[1]   On April 4, 2014 and December 3, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of several of its patents within the Cox Patent Portfolio acquired from Dr. Cox which relate to the identification of media content on the Internet.  The lawsuits allege 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 December 2014, Google Inc. filed four petitions to institute Inter Partes Review (the "IPRs") at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") pertaining to patents within the Company's Cox Patent Portfolio asserted in the litigation filed in April 2014 as described above.  Google in each of the four IPRs sought to invalidate certain claims of the patents at issue within the Cox Patent Portfolio.  On June 23, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the USPTO issued an order instituting for oral hearing each of the four IPR petitions.  The consolidated oral hearing at the PTAB was held on March 9, 2016.  On June 21, 2016, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in the four pending IPRs finding eighty-six (86) claims "not unpatentable" (valid) and, in total, one hundred and nineteen (119) out of one hundred and twenty-nine (129) or 92% of the challenged claims of the patents have survived Google's challenges in the IPRs.  None of the claims of the patents being asserted in the pending litigations against Google and YouTube were found invalid.

On April 13, 2015, Google filed a Petition for Covered Business Method Review (CBM) at the PTAB seeking to invalidate claims pertaining to the Company's U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464, the patent asserted in the Company's litigation against Google and YouTube filed on December 3, 2014 as referenced above.  On October 19, 2015, the PTAB issued an order instituting the Covered Business Method Review on certain grounds. The oral hearing took place on May 11, 2016 and a decision is pending.

[2]   On May 23, 2013, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC, initiated patent litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, against Apple, Inc., Microsoft, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States), Inc., Dell, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C., for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227 (the "227 Patent") (one of the patents the Company acquired as part of the acquisition of the Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio).

On November 6, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Microsoft pursuant to which Microsoft (including its customers) received a non-exclusive fully paid license for the Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio for their remaining life in consideration of a lump sum payment to the Company of $4.65 million.  In addition, as customers of Microsoft, the pending litigation was also dismissed against Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States), Inc., Dell, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics of America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C.

[3]   In September 2011, the Company initiated patent litigation against sixteen (16) data networking equipment manufacturers (and affiliated entities) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for infringement of its Remote Power Patent.  As of June 30, 2016, the Company had entered into settlements with nine of the defendants, who each entered into non-exclusive license agreements with the Company for its Remote Power Patent.  As a result of the aforementioned settlements, as of June 30, 2016 there were seven remaining defendants (exclusive of affiliates).  The litigation is currently scheduled for trial in March 2017.

[4]   In July 2010, the Company settled its patent litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, against Adtran, Inc, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco-Linksys, LLC, (collectively, "Cisco"), Enterasys Networks, Inc., Extreme Networks, Inc., Foundry Networks, Inc., and 3Com Corporation, Inc.  As part of the settlement, Adtran, Cisco, Enterasys, Extreme Networks and Foundry Networks each entered into a settlement agreement with the Company and entered into non-exclusive licenses for the Company's Remote Power Patent (the "Licensed Defendants").  Under the terms of the licenses, the Licensed Defendants paid the Company upon settlement approximately $32 million and also agreed to license the Remote Power Patent for its full term, which expires in March 2020.  In accordance with the Settlement and License Agreement, dated May 25, 2011, Cisco is obliged 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 $8 million through 2015 and $9 million per year thereafter for the remaining term of the patent.  The royalty payments are subject to certain conditions including the continued validity of the Company's Remote Power Patent, and the actual royalty amounts received may be less than the caps stated above.  Under the terms of the Agreement, if the Company grants other licenses with lower royalty rates to third parties (as defined in the Agreement), Cisco shall be entitled to the benefit of the lower royalty rates

provided it agrees to the material terms of such other license.  Under the terms of the Agreement, the Company has certain obligations to Cisco and if it materially breaches such terms, Cisco will be entitled to stop paying royalties to the Company.  This would have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.