XML 26 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2024
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note G) |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | NOTE I – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [1] On April 4, 2014 and December 3, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Google Inc. (“Google”) and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of several of its patents within its Cox Patent Portfolio acquired from Dr. Cox which relate to the identification of media content on the Internet. The lawsuit alleges that Google and YouTube have infringed and continue to infringe certain of the Company’s patents by making, using, selling and offering to sell unlicensed systems and related products and services, which include YouTube’s Content ID system. The litigations against Google and YouTube were subject to court ordered stays which were in effect from July 2, 2015 until January 2, 2019 as a result of proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the appeals of PTAB Final Written Decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pursuant to a Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Lifting of Stays, entered on January 2, 2019, the parties agreed, among other things, that the stays with respect to the litigations were lifted. In January 2019, the two litigations against Google and YouTube were consolidated. Discovery has been completed and the parties have each submitted summary judgment motions. On April 24, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a judgment dismissing the Company’s patent infringement claims finding that the asserted claims of two of the patents are invalid for indefiniteness and granting summary judgment that the asserted claims of another asserted patent are not infringed by Google’s accused system. The Court’s ruling disposes of all of the Company’s claims in the case. On May 14, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [2] On May 9, 2017, Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, initiated litigation against Facebook, Inc. (now Meta Platforms, Inc., “Meta”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227, U.S. Patent No. 7,865,538 and U.S. Patent No. 8,255,439 (among the patents within the Company’s Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio). The lawsuit alleged that the asserted patents are infringed by Meta’s core technologies that enable Meta’s Newsfeed and Timeline features. On August 11, 2018, the Court issued an order granting Meta’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and dismissed the case. On August 17, 2018, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the summary judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 23, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in the Company’s favor and reversed the summary judgment finding of the District Court and remanded the litigation to the Southern District of New York for further proceedings. On March 7, 2022, the District Court entered a ruling granting in part and denying in part a motion for summary judgment by Meta. In its ruling the Court (i) denied Meta’s motion that the asserted patents were invalid by concluding that all asserted claims were patent eligible under §101 of the Patent Act and (ii) granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Meta and dismissed the case. The Company strongly disagrees with the decision of the District Court on non-infringement and on April 4, 2022, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 18, 2022, Meta filed a notice of cross-appeal with respect to the Court’s ruling on validity. Oral argument on the appeal took place on October 11, 2024 and a decision is pending. [3] In October and November 2022, the Company initiated nine separate litigation against ten defendants for infringement of its Remote Power Patent seeking monetary damages based upon reasonable royalties, as follows: (i) On October 6, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against Arista Networks, Inc., Fortinet, Inc., Honeywell International Inc. and Ubiquiti Inc. in the United States District Court, District of Delaware; (ii) On October 27, 2022, and November 3, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against TP-Link USA Corporation and Hikvision USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California; (iii) On November 4, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division); and (iv) On November 8, 2022 and November 16, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against Antaira Technologies, LLC and Dahua Technology USA in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company has entered into settlement agreements for an aggregate of $2,701,000 with all of the defendants in the above referenced litigations except Ubiquiti Inc. which litigation remains pending. During the three months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company did not enter into any settlement agreements with defendants. During the nine months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company entered into settlement agreements with defendants resulting in aggregate settlements payments of $100,000 and $820,000, respectively. A conditional payment of $150,000 in one settlement has not yet been recognized as revenue because the terms of the conditional payment have not been satisfied. [4] On August 6, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Mizel filed a putative class action against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, alleging, among other things, that the Company is required to register as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”). The Company strongly disagreed with the allegations in the complaint. On October 3, 2024, the litigation was settled on terms not material to the Company and the complaint was withdrawn with prejudice.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration