Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies

Financing of Directors’ and Officers’ Insurance

The Company financed its Directors’ and Officers’ insurance policy for approximately $0.2 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, 2016, 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

Future minimum rental payments required as of December 31, 2016, including Bethesda office lease obligation are as follows ($ in thousands):

	Lease Payments
Year Ended December 31, 2017		220
Year Ended December 31, 2018		45
	$	265

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 use technology. From time to time, the Company may be involved in various claims and counterclaims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of 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. 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, we 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. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us 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 are non-infringed and invalid. On April 28, 2014, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims, in which we 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 (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the PTAB entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. The PTAB also suggested an accelerated IPR schedule to culminate in an oral hearing on September 28, 2015. The PTAB held a conference call with the parties on March 17, 2015 to finalize the IPR schedule. 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. On April 2, 2015, we filed an Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and the parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that the parties have not yet resumed settlement negotiations. The Court has ordered the parties to hold a settlement conference not later than January 20, 2016. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify Patent Scheduling Order. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted the Motion. On April 20, 2015, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to our Amended Complaint with their counterclaims. On May 1, 2015, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims. Our patent owner’s response to the petition in the IPR was timely filed on May 26, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court issued a modified Scheduling Order setting the Final Pretrial Conference for February 2, 2016 and confirming the Trial Date beginning February 20, 2016. On September 9, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion to stay the case pending the decision in the two IPR proceedings. On September 10, 2015, the Court stayed the case and ordered the parties to file a status report within 10 days of the Patent Office issuing its decision in the IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Court ordered the case administratively closed until the PTAB issues its final written decisions. On February 3, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding invalid eight of the 15 asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (“the ’599 Patent”) and all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,614,899. Our deadline to file a Notice of Appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was set for April 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, at the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered that the stay of the case remain in effect for 30 days so the parties may work to resolve the case without further Court intervention. The Court also ordered the parties to file an updated status report on or before March 31, 2016 advising the Court of their progress toward resolving this litigation without further Court intervention and whether it is appropriate to reopen the case and lift the stay. The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report on March 31, 2016, in which we requested that the stay remain in effect pending the Federal Circuit issuing a ruling in connection with the appeal of IPR2014-01431 relating to the ‘599 Patent. On April 1, 2016, we filed our Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal in IPR2014-01431. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. On July 18, 2016, we timely filed our Opening Brief in our appeal to the Federal Circuit. Uniden’s reply brief was filed on August 30, 2016. On September 26, 2016, we timely filed our reply brief. On January 12, 2017, we settled the case with Uniden and Uniden took a license under the Asserted Patents. The appeal to the Federal Circuit continues with the Patent Office as an adverse party. On February 13, 2017, the Federal Circuit scheduled the oral argument for March 9, 2017. The Court heard our argument on March 9, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the Court issued an Order asking the Patent and Trademark Office to submit additional briefing on several issues to clarify the basis for its decision of patent invalidity by April 15, 2017.

International License Exchange of America, LLC v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On April 26, 2016, we initiated litigation against Fairpoint Communications, Inc. in Spherix Incorporated v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (the ‘999 Patent”). In the Complaint, we sought relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the ‘999 Patent, damages sufficient to compensate us for Fairpoint’s infringement together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the Company’s attorney’s fees. On October 13, 2016, Fairpoint filed its answer with no counterclaims. On November 16, 2016, International License Exchange of America, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Equitable (“ILEA”), filed a motion to substitute itself as the plaintiff, consistent with our Monetization Agreement with Equitable. On November 17, 2016, the Court granted ILEA’s motion.

International License Exchange of America, LLC Litigations

Under our Monetization Agreement with Equitable, ILEA has filed the patent infringement litigations listed below. The defendants in these cases have not yet filed answers to the complaints.

o On August 12, 2016, litigation against Cincinnati Bell, Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00715-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (“the ‘999 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,970,461, and U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167. On March 8, 2017, Cincinnati Bell filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

o On August 12, 2016, litigation against Frontier Communications Corporation, case number 1:16-cv-00714-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.

o On August 12, 2016, litigation against Echostar Corporation, case number 1:16-cv-00716-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.

o On August 15, 2016, litigation against ATN International, Inc. Commnet Wireless, LLC Choice Communications LLC, and Choice Communications, LLC (“Choice Wireless”), case number: 1:16-cv-00718-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.

o On August 15, 2016, litigation against Sprint Corporation and Clearwire Corporation case number 1:16-cv-00719-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.

o On August 16, 2016, litigation against ViaSat, Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00720-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent. On March 7, 2017, ViaSat filed a motion to dismiss, alleging failure to state a plausible claim of patent infringement.

o On September 9, 2016, litigation against Fortinet Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00795-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent. On March 7, 2017, Fortinet filed its answer to the Complaint.

o On September 9, 2016, litigation against GTT Communications, Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00796-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.

o On November 22, 2016, litigations against Alcatel-Lucent SA and Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., case number 1:16-cv-01077-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,158,515; 6,222,848; 6,578,086; and 6,697,325.

Counterclaims 

In the ordinary course of business, we, or with our wholly-owned subsidiaries or monetization partners, will initiate litigation against parties whom we believe have infringed on our intellectual property rights and technologies. The initiation of such litigation exposes us to potential counterclaims initiated by the defendants. Currently, there are no counterclaims pending against us. In the event such counterclaims are filed, we can provide no assurance that the outcome of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results from operations.