NOTE I – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

[1] 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 completed and the parties have each submitted summary judgment motions. A trial date has not yet been set.

[2] On May 9, 2017, Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, initiated litigation against Facebook, Inc. (now Meta Platforms, Inc., “Meta”) 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 Meta’s core technologies that enable Meta’s Newsfeed and Timeline features. On August 11, 2018, the Court issued an order granting Meta’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 ruled in the Company’s favor and 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 Meta. In its ruling the Court (i) denied Meta’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 Meta 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, Meta filed a notice of cross-appeal with respect to the Court’s ruling on validity. The appeal is pending.

[3] 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. The case remains pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

[4] In October and November 2022, the Company initiated separate litigation against ten defendants for infringement of its Remote Power Patent seeking monetary damages based upon reasonable royalties, as follows: (i) On October 6, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against Arista Networks, Inc., Fortinet, Inc., Honeywell International Inc. and Ubiquiti Inc. in the United States District Court, District of Delaware; (ii) On October 27, 2022, and November 3, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against TP-Link USA Corporation and Hikvision USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California; (iii) On November 4, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division); and (iv) On November 8, 2022 and November 16, 2022, the Company initiated such litigation against Antaira Technologies, LLC and Dahua Technology USA in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

During the three months ended June 30, 2023, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with an additional defendant, resulting in a settlement payment of $283,000. During the six months ended June 30, 2023, the Company entered into settlement agreements with Arista Networks, Inc., Antaira Technologies LLC, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, TP-Link USA Corporation and Hikvision USA, Inc. with respect to patent infringement litigation, resulting in aggregate settlements paid of $820,000 which are recognized as revenue and a conditional payment of $150,000 which has not been recognized as revenue as of June 30, 2023 because the terms of the conditional payment have not yet been satisfied.