XML 57 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company has operating leases predominantly for operating facilities. As of December 31, 2022, the remaining lease terms on our operating leases range from one to sixty-three months. 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, 2022. Operating cash paid for the year ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 was approximately $977,000 and $190,000 respectively. Future minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2022 are as follows: SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MINIMUM PAYMENTS UNDER OPERATING LEASES
|  | Totals |
2023 |  | $ | 1,146,000 |
2024 |  |  | 915,000 |
2025 |  |  | 883,000 |
2026 |  |  | 899,000 |
2027 |  |  | 916,000 |
2028 |  |  | 1,076,000 |
After |  |  | 4,912,000 |
Total lease payments |  |  | 10,747,000 |
Less: Imputed Interest |  |  | (2,131,000 | )
Present value of remaining lease payments |  | $ | 8,616,000 |
Current |  | $ | 796,000 |
Noncurrent |  | $ | 7,820,000 |
Weighted-average remaining lease term (years) |  |  | 14.5 |
Weighted-average discount rate |  |  | 4.3 | %
Employment Agreements – The Company has employment or severance agreements with members of its management team. The employment or severance agreements provide for severance payments in the event of termination for certain causes. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, the Company accrued approximately $0 and $7,276,000, respectively, for Mr. Heng Fai Ambrose Chan, an executive of the Company’s DSS Cyber Security Pte. Ltd subsidiary in accordance with the terms of his employment contract. Also, as of December 31, 2022, the minimum severance payments under these employment agreements are, in aggregate, approximately $220,000. Legal Proceedings – The Apple Litigation On November 26, 2013, DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“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. After considering all factors the Company has elected to not pursue any further appeals on this matter. Case is deemed closed. 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. The New York action sought 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 sought 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 claimed 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) $144,658 in wages from April 11, 2019 through December 31, 2019; (ii) $769 in alleged unpaid based salary for time worked before April 11, 2019; (iii) $15,385 in alleged paid time off compensation; (iv) $3,077 in alleged unpaid sick time compensation; (v) $26,077 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 claimed an interest in any recovery in DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cf05330-HSG. 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. Both pieces of Ronaldi litigation were settled and were discontinued with prejudice as of October 19, 2022. Maiden Biosciences Litigation On February 15, 2021, Maiden Biosciences, Inc. (“Maiden”) commenced an action against DSS, Inc. (“DSS”), Decentralized Sharing Systems, Inc. (“Decentralized”), HWH World, Inc. (“HWH”), RBC Life International, Inc. (RBC International) (together, the “DSS Defendants”), Frank D. Heuszel (“Heuszel”), RBC Life Sciences, Inc (“RBC”), 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 4th quarter of 2019 in favor of Decentralized and HWH, totaling approximately $1,000,000. 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 Decentralized’s subsequent Article 9 foreclosure or deed-in-lieu debt conveyances. In the instant lawsuit, Maiden first asserted claims against Defendants for unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”), and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Maiden also sought 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 sought 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 International, and Heuszel filed a motion to dismiss seeking to dismiss Maiden’s unjust enrichment, exemplary damages, and RICO claims against DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC Life International, Inc., and Heuszel, as well as Maiden’s fraudulent transfer claims against DSS and RBC International. On August 9, 2021, the Court then entered an order granting in part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC International, and Heuszel. Among other things, the Court held that Maiden failed to plausibly plead certain causes of action, including (1) the civil RICO claim against DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC International, and Heuszel, (2) the TUFTA claim against DSS, and (3) the unjust enrichment claim against DSS and RBC International. Notably, the Court declined the request to dismiss the TUFTA claim against RBC International. On September 3, 2021, Maiden filed its first amended complaint, asserting a single cause of action against the DSS Defendants, Heuszel, and RBC for an alleged TUFTA violation. Generally, Maiden sought the same relief requested in its original complaint. Maiden, however, abandoned its request for treble damages. On September 17, 2021, the DSS Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint seeking to dismiss Maiden’s TUFTA claim to the extent it seeks to avoid a transfer of assets owned by any of RBC’s subsidiaries, including but not limited to RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc. (“RBC USA”). Further, the motion to dismiss sought the dismissal of Maiden’s TUFTA claim against Heuszel. On November 19, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing Maiden’s claim against Heuszel and determined Maiden failed to plead that it was a creditor of RBC USA or RBC’s other subsidiaries. However, the Court permitted Maiden to replead once again. On December 17, 2021, Maiden filed its second amended complaint which asserted a single TUFTA claim against only the DSS Defendants, RBC, and RBC USA. During the discovery period, the Parties conducted written discovery, production of documents, and depositions of fact witnesses and expert witnesses. The discovery period closed on August 9, 2022. The DSS Defendants have engaged Stout Risius Ross, LLC (“Stout”) to provide expert opinions regarding the value of the assets at issue. The trial in this matter began on December 12, 2022. The Company vigorously defended its position that Maiden should recover nothing on its TUFTA claim. The DSS Defendants’ experts at Stout provided expert opinions regarding the value of the assets at issue and the deficiencies with Maiden’s designated expert’s opinions. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Maiden, and the Court entered a judgment on December 20, 2022. The DSS Defendants filed post-judgment motions seeking reversal of the judgment for several reasons, including that: (1) the evidence does not support Maiden’s claim against the Company; (2) recovery of exemplary damages under TUFTA is unsupported; and (3) the evidence established that the DSS Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on their affirmative defenses. After the DSS Defendants filed their post-judgment motions, the case was settled for $8.75 million, the Court’s December 20, 2022 judgment was vacated, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. 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. License Agreement – On March 19, 2022, Impact BioMedical entered into a License Agreement (“Equivir License”) with a third-party (“Licensee”) where the Licensor is granted the right, amongst other things, to develop, commercialize, and sell the Company’s Equivir technology. In exchange, the Licensee shall pay the Company a royalty of 5.5% of net sales. Under the terms of the Equivir Agreement, the Company shall reimburse the Licensee for 50% of the development costs provided that the development costs shall not exceed $1,250,000. As of December 31, 2022, no liability has been recorded in relation to the Equivir License as development of the Equivir technology has not begun and no reasonable amount can be estimated. 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, 2022, 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, 2022, 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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration