XML 23 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.8.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

 Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies

 

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 patented 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 sought 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 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 U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (the “’599 Patent”) and 6,614,899 (the “’899 Patent”) in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. 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. 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 issued 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 the ’599 Patent and all asserted claims of the ’899 Patent. 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 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 January 12, 2017, we settled the case with Uniden and Uniden took a license under the Asserted Patents and the appeal to the Federal Circuit continued with the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as an adverse party. On July 25, 2017, after full briefing and oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued an order affirming the PTAB’s decision relating to the ’599 Patent.

 

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. On June 22, 2017, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting the Markman hearing for August 22, 2018 and jury trial for October 28, 2019. On August 31, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal and, on September 1, 2017, the Court terminated the case.

 

International License Exchange of America, LLC Litigations

 

Under our Monetization Agreement with Equitable, ILEA has filed the patent infringement litigations listed below.

 

  ● 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. On March 29, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines until April 29, 2017, stating that the parties have reached an agreement in principal to resolve all claims asserted in the case. On April 3, 2017, the court granted the parties motion to stay all deadlines until April 29, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by three days from the date of the order. On May 5, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal and the Court terminated the case.
  ●  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. On May 16, 2017, ILEA filed an agreed motion to stay all deadlines in the case, stating that the parties had reached an agreement in principal in the case and needed time to finalize the written agreement. On May 19, 2017, the Court granted the motion and stayed all deadlines until June 19, 2017. On June 19, 2017, ILEA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the Court terminated the case.
  ●  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. On April 17, 2017, ILEA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case, and on April 18, 2017, the Court closed the case.
  ●  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. On April 12, 2017, the parties jointly dismissed the case by filing a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice.
  ● 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. On May 1, 2017, ILEA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case, and the court closed the case on May 2, 2017.
  ●  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. On March 21, 2017, ILEA filed its brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2017, ViaSat filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On May 19, 2017, the Court issued an order granting ViaSat’s motion to dismiss, but granted ILEA leave to amend the complaint no later than three weeks from the date of the order. On May 30, 2017, ILEA filed its amended complaint. On July 24, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case. On July 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion and closed the case.
  ●  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. On June 14, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file a status report within three days of the order. On June 16, 2017, the parties filed the joint status report stating that the parties have executed a written settlement agreement resolving the case.  On July 6, 2017, ILEA filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and the Court closed the case.
  ● 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. On May 19, 2017, the parties filed a motion to extend time to answer the complaint until June 5, 2017. On May, 22, 2017, the Court granted the motion. On June 5, 2017, ILEA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the Court terminated the case.
  ● On November 22, 2016, litigation 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. On March 28, 2017, ILEA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case and on that date the court closed the case.
  ● On May 4, 2017, litigation against NTT Communications ICT Solutions Pty Ltd., NTT America, Inc., and NTT Security (US) Inc., case number 1:17-cv-00508-UNA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent and the ‘990 patent. On November 8, 2017, ILEA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case. 

  

  ● On May 15, 2017, litigation against ADTRAN, Inc. case number 1:17-cv-00562-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. 5,959,990; 6.970,461; 7,478,167; 7,274,704; and 7,277,533.  The current deadline for filing an answer is December 6, 2017.

 

In July 2016, a lawsuit relating to the ’999 Patent was dismissed in anticipation of settlement with the counterparty. In May 2017, settlement was reached, pursuant to which the counterparty granted to Equitable the right to monetize a portfolio of 112 patents (the “Settlement Patents”). Pursuant to the Company’s Monetization Agreement with Equitable, the Company is entitled to receive a portion of the net revenue generated by Equitable’s monetization of the Settlement Patents.

 

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.