Patent No. 10,474,595 by SK hynix RDIMM and LRDIMM memory products. The case has been assigned to the Hon. Alan D. Albright and is Case No. 6:20-cv-00194-ADA.

Other Contingent Obligations

In the ordinary course of its business, the Company has made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include, among others: (i) intellectual property indemnities to the Company’s customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of Company products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on the Company’s negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to directors and officers of the Company to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities to TRGP, SVIC, SVB and Iliad pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; and (vi) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, may be indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments the Company could be obligated to make. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments as a result of these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Note 8—Stockholders’ Equity

Serial Preferred Stock

The Company’s authorized capital stock includes 10,000,000 shares of serial preferred stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share. No shares of preferred stock were outstanding as of March 28, 2020 or December 28, 2019.  

On April 17, 2017, the Company entered into a rights agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Rights Agreement”) with Computershare Trust Company, N.A., as rights agent. In connection with the adoption of the Rights Agreement and pursuant to its terms, the Company’s board of directors authorized and declared a dividend of one right (each, a “Right”) for each outstanding share of the Company’s common stock to stockholders of record at the close of business on May 18, 2017 (the “Record Date”), and authorized the issuance of one Right for each share of the Company’s common stock issued by the Company (except as otherwise provided in the Rights Agreement) between the Record Date and the Distribution Date (as defined below).  

Each Right entitles the registered holder, subject to the terms of the Rights Agreement, to purchase from the Company, when exercisable and subject to adjustment, one unit consisting of one one-thousandth of a share (a “Unit”) of Series A Preferred Stock of the Company (the “Preferred Stock”), at a purchase price of $6.56 per Unit, subject to adjustment. Subject to the provisions of the Rights Agreement, including certain exceptions specified therein, a distribution date for the Rights (the “Distribution Date”) will occur upon the earlier of (i) 10 business days following a public announcement that a person or group of affiliated or associated persons (an “Acquiring Person”) has acquired or otherwise obtained beneficial ownership of 15% or more of the then‑outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock, and (ii) 10 business days (or such later date as may be determined by the Company’s board of directors) following the commencement of a tender offer or exchange offer that would result in a person or group becoming an Acquiring Person. The Rights are not exercisable until the Distribution Date and, unless earlier redeemed or exchanged by the Company pursuant to the terms of the Rights Agreement (as amended on April 16, 2018 and April 16, 2019) will expire on the close of business on April 17, 2021.

In connection with the adoption of the Rights Agreement, the Company’s board of directors approved a Certificate of Designation of the Series A Preferred Stock (the “Certificate of Designation”) designating 1,000,000 

shares of its serial preferred stock as Series A Preferred Stock and setting forth the rights, preferences and limitations of the Preferred Stock. The Company filed the Certificate of Designation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on April 17, 2017.

2019 Lincoln Park Purchase Agreement

On June 24, 2019, the Company entered into the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Lincoln Park, pursuant to which the Company has the right to sell to Lincoln Park up to an aggregate of $10 million in shares of its common stock subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in the 2019 Purchase Agreement. As consideration for entering into the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to Lincoln Park 818,420 shares of its common stock as initial commitment shares in a noncash transaction on June 24, 2019 and will issue up to 818,420 additional shares of its common stock as additional commitment shares on a pro rata basis in connection with any additional purchases. The Company will not receive any cash proceeds from the issuance of these additional commitment shares.

Pursuant to the 2019 Purchase Agreement, on any business day and as often as every other business day over the 36-month term of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the Company has the right, from time to time, at its sole discretion and subject to certain conditions, to direct Lincoln Park to purchase up to 400,000 shares of its common stock, with such amount increasing as the closing sale price of its common stock increases; provided Lincoln Park’s obligation under any single such purchase will not exceed $1.0 million, unless the Company and Lincoln Park mutually agree to increase the maximum amount of such single regular purchase. If the Company directs Lincoln Park to purchase the maximum number of shares of common stock it then may sell in a regular purchase, then in addition to such regular purchase, and subject to certain conditions and limitations in the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the Company may direct Lincoln Park to purchase an additional amount of common stock that may not exceed the lesser of (i) 300% of the number of shares purchased pursuant to the corresponding regular purchase or (ii) 30% of the total number of shares of its common stock traded during a specified period on the applicable purchase date as set forth in the 2019 Purchase Agreement. Under certain circumstances and in accordance with the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the Company may direct Lincoln Park to purchase shares in multiple accelerated purchases on the same trading day.

During the three months ended March 28, 2020 and subsequent to March 28, 2020, Lincoln Park did not purchase shares of the Company’s common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement.

The Company controls the timing and amount of any sales of its common stock to Lincoln Park. There is no upper limit on the price per share that Lincoln Park must pay for the Company’s common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement, but in no event will shares be sold to Lincoln Park on a day the closing price is less than the floor price specified in the 2019 Purchase Agreement. In all instances, the Company may not sell shares of its common stock to Lincoln Park under the 2019 Purchase Agreement if that would result in Lincoln Park beneficially owning more than 9.99% of its common stock.

The 2019 Purchase Agreement does not limit the Company’s ability to raise capital from other sources at the Company’s sole discretion, except that, subject to certain exceptions, the Company may not enter into any Variable Rate Transaction (as defined in the Purchase Agreement, including the issuance of any floating conversion rate or variable priced equity-like securities) during the 36 months after the date of the 2019 Purchase Agreement. The Company has the right to terminate the 2019 Purchase Agreement at any time, at no cost to the Company.

2020 Lincoln Park Purchase Agreement

On March 5, 2020, the Company entered into the 2020 Purchase Agreement with Lincoln Park, pursuant to which the Company has the right to sell to Lincoln Park up to an aggregate of $20 million in shares of its common stock over the 36-month term of the 2020 Purchase Agreement subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in the 2020 Purchase Agreement. As consideration for entering into the 2020 Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to Lincoln Park 1,529,052 shares of its common stock as initial commitment shares in a noncash transaction on March 6, 2020 and will issue up to 917,431 additional shares of its common stock as additional commitment shares on a pro rata basis in connection with any additional purchases. The Company will not receive any cash proceeds from the issuance of these additional commitment shares.

Pursuant to the 2020 Purchase Agreement, on any business day and as often as every other business day over the 36-month term of the 2020 Purchase Agreement, the Company has the right, from time to time, at its sole discretion and subject to certain conditions, to direct Lincoln Park to purchase up to 400,000 shares of its common stock, with such amount increasing as the closing sale price of its common stock increases; provided Lincoln Park’s obligation under any single such purchase will not exceed $1.0 million, unless the Company and Lincoln Park mutually agree to increase the maximum amount of such single regular purchase. If the Company directs Lincoln Park to purchase the maximum number of shares of common stock it then may sell in a regular purchase, then in addition to such regular purchase, and subject to certain conditions and limitations in the 2020 Purchase Agreement, the Company may direct Lincoln Park to purchase an additional amount of common stock that may not exceed the lesser of (i) 300% of the number of shares purchased pursuant to the corresponding regular purchase or (ii) 30% of the total number of shares of its common stock traded during a specified period on the applicable purchase date as set forth in the 2020 Purchase Agreement. Under certain circumstances and in accordance with the 2020 Purchase Agreement, the Company may direct Lincoln Park to purchase shares in multiple accelerated purchases on the same trading day.

During the three months ended March 28, 2020, Lincoln Park did not purchase shares of the Company’s common stock under the 2020 Purchase Agreement. Subsequent to March 28, 2020, Lincoln Park purchased an aggregate of 2,800,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for a net purchase price of $0.6 million under the 2020 Purchase Agreement. In connection with the purchases, the Company issued to Lincoln Park an aggregate of 27,596 shares of its common stock as additional commitment shares in noncash transactions.

The Company controls the timing and amount of any sales of its common stock to Lincoln Park. There is no upper limit on the price per share that Lincoln Park must pay for the Company’s common stock under the 2020 Purchase Agreement, but in no event will shares be sold to Lincoln Park on a day the closing price is less than the floor price specified in the 2020 Purchase Agreement. In all instances, the Company may not sell shares of its common stock to Lincoln Park under the 2020 Purchase Agreement if that will result in Lincoln Park beneficially owning more than 9.99% of its common stock.

The 2020 Purchase Agreement does not limit the Company’s ability to raise capital from other sources at the Company’s sole discretion, except that, subject to certain exceptions, the Company may not enter into any Variable Rate Transaction (as defined in the 2020 Purchase Agreement, including the issuance of any floating conversion rate or variable priced equity-like securities) during the 36 months after the date of the 2020 Purchase Agreement. The Company has the right to terminate the 2020 Purchase Agreement at any time, at no cost to the Company.

Warrants

As of March 28, 2020, there were outstanding warrants to purchase an aggregate of 15,010,012 shares of the Company’s common stock with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.62. There were no activities during the three months ended March 28, 2020.

Note 9—Stock-Based Awards

As of March 28, 2020, the Company had 2,032,198 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under its Amended and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan (“Amended 2006 Plan”). Stock options granted under the Amended 2006 Plan generally vest at a rate of at least 25% per year over four years and expire 10 years from the grant date.  Restricted stock awards (“RSAs”) granted under the 2006 Plan vest annually on each anniversary of the grant date over a two-year term. Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) granted for employees and consultants generally vest semi-annually from the grant date over a four-year term, and RSUs granted for independent directors fully-vest on the grant date.

As of March 28, 2020, the Company had approximately $1.5 million, net of estimated forfeitures, of unearned stock-based compensation, which it expects to recognize over a weighted-average period of approximately 2.8 years.