Commitments and Contingencies | Note 10 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Leases The Company does not own any real property. The Company leases approximately 300 square feet of office space in Atlanta, Georgia, pursuant to a short-term lease as of January 2021. The Company currently pays base rent in the amount of $636 per month. Through December 31, 2020, we leased approximately 600 square feet of office space in Atlanta, Georgia, for $2,539 per month, pursuant to a short-term lease as of August 1, 2019. In 2020, we also leased an office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for $1,078 per month until June 30, 2020, pursuant to a short-term lease as of November 1, 2019. The lease for the office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was renewed for a six-month period from July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 at a rate of $1,540 per month. That lease has expired and not been renewed. Legal Proceedings Intel Matter In September 2016, the Company initiated an Interference proceeding between the Company and Intel Corporation (“Intel”) with United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for Interference between the Company’s pending patent application covering SVM-Recursive Feature Elimination (“SVM-RFE”) and Intel’s Patent No. 7,685,077, entitled “Recursive Feature Eliminating Method based on a Support Vector Machine”. On February 27, 2019, the USPTO ruled in favor of the Company on the SVM-RFE Patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO issued its decision, finding that the Company is entitled to claim exclusive rights to the SVM-RFE technology. The decision, issued by Administrative Patent Judge James Moore, ordered Intel’s patent to be cancelled. The decision also dismissed Intel’s motions challenging the validity of the Company’s pending claims and issued patents covering SVM-RFE. On July 23, 2020, the Company filed an infringement lawsuit against Intel. This infringement suit pertains to the Company’s SVM-RFE. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. On February 27, 2021, Intel filed a Petition for Inter Partes The Company recorded $139,000 in legal costs related to this matter in 2020 and none in 2019. Quirk and Bear Matter On February 7, 2020, two shareholders of the Company, William Quirk (“Quirk”) and Cindy Bear (“Bear”), filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in DeKalb County Superior Court. Among the items in the motion, Quirk and Bear requested to have a special meeting of the shareholders and Quirk and Bear alleged misconduct by the Company and its directors. On March 2, 2020, Quirk and Bear filed a notice of dismissal in DeKalb County. Quirk and Bear subsequently filed a new lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court based on substantially similar allegations and seeking similar relief. On March 4, 2020, the Fulton County court ordered a hearing on the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order against the Company for the following day. At the hearing on March 5, 2020, Quirk and Bear presented their version of the facts through affidavits submitted by both Quirk and Bear, arguing that the affidavits supported the emergency relief they sought. The judge denied the motion and did not enter a temporary restraining order. The court set an evidentiary hearing on Quirk and Bear’s motion for a preliminary injunction for March 27, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and multiple requests by Quirk and Bear, the scheduling of the hearing was cancelled and has never taken place. On September 2, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Quirk and Bear lacked standing and failed to state claims for relief. Facing the Company’s motion to dismiss, on September 23, 2020, Quirk voluntarily dismissed the Fulton County case—his second dismissal of these claims. On September 25, 2020, the Company filed, among other documents, a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses. The Company’s motion is made pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41(a)(3), which states “the filing of a second notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits.” Additionally, the Company noted in its motion that Mr. Quirk’s claims lacked substantial justification, were commenced and maintained without reasonable cause or for an improper purpose, and the Company’s 2020 attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of $216,000 are reasonable. For strategic purposes, in November 2020, the Company elected to withdraw this motion against Quirk, without prejudice to renew as may be appropriate. Bear remains a plaintiff in the case. The Company firmly denies Bear’s claims and will continue to vigorously defend itself against these unsubstantiated and unjustified claims. Additionally, Bear has been notified of the Company’s intent to pursue abusive litigation claims against Bear as a result of these claims. Due to Bear’s non-compliance with court-ordered discovery, the Company filed a Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law on March 2, 2021. Among the requests in the motion, the Company asked the court to award HDC its attorneys’ fees and costs against Bear as a result of what the Company believes is a wasteful, baseless lawsuit that is a clear example of abusive litigation. The Company denies all allegations of improper conduct in the complaint and will continue to defend itself against all allegations. Although the Company believes that it will ultimately be successful in its defense, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. Should Bear be successful, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company recorded $216,000 in legal costs related to this matter in 2020 and none in 2019. The Company has not recorded a liability for this matter as of December 31, 2020. Venning Matter On September 24, 2020, the Company accepted service of a lawsuit filed by Laurie Venning (“Venning”) and one of his companies, Vennwest Global Technologies, Inc. (“Vennwest”) from Alberta, Canada. According to recent publications, Venning is involved in additional lawsuits, one of which is against his formal legal counsel, Dentons, who has countersued Venning. The Vennwest lawsuit contains virtually identical claims against the Company that Quirk and Bear have alleged. In addition, Vennwest is represented by the same law firm that previously withdrew its representation of Bear and Quirk in their lawsuits. As Quirk’s dismissal reflects, the Company believes these claims are without merit and serve only to deplete the Company’s resources to the detriment of its shareholders. Similar to the Bear matter, the Company will vigorously defend itself against these baseless claims and evaluate all options against the plaintiffs including, but not limited to, pursuing counterclaims. On November 2, 2020, HDC moved to dismiss the complaint or stay the action pending the conclusion of the Quirk and Bear case, on the grounds that the first-filed derivative case would serve as res judicata to preclude the later-filed case. On November 30, Vennwest filed its response and on December 15, HDC filed its reply. The motion remains pending. The Company denies all allegations of improper conduct in the complaint and will continue to defend itself against all allegations. Although the Company believes that it will ultimately be successful in its defense, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. Should Venning and Vennwest be successful, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company recorded $20,000 in legal costs related to this matter in 2020 and none in 2019. |