Commitments and Contingencies Leases We lease administrative, research and development, sales and marketing and manufacturing facilities and certain equipment under various non-cancelable lease agreements. Facility leases generally provide for periodic rent increases, and may contain clauses for rent escalation, renewal options or early termination. The components of lease expense and supplemental cash flow information related to leases were as follows (in thousands): Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended September 30, 2019 September 30, 2019 Finance lease ROU asset amortization $ 83 $ 230 Finance lease interest expense 209 629 Total finance lease costs 292 859 Operating lease costs 2,483 7,490 Total lease costs $ 2,775 $ 8,349 Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of operating lease liabilities: Operating cash flows from operating leases $ 2,303 $ 6,887 Operating cash flows from finance leases $ 209 $ 629 Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new lease liabilities: Operating leases $ 62 $ 390 Finance leases $  $ 1,369 Commitments for minimum rentals under non-cancelable leases as of September 30, 2019 are as follows (dollars in thousands): Years ending December 31, Operating Finance 2019 $ 2,300 $ 314 2020 9,378 1,264 2021 9,552 1,272 2022 8,544 1,282 2023 8,172 1,293 Thereafter 76,565 3,203 Total lease payments 114,511 8,628 Less: imputed interest (27,989 ) (3,670 ) Total 86,522 4,958 Less: current portion (5,598 ) (458 ) Non-current portion $ 80,924 $ 4,500 Weighted average remaining lease term 12.3 years 5.8 years Weighted average discount rate 4 % 18 % Summers Ridge Lease  The Company leases two of the four buildings that are located on the Summers Ridge Property in San Diego, California with an initial term of 15 years beginning as of January 2018. Such lease includes options to extend the lease for two additional five -year terms upon satisfaction of certain conditions, which have not been included in the determination of the lease term. The lease is subject to certain must-take provisions related to the remaining two additional buildings. One building is subject to the expiration of the lease with its current tenant for which the expiration date is not yet known. The lease for the remaining building will commence in the fourth quarter of 2019 at which time the Company expects to relocate its headquarters into the facility. The minimum lease payments for this building during the lease term are $18.3 million . As a result of the relocation, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $1.1 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 related to the right-of-use asset and leasehold improvements for the existing headquarters facility. Such impairment loss was measured using discounted cash flows and available market data and recorded within acquisition and integration costs in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Income. McKellar Court Lease  In 1999, the Company completed a sale and leaseback transaction of its San Diego facility at McKellar Court to a partnership for which the Company is a 25% limited partner. The partnership is deemed to be a variable interest entity (VIE). The Company is not, however, the primary beneficiary of the VIE as it does not have the power to direct the activities of the partnership and does not have the obligation to absorb losses or receive benefits of the partnership that could potentially be significant to the partnership. The McKellar Court lease ends in December 2020 and contains options to extend the lease for three additional five -year periods, of which one five -year period is included in the determination of the lease term. Litigation and Other Legal Proceedings In Beckman Coulter Inc. v. Quidel Corporation, which was filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, California, on November 27, 2017, Beckman Coulter (Beckman) alleges that a provision of an agreement between Quidel and Beckman violates state antitrust laws. Our acquisition of the B-type Naturietic Peptide assay business (BNP Business) consisted of assets and liabilities relating to a contractual arrangement with Beckman (the Beckman Agreement) for the supply of antibodies and other inputs related to, and distribution of, the Triage BNP Test for the Beckman Coulter Access Family of Immunoassay Systems. The Beckman Agreement further provides that Beckman, for a specified period, cannot research, develop, manufacture or sell an assay for use in the diagnosis of cardiac diseases that measures or detects the presence or absence of BNP or NT-pro-BNP (a related biomarker) (the Exclusivity Provision). In the lawsuit, Beckman asserts that this provision violates certain state antitrust laws and is unenforceable. Beckman contends that it has suffered damages due to this provision and seeks a declaration that this provision is void. On December 7, 2018, the trial court granted a motion by Beckman for summary adjudication, holding that the Exclusivity Provision is void under California law (the December 7 Order). On December 18, 2018, the trial court stayed the effect of the December 7 Order pending a decision on a writ petition Quidel intended to file with the Court of Appeal. Quidel filed its writ petition on January 18, 2019, asking the Court of Appeal to review and reverse the December 7 Order. On February 7, 2019, the trial court stayed all the remaining litigation pending the outcome of the writ petition and vacated all deadlines in the case. On March 14, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in Quidels petition should not be granted. The Court also stayed the December 7 Order pending a further order from the Court of Appeal. On August 29, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a written decision ruling in Quidels favor and overturning the December 7 Order. Beckman challenged the Court of Appeals ruling with a petition for rehearing on September 10, 2019, which was denied on September 13, 2019. On October 1, 2019, Beckman filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeals ruling with the Supreme Court of California (the Supreme Court). On October 21, 2019, we filed an answer to Beckmans petition for review. Beckman has 10 days to file a response to our reply and we expect the Supreme Court to decide whether to grant or deny review of the Court of Appeal ruling by the end of 2019. Quidel denies that the Exclusivity Provision is unlawful, denies any liability with respect to this matter, and intends to vigorously defend itself. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter, some of which are subject to potential review by the Supreme Court; and (3) discovery is ongoing. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. From time to time, the Company is involved in other litigation and proceedings, including matters related to product liability claims, commercial disputes and intellectual property claims, as well as regulatory, employment, and other claims related to our business. The Company accrues for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and are reasonably estimable. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims. For those matters as to which we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, we are not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations or liquidity. No accrual has been recorded as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 related to such matters as they are not probable and/or reasonably estimable. Management believes that all such current legal actions, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. However, the resolution of, or increase in any accruals for, one or more matters may have a material adverse effect on the Companys results of operations and cash flows. The Company also maintains insurance, including coverage for product liability claims, in amounts that management believes are appropriate given the nature of its business.