[1] In September 2011, the Company initiated patent litigation against sixteen (16) data networking equipment manufacturers (and affiliated entities) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for infringement of its Remote Power Patent. Named as defendants in the lawsuit, excluding affiliated parties, were Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Allied Telesis, Inc., Avaya Inc., AXIS Communications Inc., Dell, Inc., GarrettCom, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Huawei Technologies USA, Juniper Networks, Inc., Motorola Solutions, Inc., NEC Corporation, Polycom Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., ShoreTel, Inc., Sony Electronics, Inc., and Transition Networks, Inc. As of January 2018, the Company reached settlements with fifteen (15) of the sixteen (16) defendants with Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) being the sole remaining defendant.

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 HP. On February 2, 2018, the Company moved to throw out the jury verdict and have the Court determine that certain claims of the Remote Power Patent are not obvious (invalid) as a matter of law by filing motions for judgment as a matter of law on validity and a new trial on validity and infringement. On August 29, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the Remote Power Patent is valid, thereby overturning the jury verdict of invalidity and denied the Company’s motion for a new trial on infringement. On August 30, 2018, the Company 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. On September 13, 2018, HP filed a cross-appeal of the District Court’s order that the Remote Power Patent is valid as a matter of law. On September 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the judgment of non-infringement of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas. The Federal Circuit also vacated the District Court judgment of validity of the Remote Power Patent. The Federal Circuit has remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial on infringement against HP and further proceedings on validity. On May 7, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, granted the Company’s motion for new trial and denied the Company’s request for judgment as a matter of law on validity (which will be a part of the trial). In addition, the District Court scheduled the trial to commence on August 2, 2021.

[2] In accordance with the Settlement and License Agreement, dated May 25, 2011, between the Company and Cisco (the “Agreement”), Cisco became obligated to pay the Company royalties (which began in the first quarter of 2011) based on its sales of PoE products up to maximum royalty payments per year of $9 million beginning in 2016 for the remaining term of the patent. The royalty payments from Cisco were subject to certain conditions including the continued validity of certain claims of the Remote Power Patent or a finding that a third party’s PoE products are found not to infringe the Remote Power Patent and such finding applies to the applicable licensee’s licensed products. As a result of the HP jury verdict (referenced above), Cisco, our largest licensee, and Netgear 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. As a result of the decision on September 24, 2020 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to overturn the District Court’s judgment of non-infringement in our trial with Hewlett-Packard involving the Remote Power Patent, the Company believed that Cisco was obligated to pay the Company royalties that accrued but were not paid beginning in the fourth quarter of 2017 through the expiration of the Remote Power Patent. On March 30, 2021, the Company entered into an amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Settlement and License Agreement, dated May 25, 2011, between the Company and Cisco (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Amendment, Cisco paid $18,692,000 to the Company to resolve a dispute relating to Cisco’s contractual obligation to pay royalties under the Agreement to the Company for the period beginning in the fourth quarter of 2017 through March 7, 2020 (when the Remote Power Patent expired) with respect to licensing the Remote Power Patent. The Company has commenced litigation against Netgear (see Note I[5] hereof).

[3] On April 4, 2014 and December 3, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Google Inc. (“Google”) and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of several of its patents within its Cox Patent Portfolio acquired from Dr. Cox (see Note G[2] hereof) which relate to the identification of media content on the Internet. The lawsuit alleges that Google and YouTube have infringed and continue to infringe certain of the Company’s patents by making, using, selling and offering to sell unlicensed systems and related products and services, which include YouTube’s Content ID system. In May 2014, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint and asserted defenses of non-infringement and invalidity. The above referenced litigations that the Company commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2014 and December 2014 against Google and YouTube were subject to court ordered stays which were in effect from July 2, 2015 until January 2, 2019 as a result of proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the appeals of PTAB Final Written Decisions to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pursuant to a Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Lifting of Stays, entered on January 2, 2019, the parties agreed, among other things, that the stays with respect to the litigations were lifted. In January 2019, the two litigations against Google and YouTube were consolidated. A Markman hearing (claim construction) was held on November 21, 2019 and a ruling has not yet been rendered.

[4] On May 9, 2017, Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, initiated litigation against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227, U.S. Patent No. 7,865,538 and U.S. Patent No. 8,255,439 (among the patents within the Company’s Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio). The lawsuit alleged that the asserted patents are infringed by Facebook’s core technologies that enable Facebook’s Newsfeed and Timeline features. The lawsuit further alleged that Facebook’s unauthorized use of the stream-based solutions of the Company’s asserted patents has helped Facebook become the most popular social networking site in the world. The Company sought, among other things, monetary damages based upon reasonable royalties. On May 7, 2018, Facebook filed a motion for summary judgment on non-infringement. On August 11, 2018, the Court issued an order granting Facebook’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and dismissed the case. On August 17, 2018, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the summary judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 23, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the summary judgment finding of the District Court and remanded the litigation to the Southern District of New York for further proceedings.

[5] On December 15, 2020, the Company filed a lawsuit against Netgear in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, for breach of a Settlement and License Agreement, dated May 22, 2009, with the Company for failure to make royalty payments, and provide corresponding royalty reports, to the Company based on sales of Netgear’s PoE products.

[6] On January 7, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Plantronics, Inc., the successor entity to Polycom, Inc., in the Supreme Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, for breach of a Settlement and License Agreement, dated September 29, 2016, with the Company for the failure of Plantronics and Polycom to make royalty payments, and provide corresponding royalty reports, to the Company based on sales of PoE products.