XML 31 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 11 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Facilities - Our corporate offices and Digital division together occupy approximately 5,700 square feet of commercial office space at 200 Canal View Boulevard, located in Rochester, New York under a lease that expires in December 2020, at a rental rate of approximately $6,100 per month. Prior to occupying the Canal View premises in December 2015, we paid approximately $133,000 during the 2015 fiscal year for our combined corporate and digital office space located at 28 East Main Street, Rochester, New York. Our Plastics division leases approximately 15,000 square feet under a lease that expires December 31, 2018 for approximately $13,000 per month. In addition, the Company owns a 40,000 square foot packaging and printing plant in Victor, New York, a suburb of Rochester, New York. The Company’s Technology Management division leases executive office space in Reston, Virginia under a 12 month lease that expires in December 2016 for approximately $600 per month, and also leases a sales and research and development facility in Plano, Texas under a 12 month lease that expires in December 2016 for approximately $1,100 per month. The Company believes that it can negotiate renewals or similar lease arrangements on acceptable terms when its current leases expire. The Company believes that its facilities are adequate for its current operations. Equipment Leases – From time to time, the Company leases certain production and office equipment, digital and offset presses, laminating and finishing equipment for its various printing operations. The leases may be capital leases or operating leases and are generally for a term of 36 to 60 months. The leases expire at various dates February 2017. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company did not have any capital leases. The following table summarizes the Company’s lease commitments.
|  | Operating Leases |
|  | Equipment |  |  | Facilities |  |  | Total |
Payments made in 2015 |  | $ | 45,745 |  |  | $ | 337,738 |  |  | $ | 383,483 |
Future minimum lease commitments: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
2016 |  | $ | 48,499 |  |  | $ | 233,937 |  |  | $ | 282,436 |
2017 |  |  | 44,131 |  |  |  | 237,929 |  |  |  | 282,060 |
2018 |  |  | 43,258 |  |  |  | 243,002 |  |  |  | 286,260 |
2019 |  |  | 14,419 |  |  |  | 68,820 |  |  |  | 83,239 |
2020 |  |  | - |  |  |  | 68,820 |  |  |  | 68,820 |
Total future minimum lease commitments |  | $ | 150,307 |  |  | $ | 852,508 |  |  | $ | 1,002,815 |
Employment Agreements - The Company has employment or severance agreements with seven members of its management team with terms ranging from one to five years through December 2019. The employment or severance agreements provide for severance payments in the event of termination for certain causes. As of December 31, 2015, the minimum annual severance payments under these employment agreements are, in aggregate, approximately $1,011,000. Related Party Payments - During 2015, the Company paid consulting fees of approximately $35,000 ($145,000 – 2014) to Patrick White, its former CEO, under a consulting agreement that expired on February 28, 2015. Contingent Litigation Payments – The Company retains the services of professional service providers, including law firms that specialize in intellectual property licensing, enforcement and patent law. These service providers are often retained on an hourly, monthly, project, contingent or a blended fee basis. In contingency fee arrangements, a portion of the legal fee is based on predetermined milestones or the Company’s actual collection of funds. The Company accrues contingent fees when it is probable that the milestones will be achieved and the fees can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company has not accrued any contingent legal fees pursuant to these arrangements. Legal Proceedings - On October 24, 2011 the Company initiated a lawsuit against Coupons.com Incorporated (“Coupons.com”). The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, located in Rochester, New York. Coupons.com is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located in Mountain View, California. In the Coupons.com suit, the Company alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and sought money damages from Coupons.com for those claims. On October 28, 2014, the District Court granted Coupons.com’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. On November 25, 2014, the Company appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 5, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby the Company withdrew the appeal without prejudice so that the parties could complete settlement negotiations. On March 31, 2015, the parties reached a confidential settlement which ended the litigation. On October 3, 2012, Lexington Technology Group’s (now DSS Technology Management) subsidiary, Bascom Research, LLC, commenced legal proceedings against five companies, including Facebook, Inc. and LinkedIn Corporation, pursuant to which Bascom Research, LLC alleged that such companies infringed on one or more of its patents. On January 5, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to defendants Facebook, Inc., and LinkedIn Corp. effectively ending the case at the trial court level. On January 22, 2015, Bascom Research, LLC and Facebook, Inc. entered in to a Stipulation filed with the District Court whereby Bascom Research, LLC agreed not to appeal the District Court’s judgment, and Facebook, Inc. agreed to request the dismissal of a pending CBM review it had previously filed with the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The CBM proceeding was terminated on February 24, 2015. On November 26, 2013, DSS Technology Management filed suit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for patent infringement (the “Apple Litigation”). The complaint alleges infringement by Apple of DSS Technology Management’s patents that relate to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. DSS Technology Management is seeking a judgement for infringement, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages from Apple. On October 28, 2014, the case was stayed by the District Court pending a determination of Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. On November 7, 2014, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. In December 2014, Apple filed two IPR petitions with PTAB for review of the patents at issue in the case. The PTAB instituted the IPRs on June 25, 2015. Oral arguments of the IPRs took place on March 15, 2016, with a decision expected from PTAB by the end of June 2016. On March 10, 2014, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC North America, TSMC Development, Inc. (referred to collectively as TSMC), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC (referred to collectively as Samsung), and NEC Corporation of America (referred to as NEC), for patent infringement involving certain of its semiconductor patents. DSS Technology Management sought a judgment for infringement, injunctive relief, and money damages from each of the named defendants. In June, 2014, TSMC filed an IPR petition with PTAB for review of the patents at issue. Samsung then filed an IPR petition relating to the same patents in September 2014, and filed a corrected IPR petition in October 2014. On December 31, 2014, the PTAB instituted review of several of the patent claims at issue in the case. Samsung then filed a motion with PTAB to join TSMC’s IPR proceeding. The request was granted by PTAB. On November 30, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision invalidating the patent claims at issue in the case. DSS Technology Management then filed a notice of appeal of the IPR decision with the Federal Circuit on February 1, 2016, which is pending as of the date of this Report. On March 3, 2015, a Markman hearing was held in the Eastern District of Texas. Based on the District Court’s claim construction order issued on April 9, 2015, DSS Technology Management and TSMC entered in to a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Final Judgment of Non-Infringement dated May 4, 2015, subject to DSS Technology Management’s right to appeal the court’s claim construction order to the Federal Circuit, thus preserving the status quo in the event an appeal results in a remand for further proceedings in the District Court. On March 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of TSMC in the appeal. On April 28, 2015, DSS Technology Management reached a confidential settlement with NEC, ending the litigation with NEC. On May 30, 2014, DSS Technology Management filed suit against Lenovo (United States), Inc. (“Lenovo”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for patent infringement. The complaint alleged infringement by Lenovo of one of DSSTM’s patents that relates to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. DSS Technology Management sought judgment for infringement and money damages from Lenovo in connection with the case. On June 17, 2015, the parties entered in to a confidential non-suit agreement which ended the litigation with Lenovo. On February 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, against defendants Intel Corporation, Dell, Inc., GameStop Corp., Conn’s Inc., Conn Appliances, Inc., NEC Corporation of America, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, and AT&T, Inc. The complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks judgment for infringement of two of DSSTM’s patents, injunctive relief and money damages. On December 9, 2015, Intel filed IPR petitions with PTAB for review of the patents at issue in the case. PTAB has not yet made a determination whether the IPRs will be instituted. On March 18, 2016, the District Court issued an Order granting Intel’s motion to stay the case until completion of the IPR proceedings. On July 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed three separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of certain of its semiconductor patents. The defendants are SK Hynix et al., Samsung Electronics et al., and Qualcomm Incorporated. Each respective complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks judgment for infringement, injunctive relief and money damages. On November 12, 2015, SK Hynix filed an IPR petition with PTAB for review of the patent at issue in their case. On March 18, 2016, Samsung filed an IPR petition as well. As of the date of this Report, PTAB has not yet made a determination whether those IPRs will be instituted. On January 29, 2016, the Company received notice of the dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit filed in New York State Court in April 2015 by Benjamin Lapin, derivatively and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert Fagenson, Jeffrey Ronaldi, Peter Hardigan, Robert Bzdick, Jonathon Perrelli, Warren Hurwitz, Ira Greenstein, David Klein and Philip Jones, Defendants, and the Company, as Nominal Defendant. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management, none of the legal proceedings to which we are a party, whether discussed herein or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition. The Company accrues for potential litigation losses when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable.

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 commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration