Commitment and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2014

Notes to Financial Statements

9. Commitment and Contingencies

Financing of Directors’ and Officers’ Insurance

The Company financed its Directors’ and Officers’ insurance policy for $0.1 million.  Payments are due monthly and the policy is for 12 months.  Finance charges for the 12 month period are nominal.  As of December 31, 2014, the Company owed approximately $0.1 million and such amounts were recorded in accrued expenses. The Company has made regular payments in accordance with this insurance policy.

Leases

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had office in Tysons Corner, Virginia, where it leased 837 of office space with a $1,883 monthly lease payment under lease agreement. Upon the expiration of this lease in August 2014, the Company’s Virginia operations were moved to Bethesda. The Company also has offices in Bethesda, Maryland, where it leases 5,000 square feet of office space with a $13,090 monthly lease payment under lease agreement. The Maryland lease runs from April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2018.

From December 2013 to July 2014, the Company leased office space in New York, NY on a month-to-month basis at a monthly rate of $6,000.

In June 2014, the Company opened a new office in Longview, Texas. The lease term of the Texas office runs from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2015 at a monthly rate of $1,958.

In August 2014, the Company secured new office space in New York City, with a $4,990 monthly cost for a 12 month period.

In December 2014, the Company made the decision to accelerate the lease expense for Bethesda offices since the Bethesda facility is not adequate for the Company’s current needs and future sublets were not considered probable. The Company recognized $0.17 million estimated short-term lease liabilities and $0.41 million estimated long-term lease liabilities related to the acceleration of lease cost.

Future minimum rental payments required as of December 31, 2014, including Bethesda office lease obligation are as follows (in thousands):

	Operating Lease
Year Ended December 31, 2015		218
Year Ended December 31, 2016		178
Year Ended December 31, 2017		183
Year Ended December 31, 2018		46
	$	625

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, the Company actively pursues legal remedies to enforce its intellectual property rights and to stop unauthorized use of our technology.  From time to time, the Company may be involved in various claims and counterclaims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business.  There were no pending material claims or legal matters as of the date of this report other than the following matters:

Spherix Incorporated v. Elizabethean Court Associates III Limited Partnership

The Company commenced a lawsuit against the landlord of the Bethesda, Maryland office claiming that the assignment of the lease to the purchaser of the Spherix Consulting business was permitted under the lease and seeking termination of the lease as a result of the landlord's failure to consent to such assignment.  The lawsuit, Spherix Incorporated v. Elizabethean Court Associates III Limited Partnership, Case No., 377142 was decided in favor of Elizabethean Court Associates III Limited Partnership (“Elizabethean”) on March 28, 2014.  On April 24, 2014, Elizabethean filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.  On September 18, 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Elizabethean and paid a $266,000 settlement fee relating to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. In addition, the Company determined at December 31, 2014 that it was no longer going to realize a substantial economic benefit from the leased property in Bethesda, Maryland and as a result, has included the future remaining obligations under the lease agreement of approximately $580,000 in lease liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet.  Of the total remaining future obligations under the least agreement, $173,000 is during within the next 12 months.

LegalLink, Inc. v. Spherix Incorporated

On October 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No.: 382667-V, in the matter of LegalLink Inc. vs. Spherix Incorporated. LegalLink, Inc., a Merrill Communications Company alleged that the Company failed to honor their contract regarding services provided by LegalLink, Inc. LegalLink, Inc. alleged that the Company owes them $47,000 for services rendered to the Company, that have gone unpaid.  In November 2013, the parties settled this case for $30,000.  This amounted was recorded as a component of professional fees during the year ended December 31, 2013.

Guidance IP LLC v. T-Mobile Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01066-RSM, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On August 1, 2013, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Guidance initiated litigation against T-Mobile Inc. (“T-Mobile”) in Guidance IP LLC v. T-Mobile Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-01168-CEH-GJK, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,719,584 (the “Asserted Patent”). The complaint alleges that T-Mobile has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patent. The Company seeks relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patent, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of T-Mobile’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On April 24, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (“the Court”). On July 14, 2014, the Court assigned the case a new case number, 2:14-cv-01066-RSM. On January 29, 2015, the Court issued an Order requiring the parties to serve Initial Disclosures by February 26, 2015 and submit a Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan to the Court by March 12, 2015, which were timely served and filed.

Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On August 30, 2013, the Company initiated litigation against VTech Telecommunications Ltd. and VTech Communications, Inc. (collectively “VTech”) in Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 5,892,814; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that VTech has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company seeks relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of VTech’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On November 11, 2013, VTech filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On December 5, 2013, The Company filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which the Company denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case setting trial to begin on January 11, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, VTech Communications, Inc., together with Uniden America Corporation, filed a request for inter partes review of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which has not yet issued a decision regarding whether to institute the requested review. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court.  The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014.  Both the Technology Tutorial and the Markman hearing were held jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al. case (see below). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties.

Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On August 30, 2013, the Company initiated litigation against Uniden Corporation and Uniden America Corporation (collectively “Uniden”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Uniden has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company seeks relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of Uniden’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On April 15, 2014, Uniden filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On April 28, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which the Company denied that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order for the case setting trial to begin on February 10, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, Uniden America Corporation, together with VTech Communications, Inc., filed a request for inter partes review of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which has not yet issued a decision regarding whether to institute the requested review. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court. The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014, with both hearings occurring jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al. case (see above). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties.

Guidance IP LLC v. ATT Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04777, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On December 6, 2013, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Guidance initiated litigation against ATT Inc. (“ATT”) in Guidance IP LLC v. ATT Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04777, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,719,584 (the “Asserted Patent”).  The complaint alleged that ATT has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patent.  The Company sought relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of ATT’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On February 3, 2014, ATT filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid.  On February 24, 2014, Guidance filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which the Company denied that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On March 7, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a scheduling order.  The matter has now been resolved for an immaterial settlement amount and the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on August 7, 2014.  On August 13, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the dismissal and terminated the case.

Charter Communications, Inc., Wideopenwest Finance LLC a/k/a Wow! Internet, Cable & Phone, Knology, Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC, d/b/a Suddenlink Communications, and Cable One, Inc. v Rockstar Consortium US LP, Bockstar Technologies LLC, Constellation Technologies LLC, and Spherix Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-00055-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

On January 17, 2014, an action was filed by several cable operators in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (No. 1:14-cv-00055-SLR) against Rockstar, Bockstar Technologies LLC, Constellation Technologies LLC and the Company (collectively, the “Defendants”).  The complaint was filed by Charter Communications, Inc., WideOpenWest Finance, LLC a/k/a WOW! Internet, Cable & Phone, Knology, Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC d/b/a Suddenlink Communications, and Cable One, Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”).  Plaintiffs are in the communications, cable and/or wireline industries and alleged that Rockstar has accused the Plaintiffs of practicing various communication and networking technologies (including many well-established technical standards), related to those industries. The complaint states that in many instances such technical standards are designed into the equipment Plaintiffs purchase from vendors, and must be implemented to interoperate with other communications providers and their end user customers. Rockstar owns (and since December 31, 2013, the Company owns) patents alleged to be infringed by Plaintiffs activities.  The relief sought against the Company is principally for a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs do not infringe the patents, requiring that the Plaintiffs be granted a patent license, that the Company has misused the patents and it and the other Defendants have waived and are estopped from enforcing the patents in the marketplace, that the Company is liable to Plaintiffs for entering into an illegal conspiracy, and assessing corresponding damages, for direct and consequential damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The Company’s preliminary assessment is that the lawsuit is completely without merit and that it would defend its position vigorously if served.  On March 10, 2014 Rockstar filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action.  On April 7, 2014, the Company also filed a motion to dismiss, in which it joined Rockstar’s motion and presented several other bases for dismissal as against the Company.  On June 5, 2014, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of the claims against Spherix.  On June 6, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware entered the dismissal and ordered the case terminated as to the Company.

Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On March 28, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,697,325; 6,578,086; 6,222,848; 6,130,877; 5,970,125; 6,807,174; 7,397,763; 7,664,123; 7,385,998; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Cisco has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company seeks relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of Cisco’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, the Company filed an amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC, based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT LLC was added as a co-plaintiff with the Company. On August 5, 2014, Cisco filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 26, 2014, the Company and NNPT filed an opposition to Cisco’s motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2014, Cisco filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2015, Cisco moved to consolidate certain claims relating to alleged obligations by the Company to license Cisco on two unrelated patents, which Cisco had made against the Company on June 6, 2014 in the pending case Bockstar Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02020-SLR-SRF (see below).  On March 23, 2015, the Company filed its opposition to Cisco’s motion to consolidate.

Spherix Incorporated v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On May 2, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 7,385,998; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Juniper has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company seeks relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of Juniper’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, the Company filed an amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC, based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT LLC was added as a co-plaintiff with the Company. On August 8, 2014, Juniper filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the Company filed its opposition to Juniper’s motion to dismiss. On September 15, 2014, Juniper filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss.

Bockstar Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02020-SLR-SRF, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On June 6, 2014, Defendant Cisco filed an amended complaint and counterclaim in which it added counterclaims against the Company in Bockstar Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02020-SLR-SRF, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“the Court”).  The Company had previously not been named in this case, which had been pending since December 11, 2013. The asserted counterclaims request a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of two patents owned by the Company and contain other claims based on state law relating to alleged obligations by the Company to license Cisco to the two patents. On July 15, 2014, Bockstar filed a motion to dismiss Cisco’s counterclaims and requested a finding that Counterclaim-Defendants Constellation Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP, and the Company had been improperly joined in the case. On August 25, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Company also joined in the motion to dismiss previously filed by Bockstar. On September 11, 2014, Cisco filed its opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, among several other unrelated motions, on October 8, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court issued an Order relating to several issues in the case. In the Order, the Court stayed the counterclaims pending against the Company pending further order of the Court and stated it would decide the Company’s motion to dismiss in due course.  On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff Bockstar, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Cisco, and Counterclaim-Defendants Constellation Technologies LLC and Rockstar Consortium US LP filed motions to dismiss the claims and counterclaims asserted between them, stating that they had been resolved.  On February 2, 2015, the Court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Bockstar, Cisco, Constellation and Rockstar.  On March 9, 2015, Cisco filed a motion to dismiss its counterclaims alleging non-infringement.  On March 9, 2015, Cisco also moved to consolidate its claims relating to alleged obligations by the Company to license Cisco into the pending case Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393-SLR, filed by the Company on March 28, 2014 (see above).

NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

On June 9, 2014, NNPT initiated litigation against Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Cooperatif U.A., and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. (collectively “Huawei”), in NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“the Court”), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 6,697,325; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). On September 8, 2014, Huawei filed its answers to the complaint in which defendant Huawei Technologies USA asserted counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On October 8, 2014, NNPT filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which it denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid.  On January 20, 2015, the Court held a Scheduling Conference and set the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016. On January 28, 2015, the Court appointed as mediator for the parties, Hon. David Folsom, former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On February 24, 2015, the Court issued its Docket Control Order setting the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016.  The Court also set an August 14, 2015 deadline to complete mediation.

Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On June 11, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon South Inc.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Federal Inc.; Verizon Business Network Services Inc.; and MCI Communications Services, Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648; 6,882,800; 6,980,564; and 8,166,533. On July 2, 2014, the Company filed an Amended Complaint in the case in which it added allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167. On August 15, 2014, Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. On September 9, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order adopting the parties’ Joint Proposed Discovery Plan. According to the Scheduling Order, the Markman hearing is currently scheduled for March 16, 2015. On September 12, 2014, the Company filed its opposition to Verizon’s motion to dismiss, and on September 26, 2014, Verizon filed its reply brief. On October 3, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and issued a Minute Entry stating that motion was denied. The Court stated that an Order would follow. On October 17, 2014, Verizon filed an Answer to the Company’s Amended Complaint. The parties agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648 and 6,882,800, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. The parties filed a joint motion to that effect on October 27, 2014, which was granted on October 30, 2014. The parties further agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 8,166,533 and 7,478,167, and filed a joint motion to that effect on November 6, 2014. On November 13, 2014, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the ‘533 Patent and the ‘167 Patent without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. On December 18, 2015, the Court set the case for a five day trial beginning on May 18, 2015.  On January 9, 2015, the Company and Verizon each filed their motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions.  On January 12, 2015, the Court set the motions for summary adjudication for hearing on March 16, 2015 along with the Markman hearing.  On January 22, 2015, the parties filed their oppositions to the motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions, and on February 5, 2015, the parties filed their reply briefs.  On March 16, 2015, the Court held the Markman hearing as scheduled.  On March 25, 2015, the Court reset the May 18, 2015 jury trial date to August 11, 2015.

Counterclaims

In the ordinary course of business, the Company, along with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, will initiate litigation against parties whom it believes have infringed on its intellectual property rights and technologies. The initiation of such litigation exposes the Company to potential counterclaims initiated by the defendants. Currently, as stated above, defendants in the cases Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd.; Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation; NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al.; and Bockstar Technologies vs. Cisco Systems have filed counterclaims against the Company. The Company has evaluated the counterclaims and believes they are without merit and has not recorded a loss provision relating to such matters.

Registration Penalty

As stipulated in the Registration Rider of the December 2013 Rockstar patent acquisition agreement, the Company was required to both (i) file a registration statement for the securities issued as consideration in the agreement by February 3, 2014 (unless a later date was consented to by Rockstar), and (ii) such registration statement was to be declared effective by the SEC within 60 days after its filing.  Failure to comply with the registration requirement required that the Company issue to Rockstar additional consideration (“Additional Rockstar Shares”) in the form of shares of common stock equal to five percent of the number of shares of common stock and Series H Preferred Stock (taken together) issued to Rockstar (subject to certain beneficial ownership restrictions).  Additionally, if the issuance of “Additional Rockstar Shares” would have resulted in violation of certain beneficial ownership limitations, then the issuance of such “Additional Rockstar Shares” would be deferred until such time as the issuance would not cause Rockstar to exceed the applicable Beneficial Ownership set out with in the agreement.

The Company filed a registration statement with the SEC that was not declared effective within the sixty day time period stipulated in the Registration Rider. The registration statement was not declared effective until April 16, 2014.  As a result, in April 2014, the Company issued Rockstar 239,521 shares of common stock with a grant date fair value of approximately $0.7 million. The amount of expense recorded by the Company was determined at the time the Company failed to have the registration statement declared effective, or April 4, 2014.