Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has operating office space leases in Austin, Texas; Newport Beach (Orange County), California; San Diego, California; and Miami, Florida. Rent expense under operating leases totaled $166 and $331 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, respectively, and $153 and $305 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, respectively.
Future minimum annual lease payments as of June 30, 2019 under the Company’s operating leases are set forth as follows:
Future minimum lease obligations years ended December 31,
2019 (Remainder)







On September 26, 2017, we filed a breach of contract complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc. seeking approximately $3 million (plus interest) for unpaid invoices for advertising campaign services provided for Uber in the first quarter of 2017. The case, captioned Phunware, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. CGC-17-561546 was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California County of San Francisco. On November 13, 2017, Uber generally denied the allegations in our complaint and also filed a cross-complaint against us and Fetch - the advertising agency Uber retained to run its mobile advertising campaign for the period 2014 through the first quarter of 2017 (the “Fetch Campaign”), asserting numerous fraud and contract-based claims. All the claims stem from Uber’s allegation that Fetch and/or we (and/or other-as-yet-unidentified ad networks and publishers) are liable for the Fetch Campaign, under which Uber allegedly overpaid Fetch and mobile advertising providers due to allegedly fraudulent attribution for installments of the Uber application. Uber did not allege any specific dollar amount that it is seeking in damages against either of the named cross-defendants (Fetch and Phunware). We filed a motion to dismiss the cross-complaint, which was heard on February 7, 2018. The motion was granted in part and denied in part by the Court. On April 16, 2018, the action was designated complex, and the matter was assigned for all purposes to Judge Wiss of the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Department 305). In March 2019, Uber and Fetch settled Uber’s claims against Fetch on terms that have not been disclosed to Phunware at this time. On May 7, 2019, we retained new counsel. In June 2019, the Court set a new trial date of April 20, 2020. Discovery is continuing. On June 26, 2019, the case was reassigned for all purposes to Judge Jackson of the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Department 613). On July 12, 2019, Uber filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint, naming new individual cross-defendants (Phunware Chief Executive Officer Alan S. Knitowski, and former Phunware employees D. Stasiuk, M. Borotsik, and A. Cook) accused of civil RICO violations and civil conspiracy to violate RICO, in addition to fraud, negligence, and unfair competition-based claims, and adding a fraud-based claim against Phunware. Uber’s First Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that cross-defendants fraudulently obtained approximately $17 million from Uber, and claims treble damages, general and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We maintain that our claims against Uber are meritorious and that Uber’s claims against us are not. However, we make no predictions on the likelihood of success of prevailing on our contract action against Uber or on the likelihood of defeating Uber’s claims against us.
From time to time, the Company is and may become involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. The outcomes of our legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular reporting period. In addition, for the matters disclosed above that do not include an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, such an estimate is not possible, and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies.