In June 2016, the Company reached a settlement with Sony Corporation and affiliated entities ("Sony"). With respect to the settlement, Sony received a non-exclusive fully-paid license for the Remote Power Patent for its remaining life. In July 2016, the Company reached a settlement with Dell, Inc. Under the terms of the settlement, Dell received a non-exclusive license for the Remote Power Patent for its full term, Dell paid a license initiation fee of $6,000,000 and agreed to pay quarterly royalties based on its sales of PoE products. In July 2016, the Company also reached settlement agreements with Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. and Alcatel-Lucent Holdings Inc. (collectively, "Alcatel") and ALE, USA ("ALE"). Under the terms of the settlement agreements, Alcatel and ALE, USA received a non-exclusive fully-paid license for the Remote Power Patent for its remaining life. The aggregate consideration received by the Company from Alcatel and ALE for the fully-paid license was $4,200,000 of which $1,900,000 was paid following signing of the settlement agreements and the balance of $2,300,000 was paid in three equal quarterly payments of $766,666 beginning on July 1, 2017. In August 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Axis Communications, Inc. and affiliated entities ("Axis"). With respect to the settlement, Axis received a fully-paid license for the Remote Power Patent.

In October 2016, the Company entered a settlement agreement with Polycom, Inc. ("Polycom"). Under the terms of the settlement, Polycom entered into a non-exclusive license for the Company's Remote Power Patent for its full term and is obligated, subject to certain conditions, to pay a license initiation fee of $5,000,000 for past sales of its Power over Ethernet ("PoE") products and ongoing royalties based on its sales of PoE products. $2,000,000 of the license initiation fee was paid within 30 days and the balance will be paid in three annual installments of $1,000,000 beginning in October 2017. Payments due in October 2018 and October 2019 need not be paid by Polycom if all asserted claims of the Remote Power Patent have been found invalid. If the District Court in our trial with Hewlett Packard (see below) enters an order finding certain claims of the Remote Power Patent obvious (invalid) and the Company is unable to overturn such order on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Polycom will not be obligated to make the aforementioned remaining aggregate payments of $2,000,000.

In October 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York approved the Company's settlement with defendant Avaya, Inc. ("Avaya"). As part of the settlement, Avaya, which on January 19, 2017 had filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, entered into a non-exclusive license agreement for the full term of the Company's Remote Power Patent. Under the terms of the license, Avaya paid the Company a lump sum amount for sales of certain designated Power over Ethernet ("PoE") products, and agreed to pay ongoing royalty for other designated PoE products. In addition, Avaya agreed that the Company shall have an allowed general unsecured claim ("Allowed Claim") in the amount of $37,500,000, as amended, relating to all acts occurring on or before January 19, 2017. Under the Debtors' (Avaya and certain of its affiliates) Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Avaya Inc. and its Debtor Affiliates, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on November 28, 2017 and became effective on December 15, 2017, the Debtors estimated that the total amount of general unsecured claims that will ultimately be allowed will total approximately $305,000,000 which, based on the treatment of general unsecured creditors therein, would result in estimated recoveries for the holders of general unsecured claims of approximately 18.9% of their Allowed Claim. The Debtors acknowledged in the Plan that depending on its ability to successfully prosecute or otherwise reduce the remaining outstanding claims, the total amount of the general unsecured claims could be substantially higher which would decrease the percentage recoveries to the holders of general unsecured claims, including the Company's unsecured claim. In such an event, the amount recovered by the Company under its Allowed Claim may be substantially lower than 18.9%.

On November 1, 2017, defendant Juniper Systems, Inc. ("Juniper") agreed to settle its litigation with the Company for $13,250,000 for a fully- paid license for the Remote Power Patent. On December 8, 2017, the Company was advised by Juniper that it would not make the settlement payment to the Company as a result of the HP Jury Verdict and there was no binding agreement with the Company. In January 2018, the Company revised and closed its settlement with Juniper (see Note N - "Subsequent Events").

On November 13, 2017, a jury empaneled in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, found that certain claims of the Company's Remote Power Patent were invalid and not infringed by Hewlett-Packard (the "HP Jury Verdict"). As a result of the HP Jury Verdict, several of the largest licensees of the Company's Remote Power Patent, including Cisco, Dell, and Netgear, have advised the Company that they will no longer pay the Company ongoing royalties pursuant to their license agreements. The Company disagrees with the position taken by such licensees because, among other reasons, the jury verdict is not an order of the District Court and may be thrown out as a result of motion practice in the District Court. If the Company does not satisfactorily resolve the issue with such licensees, it intends to pursue arbitration. However, the Company's position may not prevail in arbitration. On February 2, 2018, the Company moved to throw out the jury verdict and have the Court determine that certain claims of the Company's Remote Power Patent are not obvious (invalid) as a matter of law by filing a motion for judgment as a matter of law on validity and motions for a new trial on validity and infringement. A hearing on the Company's motions is scheduled for May 14, 2018. If the District Court enters an order confirming the HP Jury Verdict and finding certain claims of the Company's Remote Power Patent obvious (invalid) and either (i) the Company is unable to reverse the District Court order on appeal, or (ii) there is an arbitration ruling that the District Court order relieves the obligation of certain of the Company's licensees including Cisco Systems, Inc., the Company's largest licensee, to continue to pay the Company royalties and the District Court order is not subsequently reversed on appeal, the Company's business, results of operations and cash-flow will be materially adversely effected.

If the Company is successful in its efforts (i) to throw out the HP Jury Verdict in the District Court, (ii) to overturn the jury verdict on appeal if the District Court confirms the jury verdict and finding certain claims of the Company's Remote Power Patent obvious (invalid), or (iii) there is an arbitration ruling that the District Court order does not affect the obligations of certain of the Company's licensees (including Cisco) to continue to pay the Company royalties and the order is not overturned on appeal, licensees will be obligated to pay the Company ongoing royalties and all prior royalties that were not previously paid following the HP Jury Verdict in November 2017.

The royalty payments from Cisco are subject to certain conditions including that there is no "Adverse Ruling" as defined in the Agreement related to the Company's Remote Power Patent. Cisco notified the Company in January 2018 that in its view that no further royalty payments are due the Company under the Agreement because the jury verdict in the Company's Hewlett-Packard trial finding that certain claims of the Remote Power Patent are invalid and not infringed by Hewlett-Packard constituted an "Adverse Ruling" under the Agreement. The Company disagrees with Cisco that the HP jury verdict by itself relieves Cisco of its royalty obligations to the Company for, among other reasons, that the jury verdict has not been subject to an order of the District Court and is subject to motion practice. However, the Company cannot be certain its position will prevail.

On February 2, 2018, the Company brought motions in the District Court to throw out the HP Jury Verdict and have the Court determine that certain claims of our Remote Power Patent are not obvious (invalid) by filing motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on validity and infringement. A hearing on the Company's motions is scheduled for May 14, 2018. If the District Court enters an order confirming the HP Jury Verdict, the District Court confirms certain claims of our Remote Power Patent are obvious (invalid), and these decisions are upheld on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Cisco will likely continue not to pay the Company royalties unless there is an arbitration ruling that the District Court order does not affect the obligation of Cisco to pay the Company royalties under its license agreement. The loss of Cisco as a licensee would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash-flow.

The above referenced litigations that the Company commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2014 and December 2014 against Google and YouTube are currently subject to a court ordered stay which has been in effect since July 2015 as a result of proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the appeals to the United States District Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as described below.

In December 2014, Google Inc. filed four petitions to institute Inter Partes Review ("IPRs") at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") pertaining to patents within the Company's Cox Patent Portfolio asserted in the litigation filed in April 2014 as described above. Google in each of the IPRs sought to invalidate certain claims of patents at issue within the Cox Patent Portfolio. On June 23, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the USPTO issued an order instituting for oral hearing each of the four IPRs. The consolidated trial at the PTAB was held on March 9, 2016. On June 20, 2016, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decisions in the Company's favor in the four pending IPRs. On August 18, 2016, Google filed Notices of Appeal with respect to the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated certain rulings of the PTAB's Final Written Decisions in favor of the Company determining that the PTAB erred in its claim construction of a certain claim term and remanded the four cases to the PTAB for further proceedings to address the claims that contained the term that was erroneously construed. The Federal Circuit left undisturbed the PTAB's findings that the remaining claims of the patents (that did not include this claim term) are not invalid.

On April 13, 2015, Google filed a Petition for Covered Business Method Review (CBM) at the PTAB seeking to invalidate claims pertaining to the Company's U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464, the patent asserted in the Company's litigation against Google and YouTube filed on December 3, 2014 as referenced above. On October 19, 2015, the PTAB issued an order instituting for oral hearing the Covered Business Method Review on certain grounds. The oral hearing was held on May 11, 2016. On October 18, 2016, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in the Company's favor. On December 20, 2016, Google filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the final written decision of the PTAB in favor of the Company relating to the CBM.

On July 8, 2016, Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into a settlement agreement with Apple Inc. in connection with litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for infringement of the Company's '227 Patent. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Apple received a fully paid non-exclusive license to the '227 Patent for its full term (which expired in June 2016), along with certain rights to other patents in the Company's patent portfolio. The Company received $25,000,000 from Apple for the settlement and fully paid non-exclusive license.