NOTE 7:- COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES a. Purchase commitment: The Company has contractual obligations to purchase goods from its contract manufacturer. Purchase obligations do not include contracts that may be canceled without penalty. As of December 31, 2018, non-cancelable outstanding obligations amounted to approximately $350 thousand. b. Lease commitment: the Company operates from leased facilities in Israel, the United States and Germany. These leases expire between 2019 and 2023. The future minimum lease commitments from leased facilities and cars of the Company and its subsidiaries under various non-cancelable operating lease agreements in respect of premises, that are in effect as of December 31, 2018, are as follows: 2019 545 2020 544 2021 553 2022 562 2023 438 And Thereafter  Total $ 2,642 Total rent expenses for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 were $695 thousand, $682 thousand and $650 thousand, respectively. RRL lease cars for its employees under cancelable operating lease agreements expiring at various dates in 2019-2021. RRL has an option to be released from these agreements, which may result in penalties in a maximum amount of approximately $39 thousand as of December 31, 2018. c. Royalties: The Companys research and development efforts are financed, in part, through funding from the IIA and BIRD. Since the Companys inception through December 31, 2018, the Company received funding from the IIA and BIRD in the total amount of $1.97 million and $500 thousand, respectively. Out of the $1.97 million in funding from the IIA, a total amount of $1.57 million were royalty bearing grants (as of December 31, 2018, the Company paid royalties to the IIA in the total amount of $50 thousand), while a total amount of $400 thousand was received in consideration of 5,237 convertible preferred A shares, which converted after our initial public offering in September 2014 into ordinary shares in a conversion ratio of 1 to 1. The Company is obligated to pay royalties to the IIA, amounting to 3%-3.5% of the sales of the products and other related revenues generated from such projects, up to 100% of the grants received. The royalty payment obligations also bear interest at the LIBOR rate. The obligation to pay these royalties is contingent on actual sales of the applicable products and in the absence of such sales, no payment is required. The Company was obligated to pay royalties to the BIRD amounting to 5% of the sales of the products and other related revenues generated from such projects, up to 150% of the grants received. For the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 no royalties expenses recorded in cost of revenues. As of December 31, 2018, the contingent liability to the IIA amounted to $1.5 million. The Israeli Research and Development Law provides that know-how developed under an approved research and development program may not be transferred to third parties without the approval of the IIA. Such approval is not required for the sale or export of any products resulting from such research or development. The IIA, under special circumstances, may approve the transfer of IIA-funded know-how outside Israel, in the following cases: (a) the grant recipient pays to the IIA a portion of the sale price paid in consideration for such IIA-funded know-how or in consideration for the sale of the grant recipient itself, as the case may be, which portion will not exceed six times the amount of the grants received plus interest (or three times the amount of the grant received plus interest, in the event that the recipient of the know-how has committed to retain the R&amp;D activities of the grant recipient in Israel after the transfer); (b) the grant recipient receives know-how from a third party in exchange for its IIA-funded know-how; (c) such transfer of IIA-funded know-how arises in connection with certain types of cooperation in research and development activities; or (d) If such transfer of know-how arises in connection with a liquidation by reason of insolvency or receivership of the grant recipient. d. Liens In connection with the Loan Agreement, the Company granted Kreos a first priority security interest over all of its assets, including certain intellectual property and equity interests in its subsidiaries, subject to certain permitted security interests. The Companys other long-term assets in the amount of $801 thousand have been pledged as security in respect of a guarantee granted to a third party . Such deposit cannot be pledged to others or withdrawn without the consent of such third party. e. Legal Claims: Occasionally the Company is involved in various claims, lawsuits, regulatory examinations, investigations and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of business. The outcome of litigation and other legal matters is inherently uncertain. In making a determination regarding accruals, using available information, the Company evaluates the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in legal or regulatory proceedings to which the Company is a party and records a loss contingency when it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where the Company determines an unfavorable outcome is not probable or reasonably estimable, the Company does not accrue for any potential litigation loss. These subjective determinations are based on the status of such legal or regulatory proceedings, the merits of the companys defenses and consultation with legal counsel. Actual outcomes of these legal and regulatory proceedings may materially differ from the Companys current estimates. It is possible that resolution of one or more of the legal matters currently pending or threatened could result in losses material to the Companys consolidated results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. As previously disclosed, between September 2016 and January 2017, eight putative class actions on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired our ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to our registration statement on Form F-1 (File No. 333-197344) used in connection with our initial public offering, or our IPO, were commenced in the following courts: (i) the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo; (ii) the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County; (iii) the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; and (iv) the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As of November 14, 2018, seven have been dismissed and one has been partially dismissed. The actions involved or involve claims under various sections of the Securities Act against us, certain of our current and former directors and officers, the underwriters of our IPO and certain other defendants. The four actions commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo were dismissed in January 2017 for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the action commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California was voluntarily dismissed in March 2017. Additionally, the two actions commenced in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, or the Superior Court, were consolidated in December 2017, and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in November 2018, after the District Court for the District of Massachusetts partially dismissed the related claims in that court and the parties in the Superior Court entered a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the District Court), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, was partially dismissed on August 23, 2018. In particular, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead a false or misleading statement in the IPO registration statement. The District Court did not address the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because, as a result of the dismissal of the claims under the Securities Act, the lead plaintiff lacked standing to pursue those claims. Because the action in the District Court was styled as a class action, the District Court permitted the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum concerning standing or a motion to appoint a substitute or supplemental plaintiff. On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add a new plaintiff that purportedly has standing to pursue Exchange Act claims, and we opposed the motion to amend on September 24, 2018. Based on information currently available and the current stage of the litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible losses, if any, with regard to the remaining lawsuit in the District Court; therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2018. We will continue to evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an estimate for losses at the time or times if and when it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable.