Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies

We are party to various commitments and contingencies, including:

· Operating leases for office facilities; these leases provide for minimum rents and generally include options to renew for additional periods.

· Consulting agreements that carry payment obligations into future years;

· Various payment arrangements with our vendors that call for fixed payments;

· Convertible debentures with outstanding face amounts and accrued interest of $43.0 million.

The following table sets forth the future minimum payments due under the above commitments:

	2013		2014		2015		2016		Total
Operating leases	$	52	$	27	$	-	$	-	$	79
Vendor and consulting agreements		396		385		385		385		1,551
Convertible debentures		-		42,959		-		-		42,959
Total	$	448	$	43,371	$	385	$	385	$	44,589

Legal Proceedings

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 such current actions, including the resolution of the following legal actions, are unlikely to have a material adverse 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. On December 4, 2012, the two companies settled all pending litigation and NeoMedia has granted SpyderLynk a non-exclusive patent license. NeoMedia and SpyderLynk terminated all pending litigation brought by NeoMedia against SpyderLynk.

Baniak Pine & Gannon, LLC, Valauskas & Pine LLC, and McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP - On February 18, 2011, Baniak Pine & Gannon, LLC, Valauskas & Pine LLC, and McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP filed a complaint for injunctive and other relief against us and a member of our Board of Directors, Mr. George G. O'Leary in The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint sought to recover certain legal fees related to the plaintiffs’ services to us and other damages for tortious interference by Mr. O'Leary. On April 21, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss Mr. O'Leary from the lawsuit and on April 25, 2011, we filed an answer to the complaint. Our bylaws provide for the indemnification of our Directors against complaints such as this and we maintain directors' and officers' liability insurance.    On July 6, 2011, the District Court dismissed the claims against Mr. O'Leary with prejudice. On October 18, 2011, the parties settled the matter through a confidential settlement agreement, and filed a stipulation to dismiss the matter with prejudice. The District Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.