Risks Related to Our Business
There is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
The financial statements presented in this report have been prepared under the assumption that the Company will continue to operate as a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities in the normal course of business. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts of liabilities that may result from uncertainty related to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
Our patent licensing business has generated minimal revenues and we have relied on our cash and investments to fund our operations. As of June 30, 2016 our cash and cash equivalents totaled $1.1 million. In addition to the expenses associated with the patent licensing business, such as salaries and overhead, we have notes payable of $3.0 million, which are due in 2016. We have implemented certain expense reductions and we have discussed restructuring our long term liabilities with the note holder, but there can be no assurance that the discussions will be successful. We cannot estimate when we will receive revenues from our operations due to the uncertainty associated with patent litigation. As a result, we anticipate that our cash will be insufficient to fund our operations through year end 2016. Accordingly, we have initiated discussions with various firms about potential financing alternatives, including a non-recourse alternative based on the outcome of specific patent infringement litigation, but there can be no assurance that these discussions will be successful. If additional funds were raised through the issuance of equity securities, the percentage ownership of the Company’s then- current stockholders would be reduced. In addition, issuance of a significant number of new shares of our common stock could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code, resulting in a substantial reduction in the usability of NOLs. If we are unable to raise capital on acceptable terms, we may need to cease operations and, as a result, investors could lose their investment.
Our revenues are unpredictable.
In 2015, we received a one-time payment in the amount of $700,000 in connection with our patent licensing and enforcement business. Other than this $700,000 payment, we have not generated any revenues since the closing of our asset sale to Bankrate, Inc. on December 21, 2011. We expect that future revenues from the patent licensing business, if any, will be unpredictable because of the significant uncertainty associated with patent licensing and patent enforcement litigation. In addition, defendants will often choose to appeal an adverse damage award, which will delay our receipt of revenue. For example, a jury awarded our subsidiary, Prism Technologies, LLC, $30 million in a patent infringement suit against Sprint Spectrum, LP. No amount has been paid as of the date of this report and the case has been appealed. We will continue to incur salary, legal and other expenses of operating our business and our results of operations and financial condition will be materially, adversely affected if we fail to effectively manage overhead costs associated with patent licensing and enforcing patented technologies, become involved in expensive litigation or settlement proceedings (which may or may not have successful outcomes) or the patent licensing business does not perform to our expectations.
If the validity of any of our patents is challenged, our business may be harmed.
The success of the patent licensing business will depend on our ability to generate royalty fees from licensing technology. It is possible, however that one or more of our patents might be declared invalid if challenged. These challenges to the validity of our patents may be made by defendants in the course of litigation or by requesting a reexamination before the USPTO. Several of our patents have been subject to inter partes review or covered business methods proceedings before the USPTO. A final determination that some or all of the patent claims are not patentable might mean that we would be unable to pursue and generate further licensing revenues for that patent. For example, on July 24, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a trial court’s determination that our Dynamic Tabs patent did not meet the requirements for patent eligible subject matter. We did not appeal the Federal Circuit’s decision and the four cases involving the Dynamic Tabs patent have been terminated. Even if the claims in our patents are upheld as valid, we may incur significant legal and expert fees and costs in the litigation and/or the reexamination process, which may take several years to conclude and delay revenues. In addition, proceedings before the USPTO challenging the patentability of claims in previously issued patents are becoming more common and defendants may also use the pendency of any such action to delay or otherwise impair any pending litigation to enforce our patents.
Even if our patents are determined to be valid, third parties may choose to alter their business operations rather than pay us an on-going royalty.
We believe that our patents represent unique technologies that a wide range of third parties have or will find valuable to their operations. Nevertheless, we expect that litigation will often be needed to recover damages for past infringement of our patent rights and to incentivize the defendant to accept a license and pay royalties for future use of the technology. Defendants may, however, choose to modify their operations to work around the claims covered by our patents. In that case, such defendants would not pay us royalties for future use and our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects may be adversely affected.
We and our potential licensees serve markets that frequently undergo transitions in which products rapidly incorporate new features and performance standards on an industry-wide basis. As a result, our ability to prevent such workarounds by a defendant and to remain competitive in the future will depend on our ability to identify and ensure compliance with evolving industry standards.
Our success depends in part upon our ability to retain qualified legal counsel to represent us in licensing efforts and patent enforcement litigation.
The success of our patent licensing business depends upon our ability to retain qualified legal counsel to represent us in our patent enforcement activities. As such patent enforcement actions increase, it may become more difficult to find qualified legal counsel to handle all of our cases because legal counsel at larger law firms may have a conflict of interest with other clients, while legal counsel at smaller law firms may not have the resources to handle multiple lawsuits. In addition, contingency fee arrangements, although common in patent enforcement litigation, require legal counsel to be willing to devote substantial time to the case based on an expectation of a successful outcome.
We are dependent on certain key personnel, and the loss of such key personnel, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The success of our patent licensing and enforcement business largely depends on the skills, experience and efforts of key personnel, many of whom are highly skilled and would be difficult to replace. We have entered into three-year employment agreements and non-competition agreements with four Prism employees, but these agreements cannot guarantee their continued employment with us. For a variety of reasons, a key employee could terminate his or her employment with us. The loss of any of our senior management or other key personnel could harm our ability to implement our business strategy and respond to the rapidly changing market conditions in which we operate. Our future success will depend to a significant extent on the ability of these executives to effectively drive execution of our business strategy, and on the ability of our management team to work together effectively.
As patent enforcement litigation becomes more prevalent, it may become more difficult for us to voluntarily license our patents to other entities.
In 2015, the number of new patent cases increased 15% over the prior year. We believe that the more prevalent patent enforcement actions become, the more difficult it will be for us to license our patents to other entities on a voluntary basis. As a result, we may need to increase the number of our patent enforcement actions, resulting in increased expenses and delays in generating revenue.
Trial judges and juries often find it difficult to understand complex patent enforcement litigation, and as a result, we may need to appeal adverse decisions by lower courts in order to successfully enforce our patents.
It is difficult to predict the outcome of patent enforcement litigation at the trial level because juries and trial judges may find it hard to understand complex, patented technologies. As a result, there is a higher rate of successful appeals in patent enforcement litigation than other business litigation. Such appeals are expensive and time-consuming and result in increased costs and delayed revenue. Although we may diligently pursue enforcement litigation, we cannot predict with significant reliability the decisions made by juries and trial courts.
Our acquisition of patent portfolios may not be successful.
A substantial portion of the patent assets of Prism and its subsidiaries were acquired from third parties. We expect to continue to build our patent portfolio by acquisitions from third parties. The terms of any acquisition may require us to pay cash upfront, share a portion of future licensing proceeds, or both. Such acquisitions are subject to numerous risks, including the following:
|
|
●
|
our inability to enter into a definitive agreement with respect to any potential acquisition, or if we are able to enter into such agreement, our inability to consummate the potential acquisition;
|
|
|
●
|
difficulty in accurately forecasting financial and other benefits of the specific acquisition;
|
|
|
●
|
diversion of our management’s attention from other business concerns; and
|
|
|
●
|
failure of our due diligence process to identify significant issues with respect to patented technologies and patent portfolios, and other legal and financial contingencies.
|
Analyzing the validity and enforceability of patents is a complex and uncertain process and there can be no assurance that a patent that is acquired will produce positive returns on the investment.
We may, in certain circumstances, rely on representations, warranties and opinions made by third-parties that, if determined to be false or inaccurate, may expose it to certain material liabilities.
We may rely upon representations and warranties made by third parties from whom we acquire patents or the exclusive rights to license and enforce patents. We may also rely upon the opinions of purported experts. In certain instances, we may not have the opportunity to independently investigate and verify the facts upon which such representations, warranties and opinions are made. By relying on these representations, warranties and opinions, we may be exposed to liabilities in connection with the licensing and enforcement of certain patents and patent rights which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.
Our patent licensing and enforcement activities are time-consuming and require significant management and financial resources.
Our patent licensing and enforcement activities could continue for years and consume significant financial and management resources. The counterparties to our licensing and enforcement activities may be large, well-financed companies with substantially greater resources than us. We cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of our licensing and enforcement efforts. In addition, even if we obtain favorable interim rulings or verdicts in particular litigation matters, such rulings may not be predictive of the ultimate resolution of the dispute. Also, we may become subject to claims or sanctions which may be costly or impossible to defend. Unfavorable or adverse outcomes may result in losses, exhaustion of our financial resources or other adverse effects which could adversely impact our ability to generate revenues.
Federal courts are becoming more crowded, and as a result, patent enforcement litigation is taking longer.
If we are required to litigate to enforce our patented technologies, our patent enforcement actions will be almost exclusively prosecuted in federal court. Federal trial courts that hear patent enforcement actions also hear criminal cases, which will take priority over patent enforcement actions. As a result, it is difficult to predict the length of time it will take to complete an enforcement action. Moreover, we believe an increasing number of civil lawsuits and criminal proceedings are coming before federal judges, increasing the risk of delays in patent enforcement actions which may in turn have an adverse effect on our business.
Our business and operations could suffer in the event of security breaches
.
Attempts by others to gain unauthorized access to information technology systems are becoming more sophisticated. While we have not identified any material incidents of unauthorized access to date, the theft, unauthorized use or publication of our intellectual property or confidential business or personal information could harm our competitive or negotiating positions, reduce the value of our investment in research and development and other strategic initiatives, compromise our patent enforcement strategies or outlook, damage our reputation or otherwise adversely affect our business. In addition, to the extent that any future security breach results in inappropriate disclosure of our employees’, licensees’ or customers’ confidential or personal information, we may incur liability or additional costs to remedy any damages caused by such breach. We could also be impacted by existing and proposed laws and regulations, as well as government policies and practices related to cybersecurity, privacy and data protection.
We expect to depend upon relationships with others to provide technology-based opportunities that can develop into profitable royalty-bearing licenses and, if we are unable to maintain and generate new relationships, we may not be able to sustain existing levels of revenue or increase revenue.
We may apply for patents on technologies we develop, but we expect to depend increasingly upon the identification and acquisition of new patents and inventions through relationships with inventors, universities, research institutions, technology companies and others. If we are unable to demonstrate success in licensing acquired patents, it will be difficult to maintain those relationships, continue to grow new relationships and sustain revenue and growth.
Competition for the acquisition of high quality patent assets is intense and, as a result, we may not be able to grow our portfolio of technologies and patents.
We expect to encounter competition in the area of patent acquisition, including competition from venture capital firms and patent aggregators. Most of these competitors have more financial and human resources than we do. Our market share in one or more technology industries may be reduced as more companies seek to acquire these technologies, which could adversely impact our future revenue generation.
In connection with our patent enforcement actions, a court may rule that we violated certain statutory, regulatory, federal, local or governing rules or standards, which may expose us to certain material liabilities.
In connection with any of our patent enforcement actions, it is possible that a defendant may claim and/or a court may rule that we violated statutory authority, regulatory authority, federal rules, local court rules or governing standards relating to the substantive or procedural aspects of such enforcement actions. In such event, a court may issue monetary sanctions against us or award attorneys’ fees and/or expenses to a defendant, which if material, could harm our operating results and financial position.
Usage of our net operating loss carryforwards may be limited as a result of an ownership change or otherwise.
Federal and state tax laws impose substantial restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) in the event of an “ownership change,” as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (as amended and together with any applicable regulations promulgated thereunder, the “Code”), and in certain other circumstances. On November 30, 2012, our stockholders approved an amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation creating a Section 382 stockholder rights plan (the “Stockholder Rights Plan”) designed to preserve NOLs under Section 382 of the Code. If we experience an ownership change, the Company’s ability to fully utilize NOLs will be substantially limited, and the timing of the usage of NOLs could be substantially delayed, which could significantly impair the value of those benefits. The Stockholder Rights Plan is intended to act as a deterrent to any person or group from acquiring beneficial ownership of 4.9% or more of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Our stockholders also approved that certain Section 382 Rights Agreement between us and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC (the “Rights Agreement”). Although our Stockholder Rights Plan and the Rights Agreement are designed to protect against the occurrence of an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code, there is no assurance that such an ownership change could not occur or that the utilization of our NOLs could not be otherwise restricted by legislative, judicial or regulatory developments.
Risks Related to the Merger
We may not realize the potential value and benefits created by the Merger.
As disclosed above in “Item 1.—Business,” on the Closing Date, we completed a merger with Prism, with Prism becoming our wholly-owned subsidiary. We may not be able to realize the expected potential value and benefits created by the Merger due to many factors, including the unpredictable nature of patent litigation. Based on our evaluation of
the recoverability of the asset recorded in connection with this transaction, we determined that the carrying value of the asset was in excess of fair value and therefore recorded impairment charges. For more information, see Note 8 to our Combined Consolidated Financial Statements.
If we are unable to make the payments on the notes assumed in connection with the Merger, our business and financial condition would be materially and adversely affected.
As part of the Merger, we assumed $3.6 million in two discounted non-interest bearing notes payable, due in four semi-annual installments of $1,000,000 from June 2015 to December 2016. The notes include imputed interest of 12.0% per annum based on management’s assumptions about the risk associated with satisfying the payment obligations, including the fact that certain patents sere as security for the notes. The installment payment due on December 31, 2015 was deferred to June 30, 2016 with the consent of the note holder. We have not paid the installments due in June 2016, but we have discussed restructuring the notes payable with the notes holder. If we fail to negotiate a restructuring of the notes and do not pay any installment due, the note holder may assert the right to accelerate the entire outstanding balance, impose additional late charges, or contest our ownership of the patents serving as collateral. Any of these actions could result in additional expenses or delay revenues and our business would be materially harmed.
We may incur unforeseen or unexpected liabilities as a result of the Merger.
As a result of the Merger, Prism became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and Prism’s liabilities, including contingent liabilities, were consolidated with ours. There may be unforeseen or unexpected liabilities related to the Merger or Prism. Among other things, if Prism’s liabilities are greater than expected, or if there are obligations of Prism of which we were not aware at the time of completion of the Merger, our business and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.
If we fail to successfully integrate Prism into our internal control over financial reporting or if the current internal control of Prism over financial reporting is found to be ineffective, the integrity of our financial reporting could be compromised which could result in a material adverse effect on our reported financial results.
As a private company, Prism was not subject to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with respect to internal control over financial reporting, and for a period of time after the consummation of the Merger, our management’s evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting will be permitted to exclude the operations of Prism. The integration of Prism into our internal control over financial reporting will require significant time and resources from our management and other personnel and will increase our compliance costs. If we fail to successfully integrate these operations, our internal control over financial reporting may not be effective. Failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could have a material adverse effect on our ability to accurately report our financial results and the market’s perception of our business and stock price. In addition, if Prism’s internal control over financial reporting is found to be ineffective, the integrity of Prism’s past financial statements could be adversely impacted.
We may be required to make substantial cash payments to Prism’s former members.
Subject to certain conditions, in connection with the Merger we agreed to make future earnout payments to the members of Prism immediately prior to the Merger. An “Earnout Event” is defined in the merger agreement as receipt by Prism of any amount more than $16.5 million, minus the cash balance of Prism as of the Closing Date (the “Sharing Threshold”), in Prism Patent Proceeds from lawsuits filed by Prism on or prior to the Closing Date (“Open Suits”). “Prism Patent Proceeds” include total cash recoveries from litigation or settlement, royalties, license fees and proceeds from patent sales actually received by Prism in connection with its business; minus costs, expenses and fees associated with the production of such revenue (including sales commissions, attorneys’ contingency fees, expert fees and deferred purchase amounts paid to third parties); minus Prism cash operating expenses other than amortization and other noncash expenses for the applicable measurement period. Upon the occurrence of an Earnout Event, an earnout payment in cash equal to 70% of the amount of Prism Patent Proceeds from Open Suits exceeding the Sharing Threshold shall be paid to the former members of Prism, provided, however, that the aggregate amount of such earnout payments, including certain permitted pre-closing distributions, shall not exceed $55 million. As of June 30, 2016, such permitted pre-closing distributions were approximately $5.5 million, resulting in a maximum potential earnout payment of approximately $49.5 million.
Risks Related to the Industry
Our industry is subject to rapid technological change, uncertainty and shifting market opportunities.
Our success depends, in part, on our ability to define and keep pace with changes in industry standards, technological developments and varying customer requirements. Changes in industry standards and needs could adversely affect the development of, and demand for, our technology, rendering our technology currently under development obsolete and unmarketable. The patents and applications comprising our portfolio have fixed terms and, if we fail to anticipate or respond adequately to these changes through the development or acquisition of new patentable inventions, patents or other technology, we could miss a critical market opportunity, reducing or eliminating our ability to capitalize on our patents, technology solutions or both.
Potential patent and litigation reform legislation, USPTO rule changes, legislation affecting mechanisms for patent enforcement and available remedies, and unfavorable court decisions may affect our investments in research and development and our strategies for patent prosecution, licensing and enforcement and could have a material adverse effect on our licensing business as well as our business as a whole.
Potential changes to certain U.S. laws, rules and regulations may occur in the future, some or all of which may affect our research and development investments, patent prosecution costs, the scope of future patent coverage we secure, remedies that we may be entitled to in patent litigation, and attorneys’ fees or other remedies that could be sought against us, and may require us to reevaluate and modify our research and development activities and patent prosecution, licensing and enforcement strategies. The U.S. Congress is considering multiple patent reform measures, including bills that would implement heightened pleadings requirements, fee-shifting, limitations on discovery, disclosure of real party-in-interest information and stays of customer suits. If passed, such bills could significantly increase the cost and risk of patent enforcement litigation. There can be no assurance that these bills, or similar future legislative developments, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Rulings in our legal proceedings as well as those of third parties may also affect our strategies for patent prosecution, licensing and enforcement. For example, in recent years, U.S. courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have taken some actions that have been viewed as unfavorable to patentees, including the Company. Court decisions may change the law applicable to various patent law issues, such as, for example, patentability, validity, patent exhaustion, patent misuse, remedies, permissible licensing practices, claim construction and damages, in ways that are detrimental to the abilities of patentees to enforce patents and obtain damages awards.
Delays in getting patents issued by the USPTO could result in delays in recognizing revenues.
We will continue to pursue several patent applications currently pending before the USPTO and we intend to continue to apply for additional patents. In addition, we expect to acquire patent applications from third parties. Patent applications have been increasing each year and we believe it is resulting in longer delays in obtaining approval of pending patent applications. The application delays could cause delays in recognizing revenue from these patents and could cause us to miss opportunities to license patents before other competing technologies are developed or introduced into the market.
Risks Related to our Common Stock
Our stock price has been volatile and may continue to fluctuate widely.
The trading price of our common stock has been volatile. During the period from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, the trading price per share of our common stock ranged from a high of $3.40 to a low of $0.14. The trading price of our common stock may be significantly affected by factors including actual or anticipated operating results, announcements regarding licensing or litigation developments, disputes concerning the validity of one or more of our patents, our limited trading volume and expectations regarding our future cash reserves. Any negative change in the public’s perception of the prospects of the patent licensing business could also depress our stock price regardless of our results.
Our common stock may be delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market if we fail to satisfy the continued listing standards of that market.
If we are unable to satisfy the continued listing standards of the Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock may be delisted from that market. On February 17, 2016, we received written notice from Nasdaq indicating that we were not in compliance with the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market, as set forth in Listing Rule 5550(a)(2). In accordance with Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we have a period of 180 calendar days, or until August 15, 2016, to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement. To regain compliance, the closing bid price of our common stock must meet or exceed $1.00 per share for at least ten consecutive business days during this 180-day period. If we are not in compliance by August 15, 2016, we may be afforded a second 180-day period to regain compliance if we meet the continued listing requirement for market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards for the Nasdaq Capital Market, except for the minimum bid price requirement. In addition, we would be required to notify Nasdaq of our intent to cure the minimum bid price deficiency by implementing a reverse stock split if necessary. If we do not regain compliance within the allotted compliance period(s), including any extensions that may be granted by Nasdaq, Nasdaq will provide us with notice that our common stock will be subject to delisting. We would then be entitled to appeal the Nasdaq Staff’s determination to a Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel and request a hearing.
If our common stock were to be delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market for failure to meet the minimum bid price or other listing standards, trading of our common stock most likely would be conducted in the over-the-counter market on an electronic bulletin board established for unlisted securities such as the Pink Sheets or the OTC Bulletin Board. Such trading could substantially reduce the market liquidity of our common stock. As a result, an investor would find it more difficult to dispose of, or obtain accurate quotations for the price of, our common stock.
Our adoption of the Stockholder Rights Plan and the Rights Agreement may reduce the attractiveness of our stock to investors because it limits the ability of persons or entities from acquiring a significant percentage of our outstanding stock.
The Stockholder Rights Plan and the Rights Agreement are intended to act as deterrents to any person or group, together with such person’s or group’s affiliates and associates, from being or becoming a beneficial owner of 4.9% or more of our common stock. The inability of some stockholders to acquire a significant position could substantially reduce the market liquidity of our common stock, making it more difficult for a stockholder to dispose of, or obtain accurate quotations for the price of, our common stock.
Delaware law and our charter documents contain provisions that could discourage or prevent a potential takeover, even if such a transaction would be beneficial to our stockholders.
Provisions of Delaware law and our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws could make the acquisition of the Company through a tender offer, a proxy contest or other means more difficult and could make the removal of incumbent directors and officers more difficult. We expect these provisions to discourage takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids and to encourage persons seeking to acquire control of the Company to first negotiate with our board of directors.
