XML 32 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 12 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Facilities - Our corporate group and digital division together occupy approximately 5,700 square feet of commercial office space located at 200 Canal View Boulevard, Rochester, New York under a lease that expires in December 2020, at a rental rate of approximately $6,100 per month. 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 month-to-month lease for approximately $600 per month. The Company’s Technology Management division also leases a sales and research and development facility in Plano, Texas under a renewable 12-month lease that expired in December 2017 for approximately $1,200 per month. The Company renewed the Plano lease for an additional 12 months until December 21, 2018 for approximately $1,300 per month. The Company believes that it can negotiate renewals or similar lease arrangements on acceptable terms when our current leases expire. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our 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. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company did not have any capitalized leases.

The following table summarizes the Company’s lease commitments.

	Operating Leases
	Equipment		Facilities		Total

Payments made in 2017	$	44,131	$	259,385	$	303,516

Future minimum lease commitments:
2018	$	43,258	$	258,530	$	301,788
2019		14,419		68,820		83,239
2020		-		68,820		68,820
Total		57,677		396,170		453,847

Total future minimum lease commitments	$	57,677	$	396,170	$	453,847

Employment Agreements - The Company has employment or severance agreements with five 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, 2017, the minimum annual severance payments under these employment agreements are, in aggregate, approximately $735,000.

Legal Proceedings - 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 judgment 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, Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California was granted. On December 30, 2014, Apple filed two Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for review of the patents at issue in the case. The PTAB instituted the IPRs on June 25, 2015. The California District Court then stayed the case pending the outcome of those IPR proceedings. Oral arguments of the IPRs took place on March 15, 2016, and on June 17, 2016, PTAB ruled in favor of Apple on both IPR petitions. DSS Technology Management has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) seeking reversal of the PTAB decisions. Oral arguments for the appeal were held on August 9, 2017, and the appeal is still pending as of the date of this Report. The patent assets underlying this matter had no carrying value as of the date of the PTAB decision and therefore, there were no impairment considerations as a result of the decision.

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. Intel’s IPRs were instituted by PTAB on June 8, 2016. On June 1, 2017, the PTAB ruled in favor of Intel for all the challenged claims. On July 28, 2017, DSS Technology Management filed a notice of appeal of the PTAB’s decision relating to U.S. Patent 6,784,552 with the Federal Circuit. The Intel litigation has been stayed by the District Court pending final determination 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. SK Hynix’s IPR was instituted by the PTAB on May 11, 2016. On August 16, 2016, DSS Technology Management and SK Hynix entered into a confidential settlement agreement ending the litigation between them. The pending SK Hynix IPR was then terminated by mutual agreement of the parties on August 31, 2016. On March 18, 2016, Samsung also filed an IPR petition, which was instituted by the PTAB. On September 20, 2017, PTAB ruled in favor of Samsung for all the challenged claims relating to U.S. Patent 6,784,552. DSS Technology Management then appealed this PTAB ruling to the Federal Circuit on November 17, 2017. The Federal Circuit joined this appeal with the Intel appeal effective on December 7, 2017. The appeal is still pending as of the date of this Report. Qualcomm filed its IPR proceeding on July 1, 2016, which was then later joined with Intel’s IPRs in August 2016 by PTAB. On June 1, 2017, the PTAB ruled in favor of Intel/Qualcomm for all the challenged claims. On July 28, 2017, DSS Technology Management filed a notice of appeal of the PTAB’s decision relating to U.S. Patent 6,784,552 with the Federal Circuit. As indicated above, this joint appeal is still pending as of the date of this Report.

On April 13, 2017, Document Security Systems, Inc. (“DSS”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. and Seoul Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, “Seoul Semiconductor”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of certain of DSS’s Light-Emitting Diode (“LED”) patents. DSS is seeking a judgement for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. On June 7, 2017, DSS refiled its patent infringement complaint against Seoul Semiconductor in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. The case is currently pending. On December 3, 2017, Seoul Semiconductor filed an IPR challenging the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,771. On December 21, 2017, Seoul Semiconductor filed an IPR challenging the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486. On January 25, 2018, Seoul Semiconductor filed an IPR challenging the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,524,087. These challenged patents the patents that are the subject matter of the infringement lawsuit, and are still pending as of the date of this Report.

On April 13, 2017, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Everlight Americas, Inc. (collectively, “Everlight”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of certain of DSS’s LED patents. DSS is seeking a judgement for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. On June 8, 2017, DSS refiled its patent infringement complaint against Everlight in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case is currently pending as of the date of this Report.

On April 13, 2017, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cree, Inc. (“Cree”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of certain of DSS’s LED patents. DSS is seeking a judgement for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. On June 8, 2017, DSS refiled its patent infringement complaint against Cree in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and thereafter filed a first amended complaint for patent infringement against Cree in that same court on July 14, 2017. The case is currently pending as of the date of this Report.

On July 13, 2017, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Osram GMBH, Osram OPTO Semiconductors GMBH & Co., and Osram Sylvania Inc. (collectively, “Osram”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of certain of DSS’s LED patents. DSS is seeking a judgment for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. On February 21, 2018, DSS and Osram executed a confidential settlement agreement ending the litigation between them.

On August 15, 2017, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Lite-On, Inc., and Lite-On Technology Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of certain of DSS’s LED patents. DSS is seeking a judgement for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. The case is currently pending as of the date of this Report.

On December 7, 2017, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nichia Corporation and Nichia America Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of certain of DSS’s LED patents. DSS is seeking a judgement for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. The case is currently pending as of the date of this Report.

In addition to the foregoing, we may become subject to other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Adverse decisions in any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition. The Company accrues for potential litigation losses when a loss is probable and estimable.

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, 2017, the Company had not accrued any contingent legal fees pursuant to these arrangements.

Contingent Payments – The Company is party to certain agreements with funding partners who have rights to portions of intellectual property monetization proceeds that the Company receives. As of December 31, 2017, there are no contingent payments due.