Legal Matters |
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2025 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Legal Matters | Legal Matters On October 7, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration in response to a complaint filed by Tesla on June 14, 2024 against the Company in the Northern District of California, Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-03615 (N.D. Cal.), which alleged trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (the "DTSA") and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the "CUTSA"), breach of contract and unfair business practices. Given the Court’s favorable ruling, the matter filed by Tesla has been effectively stayed pending arbitration, which Tesla has initiated. The Company maintains the claims alleged in the complaint are without merit and continues to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in confidential arbitration.
In addition, on February 13, 2025, Tesla filed another additional complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, in part, claims related to correction of inventorship, breach of contract, promissory estoppel and quasi-contract/restitution arising from and/or related to various U.S. patents and provisional patents, including but not limited to U.S. Patent No. 12,136,727. Similar to the prior matter, this case has also recently been compelled to confidential arbitration by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company maintains the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations if the matter is reinitiated by Tesla in confidential arbitration.
The Company is also defending a separate new confidential arbitration demand, initiated by Tesla on September 8, 2025, which alleges claims for breach of express warranty, declaratory relief, and breach of contract. The arbitration demand seeks declaratory relief and actual damages, plus interest and costs. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss related to the foregoing matters cannot be made at this time given the continued lack of specificity in the pending proceedings and/or the applicable pleadings. In light of the substantial harm caused to the Company by Tesla's actions, the Company is now pursuing counterclaims against Tesla.
On October 1, 2025, Judge Edward Davila, a federal court judge from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued an opinion and order granting Matthews’ petition to confirm a prior confidential arbitration award, and rejected Tesla’s motion to vacate that same arbitration award. Tesla has appealed Judge Davila’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Finally, in October 2025, the Company finalized a confidential settlement agreement resolving claims of alleged copyright infringement arising from a legacy licensing arrangement within the Company's Memorialization segment. The settlement amount of $8,000, which was accrued and recognized as a component of administrative expense for the period ended September 30, 2025, and was paid during the first quarter of fiscal 2026. The Company denies fault or wrongdoing in the matter arising from this licensing dispute.
|