Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies The Apple Litigation 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.” On March 10, 2020, DSS filed an appeal of this Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Federal Circuit Docket no. 2020-1570. On April 27, 2021, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument, and on April 30, 2021, the Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Company is currently evaluating its options for further proceedings on appeal. On March 10, 2020 DSS filed an appeal of this Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Federal Circuit Docket no. 2020-1570. On April 27, 2021, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument, and on April 30, 2021, the Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Company is currently evaluating its options for further proceedings on appeal. The Ronaldi Litigation In April 2019 DSS commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, Index No. E2019003542, 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. Mr. Ronaldi subsequently commenced an action against DSS in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on November 8, 2019, under case number 37-2019-00059664-CU-CO-CTL, in which he alleged that DSS terminated his employment in April 2019 in order to avoid paying him certain employment-related amounts. DSS was successful in dismissing the California case and consolidating it with the action pending in Monroe County, New York. Mr. Ronaldi asserted counterclaims in the Monroe County, New York action similar to those he originally brought in California. Mr. Ronaldi claims that his termination violated an alleged employment agreement or implied-in-fact employment agreement and that he should have remained employed through 2019. Mr. Ronaldi seeks to recover: (i) $144,657.53 in wages from April 11, 2019 through December 31, 2019; (ii) $769.23 in alleged unpaid based salary for time worked before April 11, 2019; (iii) $15,384.62 in alleged paid time off compensation; (iv) $3,076.93 in alleged unpaid sick time compensation; (v) $26,076.93 in waiting-time penalties; (vi) -$91,000 in unspecified expense reimbursement; (vii) $300,000 in alleged cash bonuses ($100,000 per year) based on DSS’s performance in 2017, 2018 and 2019; and (viii) a $450,000 performance bonus based on the result of certain alleged net proceeds from patent infringement litigation. He further claims an interest in any recovery in DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cf05330-HSG. The parties are now engaged in discovery. 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, Document Security Systems, Inc. and DSS Technology Management, Inc. vs. Jeffrey Ronaldi, Index No.: 2020002300, alleging acts of self-dealing and conflicts of interest while he served as CEO of both DSS and DSS TM. Mr. Ronaldi filed a Notice of Removal of this civil litigation to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York where it was assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-06265-EAW. Mr. Ronaldi filed a motion seeking to compel DSS to advance his legal fees to defend the action, which motion was fully briefed as of June 30, 2020 and remains pending and undecided. On March 16, 2021 the Western District of New York granted Mr. Ronaldi’s motion to have his defense costs advanced to him during the pendency of the action as they are incurred. On March 26, 2021 Mr. Ronaldi applied to the court for reimbursement of $160,896.25 in legal fees. The Company has objected to the size of that bill as it was based on out-of-town billing rates and the result of an excessive number of hours spent on litigation. The parties now engaged in discovery, awaiting a decision on the Company’s objection to Mr. Ronaldi’s fee application and will engage in court-ordered mediation no later than June 30, 2021. Maiden Biosciences Litigation On February 15, 2021, Maiden Biosciences, Inc. (“Maiden”) commenced an action against Document Security Stems, Inc. (“DSS”), Decentralized Sharing Systems, Inc. (“Decentralized”), HWH World, Inc. (“HWH”), RBC Life International, Inc., RBC Life Sciences, Inc (“RBC”)., Frank D. Heuszel (“Heuszel”), Steven E. Brown, Clinton Howard, and Andrew Howard (collectively, “Defendants”). The lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, and is styled and numbered Maiden Biosciences, Inc. v. Document Security Stems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00327. This lawsuit relates to two promissory notes executed by RBC in the 4^th quarter of 2019 in favor of Decentralized and HWH, totaling approximately $800,000. Maiden, a 2020 default judgment creditor of RBC, in the principal amount of $4,329,000, now complains about those notes, the funding of those notes, the subsequent default of those notes by RBC, and HWH and Decentralize’s subsequent Article 9 foreclosure or deed-in-lieu debt conveyances. In the instant lawsuit, Maiden asserts claims against Defendants for unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Maiden also seeks a judgment from the court declaring: “(1) Defendants lacked a valid security interest in RBC and RBC Subsidiaries’ assets and therefore lacked the authority to sell the assets during the public foreclosure sale; (2) Defendant Heuszel’s low bid at the public foreclosure sale was invalid and void; (3) the public foreclosure sale was conducted in a commercially unreasonable manner; and (4) Defendants do not have the legal authority to transfer RBC and RBC’s Subsidiaries assets to Heuszel and HWH.” Maiden seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) treble damages or, alternatively, damages in the amount of their underlying judgment plus the other creditors’ claims or the value of the assets transferred, whichever is less, plus punitive or exemplary damages; (2) pre and post-judgment interest; and (3) attorneys’ fees and cost. On March 30, 2021, Defendants DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC Life International Inc., and Heuszel filed their Motion to Dismiss the RICO, unjust enrichment, and exemplary damages claims against them, and the TUFTA claim against DSS and RBC Life International, Inc. On May 4, 2021, Maiden filed its Response and Supporting Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. A Reply Brief must be filed by May 18, 2021. The pretrial deadlines and tentative trial date will be set by the Court after a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and following a customary status conference. 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

9. Commitments and Contingencies

The Apple Litigation

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.” On March 10, 2020, DSS filed an appeal of this Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Federal Circuit Docket no. 2020-1570. On April 27, 2021, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument, and on April 30, 2021, the Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Company is currently evaluating its options for further proceedings on appeal.

On March 10, 2020 DSS filed an appeal of this Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Federal Circuit Docket no. 2020-1570. On April 27, 2021, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument, and on April 30, 2021, the Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Company is currently evaluating its options for further proceedings on appeal.

The Ronaldi Litigation

In April 2019 DSS commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, Index No. E2019003542, 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. Mr. Ronaldi subsequently commenced an action against DSS in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on November 8, 2019, under case number 37-2019-00059664-CU-CO-CTL, in which he alleged that DSS terminated his employment in April 2019 in order to avoid paying him certain employment-related amounts. DSS was successful in dismissing the California case and consolidating it with the action pending in Monroe County, New York. Mr. Ronaldi asserted counterclaims in the Monroe County, New York action similar to those he originally brought in California. Mr. Ronaldi claims that his termination violated an alleged employment agreement or implied-in-fact employment agreement and that he should have remained employed through 2019. Mr. Ronaldi seeks to recover: (i) $144,657.53 in wages from April 11, 2019 through December 31, 2019; (ii) $769.23 in alleged unpaid based salary for time worked before April 11, 2019; (iii) $15,384.62 in alleged paid time off compensation; (iv) $3,076.93 in alleged unpaid sick time compensation; (v) $26,076.93 in waiting-time penalties; (vi) -$91,000 in unspecified expense reimbursement; (vii) $300,000 in alleged cash bonuses ($100,000 per year) based on DSS’s performance in 2017, 2018 and 2019; and (viii) a $450,000 performance bonus based on the result of certain alleged net proceeds from patent infringement litigation. He further claims an interest in any recovery in DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cf05330-HSG. The parties are now engaged in discovery.

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, Document Security Systems, Inc. and DSS Technology Management, Inc. vs. Jeffrey Ronaldi, Index No.: 2020002300, alleging acts of self-dealing and conflicts of interest while he served as CEO of both DSS and DSS TM. Mr. Ronaldi filed a Notice of Removal of this civil litigation to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York where it was assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-06265-EAW. Mr. Ronaldi filed a motion seeking to compel DSS to advance his legal fees to defend the action, which motion was fully briefed as of June 30, 2020 and remains pending and undecided. On March 16, 2021 the Western District of New York granted Mr. Ronaldi’s motion to have his defense costs advanced to him during the pendency of the action as they are incurred. On March 26, 2021 Mr. Ronaldi applied to the court for reimbursement of $160,896.25 in legal fees. The Company has objected to the size of that bill as it was based on out-of-town billing rates and the result of an excessive number of hours spent on litigation. The parties now engaged in discovery, awaiting a decision on the Company’s objection to Mr. Ronaldi’s fee application and will engage in court-ordered mediation no later than June 30, 2021.

Maiden Biosciences Litigation

On February 15, 2021, Maiden Biosciences, Inc. (“Maiden”) commenced an action against Document Security Stems, Inc. (“DSS”), Decentralized Sharing Systems, Inc. (“Decentralized”), HWH World, Inc. (“HWH”), RBC Life International, Inc., RBC Life Sciences, Inc (“RBC”)., Frank D. Heuszel (“Heuszel”), Steven E. Brown, Clinton Howard, and Andrew Howard (collectively, “Defendants”). The lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, and is styled and numbered Maiden Biosciences, Inc. v. Document Security Stems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00327.

This lawsuit relates to two promissory notes executed by RBC in the 4^th quarter of 2019 in favor of Decentralized and HWH, totaling approximately $800,000. Maiden, a 2020 default judgment creditor of RBC, in the principal amount of $4,329,000, now complains about those notes, the funding of those notes, the subsequent default of those notes by RBC, and HWH and Decentralize’s subsequent Article 9 foreclosure or deed-in-lieu debt conveyances. In the instant lawsuit, Maiden asserts claims against Defendants for unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Maiden also seeks a judgment from the court declaring: “(1) Defendants lacked a valid security interest in RBC and RBC Subsidiaries’ assets and therefore lacked the authority to sell the assets during the public foreclosure sale; (2) Defendant Heuszel’s low bid at the public foreclosure sale was invalid and void; (3) the public foreclosure sale was conducted in a commercially unreasonable manner; and (4) Defendants do not have the legal authority to transfer RBC and RBC’s Subsidiaries assets to Heuszel and HWH.” Maiden seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) treble damages or, alternatively, damages in the amount of their underlying judgment plus the other creditors’ claims or the value of the assets transferred, whichever is less, plus punitive or exemplary damages; (2) pre and post-judgment interest; and (3) attorneys’ fees and cost.

On March 30, 2021, Defendants DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC Life International Inc., and Heuszel filed their Motion to Dismiss the RICO, unjust enrichment, and exemplary damages claims against them, and the TUFTA claim against DSS and RBC Life International, Inc. On May 4, 2021, Maiden filed its Response and Supporting Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. A Reply Brief must be filed by May 18, 2021. The pretrial deadlines and tentative trial date will be set by the Court after a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and following a customary status conference.

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.