Print Page | Close Window

SEC Filings

INCONTACT, INC. filed this Form 10-Q on 11/09/2016
Entire Document


costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.  In December 2014 inContact filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which is pending before the Court.  inContact also filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ‘509 Patent in January 2015 before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal board, and the PTAB instituted the IPR for the ‘509 Patent on all claims included in our petition.  In a Final Written Decision entered on July 28, 2016 pursuant to the IPR rules, the PTAB held that all claims included in our IPR petition are invalid, meaning that the claims in the ‘509 Patent that Microlog alleged that we infringed cannot be enforced. Microlog has 30 days in which to file a request for rehearing of the PTAB Final Written Decision or 63 days in which to file an appeal of the Final Written Decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The 30-day period for Microlog to file a request for rehearing of the PTAB Final Written Decision has expired and the Microlog claims are no longer actionable.

On May 2, 2014, Info Directions, Inc. (“IDI”) notified inContact of a Demand for Arbitration regarding a dispute related to the Software as a Service Agreement between IDI and inContact dated December 19, 2012 pursuant to which IDI was to provide inContact with billing systems software.  IDI asserted claims for breach of contract and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages totaling $3.6 million.  inContact denied the claims by IDI and asserted its own counterclaims for breach of contract.  The Arbitration Hearing in this matter was held in Rochester, New York in April 2016. In August 2016, the arbitrator awarded IDI $3.2 million in liquidated damages and denied the counterclaims asserted by inContact.  All payments due IDI as a result of the arbitration were paid in full in September 2016.

On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160903695 was filed in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the “Court”) naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the “Gordon Action”). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Gordon Action on July 1, 2016.  On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160904200 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the “Stern Action”).  On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact. Inc., et al., Case No. 160904272 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact, its Board of Directors, Parent and Merger Subsidiary (the “Davis Action”).  On July 14, 2016 the Court ordered the three actions consolidated and designated the amended complaint in the Gordon action as the operative complaint.  The consolidated action purports to be a class action brought by shareholders alleging that inContact’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement with NICE pursuant to which the Company would be acquired as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NICE.  The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated.   Without admitting to any fault, inContact and the Board of Directors have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding settling the consolidated action. The parties are conducting confirmatory discovery prior to finalizing the settlement.

We have established liabilities of $377,000 relative to all contingent matters above. We believe the amounts provided in our consolidated financial statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable liabilities. We have certain contingencies which are reasonably possible, with exposures to loss which are in excess of the amount accrued. However, the remaining reasonably possible exposure to loss cannot currently be estimated.

We are the subject of certain additional legal matters, which we consider incidental to our business activities. It is the opinion of management that the ultimate disposition of these other matters will not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.




Stock-based compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award granted and recognized as expense using the graded-vesting method over the period in which the award is expected to vest. Stock-based compensation expense recognized during a period is based on the value of the portion of stock-based awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period.

We record stock-based compensation expense (including stock options, restricted stock and employee stock purchase plan) to the same departments where cash compensation is recorded as follows (in thousands):



Nine Months Ended September 30,








Costs of revenue








Selling and marketing








Research and development








General and administrative








Total stock-based compensation expense