NOTE 8 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 8 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation On July 31, 2012, the Company filed suit against Groupon, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00486. The Company filed additional suits against IZEA, Inc. on October 17, 2012, Yelp, Inc. on October 17, 2012, and Foursquare Labs, Inc. on October 31, 2012 in Civil Action Nos. 6:12-cv-786, 6:12-cv-788, 6:12-cv-837, respectively. Each of these cases alleges that the defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,664,516 entitled "Method and System for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices" and 8,155,679 entitled "System and Method for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices." The Company subsequently added U.S. Patent Nos. 8,438,055, 8,452,646, and 8,457,670 to the cases, alleging each defendant infringed the newly added patents. Each of the defendants have answered, denying infringement and claiming that the asserted patents are invalid. Groupon, Yelp, and Foursquare filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and not infringed. Yelp filed an additional counterclaim for declaratory judgment that the asserted patens are unenforceable. The Court subsequently consolidated the actions for at least pre-trial purposes. Groupon filed a motion to transfer the case against it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which the Court denied on September 27, 2013. On February 3, 2014, Groupon filed a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for mandamus on the district court's denial of its motion to transfer. On April 23, 2014, the petition was denied by the Federal Circuit. Between July 19, 2013 and October 3, 2013, Groupon filed petitions with the Patent Trial & Appeals Board (“PTAB”) requesting institution of Covered Business Method Review (“CBMR”) of all asserted claims. On December 19, 2013 and January 17, 2014, the PTAB issued decisions instituting review on all but four of the asserted claims. On January 14, 2014, the Company and all defendants filed a joint motion to stay the district court litigation. The Court granted the motion and stayed the case on January 16, 2014 pending a decision by the PTAB. Trial on the CBMR at the PTAB occurred during September 2014. On December 17, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued final decisions in Covered Business Method Review proceedings CBM2013-00035, CBM2013-00033, CBM2013-00034, CBM2013-00046 and CBM2013-00044. In each case, certain claims of each patent were held to be invalid for various reasons. With respect to the ‘516, ‘679, ‘055 and ‘646 patents, many of the claims survived and the patents remain enforceable. All of the claims of the ‘670 patent were held invalid. The Company appealed each of the final decisions to the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company appealed the unpatentability determinations including the decision of invalidity based on anticipation of several claims of the patents by prior art (the Paul reference”). The Company also appealed the decision to review its patents under the provisions for CBMR and that the ‘516 patent lacked sufficient written description under § 112 to support the claims. Groupon appealed the Board’s decision that the patents were not valid under § 103 and the determination by the PTAB that the Ratsimor reference was not publically available prior art. On April 2, 2015, the District Court lifted the stay and required the parties to file a joint docket control order. On April 6, 2015, the Court set a Markman Hearing for June 29, 2015, and jury selection for December 14, 2015. On April 15, 2015, the parties filed their joint docket control order. The Court entered its docket control order on April 23, 2015. Due to an apparent scheduling conflict, the Court rescheduled the Markman Hearing to July 8, 2015. On April 22, 2015, the Company filed its third amended complaint against all defendants. The defendants timely answered on May 11, 2015. Each of the defendant’s answers included a counterclaim for invalidity of the patents. The Company responded to these invalidity contentions on June 1, 2015. On May 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion for entry of an order focusing patent claims and prior art. That motion requested that the Court narrow the number of claims at issue and the number of prior art references that defendants could use in an attempt to invalidate the Company’s patents. On May 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the motion and ordered defendants to reduce the number of references in support of any invalidity contention against the patents. On June 25, 2015, the Company attended mediation with Yelp in an effort to settle the case. That mediation was recessed to explore settlement options. On July 8, 2015 the Company attended the Markman Hearing in order to construe the claims of the patents. On July 14, 2015, the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding claim construction. In that Order, the Court analyzed eleven claim terms. The Court agreed with Blue Calypso’s proffered construction as to seven terms, chose its own construction as to three terms and agreed with defendants’ proffered construction as to only one term. The Court also expressly rejected defendants’ argument that the term “testimonial tag” was indefinite. On July 13, 2015 the Court entered an order severing the non-active claims out of the case and consolidating claims regarding those patents into a separate set of cases. These new cases address the claims which were held invalid by the PTAB and which are now on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 14, 2015, the Company attended court-ordered mediation with Groupon. The result of that mediation was an impasse. On July 16, 2015, the Company attended court-ordered mediation with IZEA. The parties reached a settlement. On July 20, 2015, the Company attended court-ordered mediation with Foursquare. The result of that mediation was an impasse. As part of the Company's settlement with Living Social, the Company's attorney is entitled to additional compensation for the value of certain non-monetary arrangements. On August 17, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with IZEA, pursuant to which it settled all outstanding litigation with IZEA. Under the Agreement, IZEA has agreed to pay the Company a royalty fee of 4.125% of revenue from IZEA’s discontinued legacy platforms SocialSpark, Sponsored Tweets and WeReward. The remaining terms of the settlement are confidential. Legal costs due to our attorneys associated with the IZEA settlement are classified as a settlement payable on our consolidated balance sheet. On September 21, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Yelp, pursuant to which all outstanding litigation with Yelp was settled. Under the agreement, Yelp has agreed to purchase 4,000 KIOSentrix beacons. On March 1, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned the PTAB decision as to insufficient written description but upheld the decision that the Ratsimor reference was not publically available prior art. However, the Federal Circuit confirmed the PTAB’s decision to institute the CBMR process on the basis that Blue Calypso’s patent portfolio qualified as a business method patent which was financial in nature. The Federal Circuit also upheld the decision of invalidity based on anticipation of several claims of the patents by the prior art Paul reference. The reversal of the written description matter is significant as it re-establishes the ‘516 parent patent issue date of February 2010 as the date that damages begin to accrue. Prior to this reversal the first date of infringement was relegated to the later issue date of the ‘679 patent on April 2012. The Company requested an En Banc review by the Federal Circuit of the holding with respect to anticipation by the Paul reference on March 31, 2016. The Company has the option of requesting that the Supreme Court review the Federal Circuit’s decision. The option for appeal to the Supreme Court must be filed by June 1, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court set a hearing date of May 6, 2016 at 9:00am in Marshall, Texas. The items to be discussed were the Federal Circuit’s Decision issued on March 1, 2016 and the pending Motion for Judgment of lack of subject matter eligibility. On May 4, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied the request for En Banc review. On May 5, 2016, the Company entered into a memorandum of settlement with Groupon pursuant to which it has in principal settled all outstanding litigation with Groupon. The terms of the settlement are confidential. On May 6, 2016, the Court held a hearing regarding the Federal Circuits decision issued on March 1, 2016 and the pending motion for summary judgment related to subject matter eligibility. The Court heard arguments of the Company and Four Square Labs and took the matter under advisement. The Court also set a trial date of September 12, 2016. The Court also required the parties to submit briefing on certain collateral estoppel issues and a joint docket control order within 15 days, or by May 21, 2016. On June 2, 2016, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with Foursquare pursuant to which it has in principle settled all outstanding litigation with Foursquare. The terms of the settlement are confidential. On July 7, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against Groupon. The Court also stayed all deadlines with respect to Foursquare, the sole remaining Defendant. The court dockets for each case, including the parties’ briefs are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website, or PACER, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Opposition at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against T. Scott Pernici to prevent registration of the trademark “DASH TAG” because of the potential to create a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace. The deadline for Pernici to file an Answer to the Notice is August 18, 2016. The Board dockets for each case are publicly available on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System, or TTABVUE, http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v, which is operated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Other than as noted above, the Company is not a party to any pending legal proceeding nor is its property the subject of any pending legal proceeding that is not in the ordinary course of business or otherwise material to the financial condition of its business. Further, to the knowledge of management, no director or executive officer is party to any action in which any has an interest adverse to us.

NOTE 8 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 8 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On July 31, 2012, the Company filed suit against Groupon, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00486. The Company filed additional suits against IZEA, Inc. on October 17, 2012, Yelp, Inc. on October 17, 2012, and Foursquare Labs, Inc. on October 31, 2012 in Civil Action Nos. 6:12-cv-786, 6:12-cv-788, 6:12-cv-837, respectively. Each of these cases alleges that the defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,664,516 entitled "Method and System for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices" and 8,155,679 entitled "System and Method for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices." The Company subsequently added U.S. Patent Nos. 8,438,055, 8,452,646, and 8,457,670 to the cases, alleging each defendant infringed the newly added patents. Each of the defendants have answered, denying infringement and claiming that the asserted patents are invalid. Groupon, Yelp, and Foursquare filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and not infringed. Yelp filed an additional counterclaim for declaratory judgment that the asserted patens are unenforceable. The Court subsequently consolidated the actions for at least pre-trial purposes. Groupon filed a motion to transfer the case against it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which the Court denied on September 27, 2013. On February 3, 2014, Groupon filed a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for mandamus on the district court's denial of its motion to transfer. On April 23, 2014, the petition was denied by the Federal Circuit.

Between July 19, 2013 and October 3, 2013, Groupon filed petitions with the Patent Trial & Appeals Board (“PTAB”) requesting institution of Covered Business Method Review (“CBMR”) of all asserted claims. On December 19, 2013 and January 17, 2014, the PTAB issued decisions instituting review on all but four of the asserted claims. On January 14, 2014, the Company and all defendants filed a joint motion to stay the district court litigation. The Court granted the motion and stayed the case on January 16, 2014 pending a decision by the PTAB. Trial on the CBMR at the PTAB occurred during September 2014.

On December 17, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued final decisions in Covered Business Method Review proceedings CBM2013-00035, CBM2013-00033, CBM2013-00034, CBM2013-00046 and CBM2013-00044. In each case, certain claims of each patent were held to be invalid for various reasons.

With respect to the ‘516, ‘679, ‘055 and ‘646 patents, many of the claims survived and the patents remain enforceable. All of the claims of the ‘670 patent were held invalid. The Company appealed each of the final decisions to the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company appealed the unpatentability determinations including the decision of invalidity based on anticipation of several claims of the patents by prior art (the Paul reference”). The Company also appealed the decision to review its patents under the provisions for CBMR and that the ‘516 patent lacked sufficient written description under § 112 to support the claims. Groupon appealed the Board’s decision that the patents were not valid under § 103 and the determination by the PTAB that the Ratsimor reference was not publically available prior art.

On April 2, 2015, the District Court lifted the stay and required the parties to file a joint docket control order. On April 6, 2015, the Court set a Markman Hearing for June 29, 2015, and jury selection for December 14, 2015. On April 15, 2015, the parties filed their joint docket control order. The Court entered its docket control order on April 23, 2015. Due to an apparent scheduling conflict, the Court rescheduled the Markman Hearing to July 8, 2015.

On April 22, 2015, the Company filed its third amended complaint against all defendants. The defendants timely answered on May 11, 2015. Each of the defendant’s answers included a counterclaim for invalidity of the patents. The Company responded to these invalidity contentions on June 1, 2015.

On May 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion for entry of an order focusing patent claims and prior art. That motion requested that the Court narrow the number of claims at issue and the number of prior art references that defendants could use in an attempt to invalidate the Company’s patents. On May 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the motion and ordered defendants to reduce the number of references in support of any invalidity contention against the patents.

On June 25, 2015, the Company attended mediation with Yelp in an effort to settle the case. That mediation was recessed to explore settlement options.

On July 8, 2015 the Company attended the Markman Hearing in order to construe the claims of the patents. On July 14, 2015, the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding claim construction. In that Order, the Court analyzed eleven claim terms. The Court agreed with Blue Calypso’s proffered construction as to seven terms, chose its own construction as to three terms and agreed with defendants’ proffered construction as to only one term. The Court also expressly rejected defendants’ argument that the term “testimonial tag” was indefinite.

On July 13, 2015 the Court entered an order severing the non-active claims out of the case and consolidating claims regarding those patents into a separate set of cases. These new cases address the claims which were held invalid by the PTAB and which are now on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 14, 2015, the Company attended court-ordered mediation with Groupon. The result of that mediation was an impasse.

On July 16, 2015, the Company attended court-ordered mediation with IZEA. The parties reached a settlement.

On July 20, 2015, the Company attended court-ordered mediation with Foursquare. The result of that mediation was an impasse.

As part of the Company's settlement with Living Social, the Company's attorney is entitled to additional compensation for the value of certain non-monetary arrangements.

On August 17, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with IZEA, pursuant to which it settled all outstanding litigation with IZEA.

Under the Agreement, IZEA has agreed to pay the Company a royalty fee of 4.125% of revenue from IZEA’s discontinued legacy platforms SocialSpark, Sponsored Tweets and WeReward. The remaining terms of the settlement are confidential. Legal costs due to our attorneys associated with the IZEA settlement are classified as a settlement payable on our consolidated balance sheet.

On September 21, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Yelp, pursuant to which all outstanding litigation with Yelp was settled. Under the agreement, Yelp has agreed to purchase 4,000 KIOSentrix beacons.

On March 1, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned the PTAB decision as to insufficient written description but upheld the decision that the Ratsimor reference was not publically available prior art. However, the Federal Circuit confirmed the PTAB’s decision to institute the CBMR process on the basis that Blue Calypso’s patent portfolio qualified as a business method patent which was financial in nature. The Federal Circuit also upheld the decision of invalidity based on anticipation of several claims of the patents by the prior art Paul reference.

The reversal of the written description matter is significant as it re-establishes the ‘516 parent patent issue date of February 2010 as the date that damages begin to accrue. Prior to this reversal the first date of infringement was relegated to the later issue date of the ‘679 patent on April 2012.

The Company requested an En Banc review by the Federal Circuit of the holding with respect to anticipation by the Paul reference on March 31, 2016. The Company has the option of requesting that the Supreme Court review the Federal Circuit’s decision. The option for appeal to the Supreme Court must be filed by June 1, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, the District Court set a hearing date of May 6, 2016 at 9:00am in Marshall, Texas. The items to be discussed were the Federal Circuit’s Decision issued on March 1, 2016 and the pending Motion for Judgment of lack of subject matter eligibility.

On May 4, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied the request for En Banc review.

On May 5, 2016, the Company entered into a memorandum of settlement with Groupon pursuant to which it has in principal settled all outstanding litigation with Groupon. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

On May 6, 2016, the Court held a hearing regarding the Federal Circuits decision issued on March 1, 2016 and the pending motion for summary judgment related to subject matter eligibility. The Court heard arguments of the Company and Four Square Labs and took the matter under advisement. The Court also set a trial date of September 12, 2016. The Court also required the parties to submit briefing on certain collateral estoppel issues and a joint docket control order within 15 days, or by May 21, 2016.

On June 2, 2016, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with Foursquare pursuant to which it has in principle settled all outstanding litigation with Foursquare. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

On July 7, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against Groupon. The Court also stayed all deadlines with respect to Foursquare, the sole remaining Defendant.

The court dockets for each case, including the parties’ briefs are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website, or PACER, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Opposition at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against T. Scott Pernici to prevent registration of the trademark “DASH TAG” because of the potential to create a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace. The deadline for Pernici to file an Answer to the Notice is August 18, 2016.

The Board dockets for each case are publicly available on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System, or TTABVUE, http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v, which is operated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Other than as noted above, the Company is not a party to any pending legal proceeding nor is its property the subject of any pending legal proceeding that is not in the ordinary course of business or otherwise material to the financial condition of its business. Further, to the knowledge of management, no director or executive officer is party to any action in which any has an interest adverse to us.