XML 60 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 13 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company has operating leases predominantly for operating facilities. As of December 31, 2019, the remaining lease terms on our operating leases range from less than one year to approximately four years. Renewal options to extend our leases have not been exercised due to uncertainty. Termination options are not reasonably certain of exercise by the Company. There is no transfer of title or option to purchase the leased assets upon expiration. There are no residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. There are no significant finance leases as of December 31, 2019. Rent expense for the year ended December 31, 2019 was approximately $474,000. Future minimum lease payments as of December 31,2019 are as follows:
2020 |  | $ | 396,678 |
2021 |  |  | 304,669 |
2022 |  |  | 289,997 |
2023 |  |  | 269,913 |
2024 |  |  | 21,860 |
Total lease payments |  | $ | 1,283,117 |
Less imputed interest |  |  | (60,375 | )
Present value of remaining lease payments |  | $ | 1,222,742 |
Current |  | $ | 397,097 |
Non-current |  | $ | 825,645 |
Weighted average remaining lease term (years) |  |  | 4 |
Weighted average discount rate |  |  | 5.4 | %
Employment Agreements - The Company has employment or severance agreements with members of its management team with terms no longer than twelve months. The employment or severance agreements provide for severance payments in the event of termination for certain causes. As of December 31, 2019, the minimum severance payments under these employment agreements are, in aggregate, approximately $255,000.000. Legal Proceedings - On November 26, 2013, DSSTM 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 DSSTM’s patents that relate to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. DSSTM 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. DSSTM then 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. On March 23, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, finding that the PTAB erred when it found the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 to be unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed its decision on July 12, 2018, when it denied Apple’s petition for panel rehearing of the Federal Circuit’s Opinion and Judgment issued on March 23, 2018. On July 27, 2018, the District Court judge lifted the Stay resuming the litigation, which had a trial date set for the week of February 24, 2020. On January 14, 2020, the Court in the case DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 4:14-cv-05330-HSG pending in the Northern District of California issued an order that denied DSS’ motion to amend its infringement contentions. In the same Order, the Court granted Apple’s motion to strike DSS’ infringement expert report. DSS filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying DSS the right to amend its infringement contentions and motion to strike DSS infringement expert report. On February 18, 2020, the Court denied DSS’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. On February 24, 2020, the Court signed a Final Judgment stipulating that Apple was “entitled to a judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 as a matter of law.” DSS intends to appeal the ruling. On February 16, 2015, DSSTM 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 alleged patent infringement and sought 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, DSSTM filed a notice of appeal of the PTAB’s decision relating to U.S. Patent 6,784,552 with the Federal Circuit. On January 8, 2019, DSSTM entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Intel Corporation, Dell Inc., GameStop Corp, Conn’s Inc., Conn Appliances, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC and AT&T Mobility LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”). The Federal Circuit Appeal involving DSSTM and Intel was dismissed on January 16, 2019, and the District Court case against the Defendants was dismissed, as to all the Defendants, on February 5, 2019. On July 16, 2015, DSSTM 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 were 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, DSSTM 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. DSSTM 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. 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, DSSTM filed a notice of appeal of the PTAB’s decision relating to U.S. Patent 6,784,552 with the Federal Circuit. A confidential patent license agreement was executed by DSSTM on November 14, 2018, covering Samsung and Qualcomm. On December 12, 2018, DSSTM and Samsung entered into a confidential release. On December 27, 2018, DSSTM and Qualcomm entered into a confidential settlement agreement. The DSSTM - Samsung District Court case was dismissed on December 17, 2018. The DSSTM - Samsung Federal Circuit Appeal was dismissed on January 2, 2019. The Federal Circuit Appeal involving DSSTM and Qualcomm was dismissed on January 16, 2019. The DSSTM - Qualcomm District Court case was dismissed on January 16, 2019. As a result, all of DSSTM’s litigation matters originally filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas have been resolved and are now dismissed. On April 13, 2017, the Company 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 the Company’s Light-Emitting Diode (“LED”) patents. The Company is seeking a judgment for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. On June 7, 2017, the Company refiled its patent infringement complaint against Seoul Semiconductor in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On December 3, 2017, Seoul Semiconductor filed an IPR challenging the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,771. This IPR was instituted by the PTAB on June 7, 2018. On April 18, 2019, the PTAB issued a written decision determining claims 1-9 of the ‘771 patent unpatentable. The Company did not appeal that determination. On December 21, 2017, Seoul Semiconductor filed an IPR challenging the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486. This IPR was instituted by the PTAB on June 21, 2018. On June 10, 2019, the PTAB issued a written decision determining claims 1-3 of the ‘486 patent unpatentable. On August 12, 2019, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the PTAB’s decisions. The Company subsequently filed a motion to vacate and remand the PTAB’s decision in light of intervening precedent under the Appointments Clause. That motion was granted on January 23, 2020. On January 25, 2018, Seoul Semiconductor filed an IPR challenging the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,524,087. This IPR was instituted by the PTAB on July 27, 2018. On July 22, 2019, the PTAB issued a written decision determining claims 1, 6-8, 15, and 17 of the ‘087 patent unpatentable. On September 23, 2019, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the PTAB’s decisions. The Company subsequently filed a motion to vacate and remand the PTAB’s decision in light of intervening precedent under the Appointments Clause. That motion was granted on February 3, 2020. These challenged patents are the patents that are the subject matter of the infringement lawsuit, which is pending but stayed pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings. On April 13, 2017, the Company 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, alleging infringement of certain of the Company’s LED patents. The Company is seeking a judgment for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. On June 8, 2017, the Company refiled its patent infringement complaint against Everlight in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On June 8, 2018, Everlight filed IPR petitions challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 7,256,486 and 7,524,087. On June 12, 2018, Everlight filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No. 6,949,771, and on June 15, 2018, filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No 7,919,787. These challenged patents are the patents that are the subject matter of the infringement lawsuit. On January 18, 2019, the Company and Everlight entered into a confidential settlement agreement resolving the litigation. On April 13, 2017, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cree, Inc. (“Cree”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of certain of the Company’s LED patents. The Company is seeking a judgment for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. On June 8, 2017, the Company 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 June 6, 2018, Cree filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486. This IPR was instituted and joined with the Seoul Semiconductor IPR. On June 7, 2018, Cree filed IPR petitions challenging the validity of certain claims U.S. Patent Nos. 7,524,087 and 6,949,771. Both IPRs were denied by the PTAB on November 14, 2018 as time-barred. The challenged patent is the patent that is the subject matter of the infringement lawsuit, which is pending but stayed pending the outcome of the IPR. On August 15, 2017, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Lite-On, Inc., and Lite-On Technology Corporation (collectively, “Lite-On”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of certain of the Company’s LED patents. The Company is seeking a judgment for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. The case is currently pending but is stayed pending the outcome of IPR proceedings filed by other parties. 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. The Company is seeking a judgment 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 May 10, 2018, Nichia filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No. 7,919,787. On May 11, 2018, Nichia filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No. 7,652,297. On May 25, 2018, Nichia filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No. 7,524,087. On May 29, 2018, Nichia filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No. 6,949,771. On May 30, 2018, Nichia filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims under U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486. The 6,949,771 IPR was denied institution, but the remaining IPRs were instituted by the PTAB. On December 10, 2018, Nichia refiled IPRs relating to 6,949,771, which was denied by the PTAB on April 15, 2019. These challenged patents are the patents that are the subject matter of the infringement lawsuit, which is pending but stayed pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings. On September 17, 2019, the PTAB issued a written decision determining claims 1-14 of the ‘787 patent unpatentable. The Company did not appeal that determination. On October 30, 2019, the PTAB issued a written decision determining claims 1-17 of the ‘297 patent unpatentable. The Company did not appeal that determination. On November 19, 2019, the PTAB issued a written decision determining claims 1-5 of the ‘486 patent unpatentable. The Company has appealed that determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 18, 2019, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. and Seoul Semiconductor Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,315,119. The Company is seeking a judgment for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. The Court has conducted an initial scheduling conference and has set a procedural schedule for the case. On September 19, 2019, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cree, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,460. The Company 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 11, 2020, Dree filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of the patent claims. The Court has conducted an initial scheduling conference and has set a procedural schedule for the case. On September 20, 2019, DSS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nichia Corp. and Nichia America Corp. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,879,040. The Company is seeking a judgment for infringement of the patents along with other relief including, but not limited to, money damages, costs and disbursements. The Court has conducted an initial scheduling conference and has set a procedural schedule for the case. In April 2019 DSS commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County against Jeffrey Ronaldi, our former Chief Executive Officer. This New York action seeks a declaratory judgment that, contrary to informal claims made by him, Mr. Ronaldi’s employment agreement with us expired by its terms and that he is not entitled to any cash bonuses or other unpaid amounts. The lawsuit also seeks an injunction against Mr. Ronaldi from interfering with any of DSS’ IP litigation. The defendant has been granted an extension to respond pending settlement negotiations. Mr. Ronaldi subsequently commenced an action against us in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, in November 2019, in which he alleges that we terminated his employment in April 2019 in order to avoid paying him certain employment-related amounts. Mr. Ronaldi contends that he is owed a $100,000 performance bonus for 2017 under this employment agreement with us as well as $91,000 in documented and unreimbursed expenses, and that DSS purported to terminate him for cause under the terms of his employment agreement in order to avoid paying such amounts. Mr. Ronaldi also contends that he is entitled to receive additional amounts, either under the terms of the employment agreement, or under theories of implied-in-fact contract or promissory estoppel, including, but not limited to, (i) additional performance bonuses of up to 15% of net litigation proceeds received by us from pending patent infringement litigations, of net licensing proceeds received by us other than from our internally developed IP, or of the net sales proceeds received by us in connection with the sale of any of our patent assets, (ii) earned but unpaid base salary, (iii) an equity grant of shares of our common stock, and (iv) payments for unused personal time and sick days. He seeks actual, compensatory, restitutionary and/or incidental damages in an amount to be determined at trial; prejudgment interest in an amount to be determined at trial; attorneys’ fees and costs; other costs of the suit; and such other and further relief as the court deems proper. We have made a motion to have the case dismissed and consolidated with the Monroe Co., New York, litigation. A hearing has been set for April 24, 2020, for the court to consider that request. Additionally, on March 2, 2020 DSS and DSSTM filed a second litigation action against Jeffrey Ronaldi in the State of New York, Supreme Court, County of Monroe alleging acts of self-dealing and conflicts of interest while he served as CEO of both DSS and DSS TM. That litigation is in the process of being served upon the defendant. On November 20, 2019, DSS Technology Management was sued in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”). The other defendants in the litigation are Fortress Investment Group LLC, Fortress Credit Co. LLC, Uniloc 2017 LLC, Uniloc USA, INC., Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.R.L., VLSI Technology LLC, INVT SPE LLC, Inventergy Global, INC., IXI IP, LLC, and Seven Networks, LLC. The complaint includes allegations regarding a February 13, 2014 Investment Agreement between DSS Technology Management and Fortress Credit Co. LLC as well as two subsequent agreements. The complaint also contains allegations regarding DSS Technology Management’s lawsuit against Intel that was filed in February 2015 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas (referred to below). In the complaint, Intel and Apple allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 against DSS Technology Management. Additional claims are alleged against other defendants. Intel and Apple seek relief from the court including that defendants’ conduct be declared a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; that Intel and Apple recover damages against defendants in an amount to be determined and multiplied to the extent provided by law, including under Section 4 of the Clayton Act; that all contracts or agreements defendants entered into in violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, or Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. be declared void and the patents covered by those transfer agreements be transferred back to the transferors; that all patents transferred to defendants in violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, or Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. be declared unenforceable; and that Intel and Apple recover their costs and expenses associated with this case, together with interest. On December 13, 2019, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for DSS Technology Management and other defendants to respond to the complaint to February 4, 2020. A hearing on any motions filed in response to the complaint is set for April 23, 2020. 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, 2019, 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, 2019, there are no contingent payments due.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration