NOTE I – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND DISPUTES

[1] 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.

[2] On July 26, 2021, the Company agreed to settle its patent litigation against Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company (collectively, “HP”) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for infringement of the Company’s Remote Power Patent. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company paid the Company $17,000,000 in full settlement of the litigation and HP received a fully paid license and release to the Remote Power Patent for its full term, which applies to sales of Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) products by HP and its wholly-owned subsidiary Aruba Networks, LLC.

[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 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. The litigations 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. Discovery has been substantially completed and a trial date has not yet been set.

[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. 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.

On March 7, 2022, the District Court entered a ruling granting in part and denying in part a motion for summary judgment by Facebook. In its ruling the Court (i) denied Facebook’s motion that the asserted patents were invalid by concluding that all asserted claims were patent eligible under §101 of the Patent Act and (ii) granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Facebook and dismissed the case. The Company strongly disagrees with the decision of the District Court on non-infringement and on April 4, 2022, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 18, 2022, Facebook filed a notice of cross-appeal with respect to the Court’s ruling on validity. On September 19, 2022, the Company filed its brief on the appeal.

[5] On December 15, 2020, the Company filed a lawsuit against NETGEAR, Inc. (“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 (the “Agreement”) for failure to make royalty payments, and provide corresponding royalty reports, to the Company based on sales of Netgear’s PoE products. On October 22, 2021, Netgear filed a Demand for Arbitration at the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) seeking to arbitrate certain issues raised in the litigation. The Company objected to jurisdiction at the AAA. On April 1, 2022, the Court denied Netgear’s motion to compel arbitration. On April 22, 2022, Netgear filed a counterclaim in the Court action alleging that the Company breached the Agreement by not offering Netgear lower royalties. On September 22, 2022, the arbitration brought by Netgear was dismissed by the AAA on jurisdiction grounds.