Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 6 – Contingencies

We are involved in various legal actions arising in the normal course of business, both as claimant and defendant. Although it is not possible to determine with certainty the outcome of these matters, it is the opinion of management that the eventual resolution of the following legal actions is unlikely to have a material effect on our financial position or operating results.

William Klawonn v. Y.A. Global Investments, L.P. and NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. – On April 28, 2010, William Klawonn, a shareholder of NeoMedia, filed a derivative action, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against YA Global and us claiming trading activities that violated section 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b).  On July 8, 2010, an order was granted in the case stipulating that the plaintiff had agreed that we have no liability in the action.  The order also stipulated that we will be considered a nominal party to the action, and as such we remain subject to the discovery rights and obligations of the action. On December 6, 2010, an order was granted in the case to dismiss for the plaintiff’s failure to state a valid claim for relief, without prejudice. However the order also allowed the plaintiff 45 days to amend the complaint. On January 20, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On February 4, 2011, a further order was granted in the case again stipulating that the plaintiff had agreed that we have no liability in the action. The order also again stipulated that we will continue to be considered a nominal party to the action, and as such we remain subject to the discovery rights and obligations of the action. On March 24, 2011, YA Global filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on May 9, 2011, plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to YA Global’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 8, 2011, YA Global filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss the amended complaint.   The Court heard oral argument on the motion on August 4, 2011. On August 10, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss as to some claims and denying it as to others.  We are not able to predict with any certainty the outcome of this litigation, including the merits or value of the amended complaint. There is no new status on this case to report. 

SpyderLynk, LLC – On April 9, 2012, we filed a complaint against SpyderLynk, LLC in the District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint asserts infringement of two NeoMedia patents related to our mobile barcode resolution technology. Specifically the complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,199,048, and U.S. Patent No. 8,131,597. The complaint seeks to enjoin SpyderLynk from using NeoMedia’s patented technology and to recover damages caused by the infringement.