XML 53 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 8. CONTINGENCIES

COVID-19 pandemic

The World Health Organization has declared the outbreak of COVID-19, or coronavirus, which began in December 2019, a pandemic and the U.S. federal government has declared it a national emergency. Our business and operations could be materially and adversely affected by the effects of COVID-19. The global spread of COVID-19 has already created significant volatility, uncertainty and economic disruption in the markets in which we operate. Governments, public institutions, and other organizations in countries and localities where cases of COVID-19 have been detected are taking certain emergency measures to mitigate its spread, including implementing travel restrictions and closing factories, schools, public buildings, and businesses. While the full impact of this outbreak is not yet known, we are closely monitoring the spread of COVID-19 and continually assessing its potential effects on our business.

The extent to which our results are affected by COVID-19 will largely depend on future developments which cannot be accurately predicted, including the duration and scope of the pandemic, governmental and business responses to the pandemic and the impact on the global economy, our customers’ demand for our products and services, and our ability to provide our products and services, particularly as result of our employees working remotely and/or the closure of certain offices and facilities. While these factors are uncertain, the COVID-19 pandemic or the perception of its effects will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Litigation.

From time to time, we are notified that we may be a party to a lawsuit or that a claim is being made against us. It is our policy to not disclose the specifics of any claim or threatened lawsuit until the summons and complaint are actually served on us. After carefully assessing the claim, and assuming we determine that we are not at fault or we disagree with the damages or relief demanded, we vigorously defend any lawsuit filed against us. We record a liability when losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. When losses are deemed reasonably possible but not probable, we determine whether it is possible to provide an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim, if material for disclosure. In evaluating matters for accrual and disclosure purposes, we take into consideration factors such as our historical experience with matters of a similar nature, the specific facts and circumstances asserted, the likelihood of our prevailing, the availability of insurance, and the severity of any potential loss. We reevaluate and update accruals as matters progress over time.

While the ultimate resolution is unknown, based on the information currently available, we do not expect that these lawsuits will individually, or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that any expense, liability or damages that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will be covered by our insurance or will not be in excess of amounts recognized or provided by insurance coverage and will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition or cash flows.

Axon

The Company owns U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 (the “ ‘452 Patent”), which generally covers the automatic activation and coordination of multiple recording devices in response to a triggering event, such as a law enforcement officer activating the light bar on the vehicle.

The Company filed suit on January 15, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No: 2:16-cv-02032) against Axon, alleging willful patent infringement against Axon’s body camera product line and Signal auto-activation product. The Company is seeking both monetary damages and a permanent injunction against Axon for infringement of the ‘452 Patent.

In December 2016 and January 2017, Axon filed two petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) against the ‘452 Patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected both of Axon’s petitions. Axon is now statutorily precluded from filing any more IPR petitions against the ‘452 Patent.

The District Court litigation in Kansas was temporarily stayed following the filing of the petitions for IPR. However, on November 17, 2017, the Federal District Court of Kansas rejected Axon’s request to maintain the stay. With this significant ruling, the parties will now proceed towards trial. Since litigation has resumed, the Court has issued a claim construction order (also called a Markman Order) where it sided with the Company on all disputes and denied Axon’s attempts to limit the scope of the claims. Following the Markman Order, the Court set all remaining deadlines in the case. Fact discovery closed on October 8, 2018, and a Final Pretrial Conference took place on January 16, 2019. The parties filed motions for summary judgment on January 31, 2019.

On June 17, 2019, the Court granted Axon’s motion for summary judgment that Axon did not infringe on the Company’s patent and dismissed the case. Importantly, the Court’s ruling did not find that Digital’s ‘452 Patent was invalid. It also did not address any other issue, such as whether Digital’s requested damages were appropriate, and it did not impact the Company’s ability to file additional lawsuits to hold other competitors accountable for patent infringement. This ruling solely related to an interpretation of the claims as they relate to Axon and was unrelated to the supplemental briefing Digital recently filed on its damages claim and the WatchGuard settlement. Those issues are separate and the judge’s ruling on summary judgment had nothing to do with Digital’s damages request. The Company filed an appeal to this ruling asking the appellate court to reverse this decision.

The Company filed its Opening Appeal Brief on August 26, 2019 and Axon filed its Responsive Brief on November 6, 2019 and the Company filed its Reply Brief responding to Axon on November 27, 2019. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit scheduled oral argument on the Company’s appeal of the district court’s summary judgment order on April 6, 2020. This appeal will address the incorrect and mistaken dismissal of Digital Ally’s claims against Axon by Judge Carlos Murguia in the U.S. District Court of Kansas litigation. If the Court of Appeals overturned the summary judgment ruling, a new judge would be assigned to handle the litigation with Axon due to the resignation of Judge Murguia. On March 12, 2020, the panel of judges for the United States Court of Appeals issued an order cancelling the oral arguments previously set for April 6, 2020 having determined that they will decide the appeal based on the parties’ briefs without oral argument. On April 22, 2020, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals denied the Company’s appeal and affirmed the District Court’s previous decision to grant Axon summary judgment. The Company is evaluating its alternatives including whether to file a motion requesting a rehearing in front of the three-judge panel or the entire Court of Appeals.

WatchGuard

On May 27, 2016, the Company filed suit against WatchGuard, (Case No. 2:16-cv-02349-JTM-JPO) alleging patent infringement based on WatchGuard’s VISTA Wifi and 4RE In-Car product lines.

On May 13, 2019, the parties resolved the dispute and executed a settlement agreement in the form of a Release and License Agreement. The litigation has been dismissed as a result of this settlement.

The Release and License Agreement encompasses the following key terms:

	●	WatchGuard paid Digital Ally a one-time, lump settlement payment of $6,000,000.

	●	Digital Ally granted WatchGuard a perpetual covenant not to sue if WatchGuard’s products incorporate agreed-upon modified recording functionality. Digital Ally also granted WatchGuard a license to the ‘292 Patent and the ‘452 Patent (and related patents, now existing and yet-to-issue) through December 31, 2023. The parties agreed to negotiate in good faith to attempt to resolve any alleged infringement that occurs after the license period expires.

	●	The parties further agreed to release each other from all claims or liabilities pre-existing the settlement.

	●	As part of the settlement, the parties agreed that WatchGuard made no admission that it infringed any of Digital Ally’s patents.

Upon receipt of the $6,000,000 the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit which the Judge granted.

PGA Tour, Inc.

On January 22, 2019 the PGA Tour, Inc. (the “PGA”) filed suit against the Company in the Federal District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No. 2:19-cv-0033-CM-KGG) alleging breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing relative to the Web.com Tour Title Sponsor Agreement (the “Agreement”). The contract was executed on April 16, 2015 by and between the parties. Under the Agreement, Digital Ally would be a title sponsor of and receive certain naming and other rights and benefits associated with the Web.com Tour for 2015 through 2019 in exchange for Digital Ally’s payment to Tour of annual sponsorship fees. The suit was resolved and the case was dismissed by Plaintiff with prejudice on April 17, 2019.

NASDAQ LISTING.

Our Common Stock is listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market (“Nasdaq”). In order to maintain that listing, we must satisfy minimum financial and other continued listing requirements and standards, including those regarding director independence and independent committee requirements, minimum stockholders’ equity, minimum share price, and certain corporate governance requirements. There can be no assurances that we will be able to comply with the applicable listing standards.

If our Common Stock is delisted from Nasdaq and is not eligible for quotation on another market or exchange, trading of our Common Stock could be conducted in the over-the-counter market or on an electronic bulletin board established for unlisted securities such as the Pink Sheets or the OTC Bulletin Board. In such event, it could become more difficult to dispose of, or obtain accurate price quotations for, our Common Stock, and there would likely also be a reduction in our coverage by securities analysts and the news media. Also, it may be difficult for us to raise additional capital if we are not listed on Nasdaq or a major exchange.

On July 11, 2019, Nasdaq notified us that, for the previous 30 consecutive business days, the minimum Market Value of Listed Securities (the “MVLS”) for our Common Stock was below the $35 million minimum MVLS requirement for continued listing on Nasdaq under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(2) (the “MVLS Rule”). In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(C), we had 180 calendar days, or until January 7, 2020, to regain compliance with the MVLS Rule. To regain compliance with the MVLS Rule, the minimum MVLS for our Common Stock must have been at least $35 million for a minimum of ten consecutive business days at any time during this 180-day period. If we failed to regain compliance with such rule by January 7, 2020, we were subject to being be delisted from Nasdaq. If we were delisted from The Nasdaq Capital Market, our Common Stock may lose liquidity, increase volatility, and lose market maker support.

On January 8, 2020, we received a determination letter from the staff of Nasdaq stating that we had not regained compliance with the MVLS Standard, since our Common Stock was below the $35 million minimum MVLS requirement for continued listing on Nasdaq under the MLVS Rule and had not been at least $35 million for a minimum of ten consecutive business days at any time during the 180-day grace period granted to us. Pursuant to the letter, unless we requested a hearing to appeal this determination by January 15, 2020, our Common Stock would be delisted from Nasdaq and trading of our Common Stock would have been suspended at the opening of business on January 17, 2020.

On January 13, 2020, we requested a hearing before the Nasdaq Hearings Panel to appeal the Letter and the Staff of Nasdaq notified us that a hearing was scheduled for February 20, 2020. We were asked to provide the Panel with a plan to regain compliance with the minimum MLVS requirement under the MLVS Rule, which needed to include a discussion of the events that we believe will enable us to timely regain compliance with the minimum MLVS requirement. On January 21, 2020, we submitted such a compliance plan.

On March 6, 2020, we received notice from the NASDAQ hearing panel that the Company has been granted an extension until June 30, 2020 to regain compliance with Rule 5550(b), which requires us to have at least i) $2.5 million in shareholder equity; or ii) $35 million in market value of listed securities, or iii) net income from continuing operations of at least $500,000 in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the last three fiscal years. Our goal is to meet the $2.5 million minimum shareholder equity requirement for continued listing on NASDAQ. There can be no assurance that we will regain compliance with the NASDAQ’s Listing Rule regarding our $2.5 million minimum shareholder equity requirement on or prior to the June 30, 2020 required date. Furthermore, even if we regain compliance on or prior to such date, we must thereafter continue to maintain compliance the continued listing rule. NASDAQ has not provided any guidance whether the extension until June 30, 2020 will be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.