Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND NATURE OF BUSINESS:

v3.19.2
BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND NATURE OF BUSINESS:
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Notes to Financial Statements  
NOTE A - BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND NATURE OF BUSINESS:

[1] BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited, but, in the opinion of the management of Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), contain all adjustments consisting only of normal recurring items which the Company considers necessary for the fair presentation of the Company's financial position as of June 30, 2019, and the results of its operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2019 and June 30, 2018, changes in stockholders' equity for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2019 and June 30, 2018, and its cash flows for the six month periods ended June 30, 2019 and June 30, 2018.  The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included herein have been prepared in accordance with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in the consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP may have been omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations, although management believes that the disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018 included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2019. The results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations to be expected for the full year.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC.

[2] BUSINESS

The Company is engaged in the development, licensing and protection of its intellectual property assets.  The Company presently owns seventy-two (72) patents including (i) the remote power patent (the "Remote Power Patent") covering the delivery of power over Ethernet (PoE) cables for the purpose of remotely powering network devices, such as wireless access ports, IP phones and network based cameras; (ii) the Mirror Worlds patent portfolio (the "Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio") relating to foundational technologies that enable unified search and indexing, displaying and archiving of documents in a computer system; (iii) the Cox patent portfolio (the "Cox Patent Portfolio") relating to enabling technology for identifying media content on the Internet and taking further actions to be performed based on such identification; (iv) M2M/IoT patent portfolio (the "M2M/IoT Patent Portfolio") relating to, among other things, enabling technology for authenticating, provisioning and using embedded sim cards in next generation IoT, Machine-to-Machine, and other mobile devices, including smartphones, tablets and computers; and (v) QoS patents (the "QoS Patents") covering systems and methods for the transmission of audio, video and data over computer and telephony networks in order to achieve high quality of service (QoS) (the "QoS Patents"). The Company has been actively engaged in licensing its Remote Power Patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930) covering the control of power delivery over Ethernet cables.  As of June 30, 2019, the Company had entered into twenty-seven (27) license agreements with respect to its Remote Power Patent.  The Company has also entered into two license agreements with respect to its Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio.

The Company's current strategy includes continuing to pursue licensing opportunities for its intellectual property assets.  In addition, the Company continually reviews opportunities to acquire or license additional intellectual property as well as other strategic alternatives.  The Company's patent acquisition strategy is to focus on acquiring high quality patents which management believes have the potential to generate significant licensing opportunities as the Company has achieved with respect to its Remote Power Patent and Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio.  In addition, the Company may enter into strategic relationships with third parties to develop, commercialize, license or otherwise monetize their intellectual property.

On November 13, 2017, a jury empaneled in the U.S. 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").  On August 29, 2018, the District Court (i) granted the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law that its Remote Power Patent is valid, thereby overturning the HP Jury Verdict of invalidity and (ii) denied the Company's motion for a new trial on infringement.  The Company has appealed the District Court's denial of its motion for a new trial on infringement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see Note I[1] hereof).  The HP Jury Verdict had a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash-flow for the year ended December 31, 2018 and the three and six months ended June 30, 2019 and will continue to do so for the life of the Company's Remote Power Patent (March 2020) unless the District Court judgment of non-infringement is reversed on appeal.  The Company has been dependent upon its Remote Power Patent for a significant portion of its revenue.  As a result of the HP Jury Verdict, several of the Company's largest licensees, including Cisco Systems, Inc., its largest licensee, notified the Company in late November 2017 and January 2018 that they will no longer make ongoing royalty payments to the Company pursuant to their license agreements.  If the Company successfully overturns the District Court order of non-infringement in its appeal to the Federal Circuit, certain licensees of the Remote Power Patent, including Cisco, will be obligated to pay the Company ongoing royalties and all royalties that accrued but were not paid following (and prior to) the HP Jury Verdict in November 2017.  If the Company is unable to reverse the District Court order of non-infringement on appeal, or there is an arbitration ruling that certain of the Company's licensees, including Cisco, are relieved of their obligations to pay the Company royalties and the District Court order of non-infringement is not subsequently reversed on appeal, the Company's business, results of operations and cash-flow will continue to be materially adversely effected (see Note I[1] and Note I[2] hereof).

Consistent with the Company's prior view, the District Court decision overturning the HP Jury Verdict on invalidity as referenced above confirmed the obligations of certain licensees to pay the Company all prior unpaid royalties, including those that accrued after the date of the HP Jury Verdict (November 13, 2017), as well as future royalties through the expiration of the Remote Power Patent in March 2020 (see Note I[1] to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in this quarterly report).  Notwithstanding the District Court decision overturning the HP Jury Verdict on validity, Dell Inc. refused to pay us all unpaid royalties that accrued prior to and after the HP Verdict and in November 2018 we instituted litigation against Dell to collect such unpaid royalties (see Note I[5] to the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in this quarterly report).

Consistent with the Company's revenue recognition policy (see Note B[4] hereof), the Company did not record revenue for 2018 and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019 from certain licensees, including Cisco, who notified the Company they would not pay the Company ongoing royalties as a result of the HP Jury Verdict.  The Company disagrees with the position taken by such licensees and may pursue arbitration if it does not achieve a satisfactory resolution (see Note I[1] and I[2] hereof).