XML 30 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 9. COMMITMENTS AND 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, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows 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.

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 and 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 (the “U.S. District Court”) (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 U.S. District Court litigation was temporarily stayed following the filing of the petitions for IPR. However, on November 17, 2017, the U.S. District Court of Kansas rejected Axon’s request to maintain the stay. With this ruling, the parties proceeded towards trial, after which the parties filed motions for summary judgment on January 31, 2019.

On June 17, 2019, the U.S. District Court granted Axon’s motion for summary judgment that Axon did not infringe on the Company’s patent and dismissed the case. The U.S. District Court’s ruling did not find that the ‘452 Patent was invalid. It also did not address any other issue, such as whether the Company’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 Company’s claims as they relate to Axon and was unrelated to the supplemental briefing the Company filed on its damages claim and the WatchGuard settlement. Those issues are separate and the U.S. District Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment had nothing to do with the Company’s damages request.

The Company filed an opening appeal brief on August 26, 2019 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”), appealing the U.S. District Court’s granting of Axon’s motion for summary judgment. Axon responded by filing a responsive brief on November 6, 2019 and we then filed a reply brief responding to Axon on November 27, 2019. The Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments on our appeal of the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment ruling on April 6, 2020. This appeal was intended to address the Company’s position that the U.S. District Court incorrectly dismissed our claims against Axon. If the Court of Appeals overturns the ruling of the U.S. District Court, the case will be remanded to the U.S District Court before a new judge. On March 12, 2020, the panel of judges for the Court of Appeals issued an order cancelling the oral arguments previously set for April 6, 2020, having determined that the appeal will be decided solely based on the parties’ briefs. On April 22, 2020, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals denied our appeal and affirmed the District Court’s previous decision to grant Axon summary judgment. On May 22, 2020, we filed a petition for panel rehearing requesting that we be granted a rehearing of our appeal of the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment ruling. Furthermore, we requested that we be given an opportunity to make our case through oral argument in front of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, which was also denied. The Company is reviewing its alternatives at this point.

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 contains 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 with the court, which was granted.

NASDAQ LISTING.

On July 11, 2019, we were officially notified by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC 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). 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, or in the alternative, the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement of $2,500,000. 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 10 consecutive business days at any time during this 180-day period. If we failed to regain compliance with either the MVLS Rule or the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement by January 7, 2020, we could have been delisted from Nasdaq.

On January 8, 2020, we received a determination letter from the staff of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC 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 10 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 have been delisted from Nasdaq, trading of our Common Stock would have been suspended at the opening of business on January 17, 2020, and a Form 25-NSE would have been filed with the SEC, which would have removed our Common Stock from listing and registration on Nasdaq.

On January 13, 2020, we requested a hearing before the Nasdaq Hearings Panel to appeal the Letter and a hearing was held on February 20, 2020, when we appeared before the Panel to discuss our plan to regain compliance, including, but not limited to, complying with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1), which is the minimum stockholders’ equity standard for continued listing, which requires that companies listed on Nasdaq maintain a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders’ equity (“Rule 5550(b)(1)”). On March 6, 2020, we received written notice from the Panel indicating that, based on the plan of compliance that we had presented at such hearing, the Panel granted our request for the continued listing of our Common Stock on Nasdaq, subject to, among other things, us keeping the Staff updated on the progress of our compliance plan and ultimately being able to evidence shareholder equity in an amount greater than or equal to $2,500,000 in accordance with Rule 5550(b)(1) no later than June 30, 2020. During this time, our Common Stock remained listed and trading on Nasdaq.

On June 4, 2020 and June 10, 2020, we consummated underwritten public offerings, pursuant to underwriting agreements and raised aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $11.3 million, before underwriting discounts and commissions and other estimated expenses of such offerings. As a result of such offerings, we achieved compliance with Rule 5550(b)(1) and on June 18, 2020 we received written notice from the Staff stating that we had regained compliance with such rule and the matter is now closed.

On April 22, 2020, we received a written notification from the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC indicating that we were not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), as the closing bid price for our Common Stock was below $1.00 per share for the last thirty (30) consecutive business days. Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we were granted a 180-calendar day compliance period to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement. Subsequently, the 180-day grace period to regain compliance with such minimum bid price requirement under applicable Nasdaq Stock Market LLC rules was extended due to the global market impact caused by COVID-19. More specifically, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC has stated that the compliance periods for any company previously notified about non-compliance will be suspended effective April 16, 2020, through June 30, 2020. On July 1, 2020, companies not in compliance would receive the balance of any pending compliance period exception to come back into compliance with such minimum bid price requirement. As a result of this extension, we had until December 28, 2020, to regain compliance with such minimum bid price requirement. During the compliance period, our Common Stock would still continue to be listed and traded on Nasdaq. To regain compliance, the closing bid price of the Common Stock had to have met or exceeded $1.00 per share for at least ten (10) consecutive business days by December 28, 2020. On June 11, 2020, our Common Stock met such minimum bid price requirement, as the closing sale price of our Common Stock had equaled or exceeded $1.00 per share on Nasdaq at the close of each trading day since May 29, 2020, and we received written notice from the Staff stating that the Company regained compliance with such requirement and the matter is now closed.