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. 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 Legal fees for this matter were $89,000 and $0 for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Quirk and Bear Matter On February 7, 2020, two shareholders of the Company, William F. Quirk, Jr. (“Quirk”) and Cindy Bear (“Bear”), filed a complaint and 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. At the time of the Quirk and Bear complaint, the Company had stated its intent to schedule a shareholder meeting no later than June 30, 2020 and in fact did hold the shareholder meeting on May 27, 2020. 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. Quirk and Bear did not attempt to reschedule it. 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 his claims against the Company. Because this was the second dismissal of these claims, that dismissal was with prejudice and constitutes an adjudication of the merits under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41(a)(3). Bear remained a plaintiff in the case. Due to Bear’s refusal to participate in discovery and repeated violations of the Court’s orders, 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 request in the motion, the Company asked the Court to award attorney’s fees and costs against Bear as a result of abusive litigation. Subsequently, the Court held a hearing regarding the Company’s motion on March 25, 2021. At that hearing, the Court ordered Bear to appear for her deposition to be taken remotely on March 31, 2021 and April 1, 2021. The Court warned Bear that her failure to appear at these depositions or to participate fully in them would result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. Bear did not appear for the March 31, 2021 deposition. As a result, on April 6, 2021, the Court issued an Order Granting Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice and Final Order and Judgment (the “Ruling”) against Bear. Among other findings in the Ruling, the Court found that Bear knowingly and willfully failed to participate in discovery and violated the Court’s orders. Consequently, the Court entered final judgment against Bear and in favor of the Company on all counts. In light of the Court’s ruling, the Company intends to seek reimbursement of its attorneys’ fees and costs against Bear for bringing the action. Legal fees for this matter were $43,000 and $152,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. 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. The Vennwest lawsuit contains virtually identical claims against HDC that Quirk and Bear alleged. For this reason, the Company believes Venning, Quirk, Bear and others coordinated their irresponsible and costly attacks against the Company, its directors and others. As Quirk’s dismissal and the Bear judgment reflects, the Company believes these claims are without merit and serve only to deplete the Company’s resources to the detriment of its shareholders. On November 2, 2020, the Company 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, 2020, Vennwest filed its response, and on December 15, 2020, the Company filed its reply. The motion remains pending. The Company will vigorously defend itself against these claims and evaluate all options against the plaintiffs including, but not limited to, pursuing counterclaims. 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 Vennwest be successful, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company. Legal fees for this matter were $20,000 and $0 for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. |