Note K – Legal Proceedings

[1] On December 24, 2024, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, HFT Solutions, LLC, initiated patent litigations against Citadel Securities, LLC and Jump Trading, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of certain patents within our HFT Patent Portfolio. The HFT Patent Portfolio relates to, among other things, certain advanced technologies relating to high frequency trading, which inventions specifically address technological problems associated with speed and latency and provide critical latency gains in trading systems where the difference between success and failure may be measured in nanoseconds.

[2] 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. The consolidated actions proceeded and discovery was completed. On April 24, 2024, following a motion for summary judgment by defendants, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a judgment dismissing the Company’s patent infringement claims finding that the asserted claims of two of the patents are invalid for indefiniteness and granting summary judgment that that the asserted claims of another patent are not infringed by Google’s accused system. The Court’s ruling disposes of all of the Company’s claims in the case. On May 14, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the appeal is pending.

[3] 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 on non-infringement 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. On April 4, 2022, the Company filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 4, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court granting Meta’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement dismissing the Company’s claims against Meta.

[4] In October and November 2022, the Company initiated nine separate litigations 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 year ended December 31, 2023, the Company entered into settlement agreements with eight of the ten defendants resulting in aggregate settlements paid and recognized as revenue of $2,601,000 and a conditional payment of $150,000. During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with an additional defendant resulting in payment to the Company of $100,000. On January 14, 2025, the U. S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Ubiquiti’s partial motion for summary judgment on indirect infringement. On February 13, 2025, the Court granted the parties joint motion to dismiss the litigation.