Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
Apr. 30, 2015 |
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] | |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 9—Commitments and Contingencies |
|
|
|
Legal Proceedings |
|
|
|
Sipnet Appeal |
|
|
|
On April 11, 2013, Sipnet EU S.R.O., a Czech company, (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for an inter partes review (“IPR”) at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTAB”) for certain claims of U.S. Patent 6,108,704 (the “’704 Patent”). On October 9, 2014, the PTAB issued an administrative decision that claims 1-7 and 32-42 of the ’704 Patent are unpatentable. We disagree with this finding, and on November 10, 2014, Straight Path IP Group filed a Notice of Appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and at the PTAB (“Sipnet Appeal”). Straight Path IP Group’s opening appellate brief at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was filed on March 13, 2015. The parties’ briefing is now complete, and we expect a ruling from the appellate court in the next six to ten months. |
|
|
|
The decision of the PTAB has had a materially adverse impact on our enforcement efforts. During the pendency of the Sipnet Appeal and outstanding IPRs, all litigation related to the relevant patents that was brought by us as plaintiff has been stayed or dismissed without prejudice, and therefore, we are not currently moving forward with actions against Samsung Electronics Company et al (“Samsung”), LG Electronics, Inc. et al (“LG”), Toshiba Corporation et al (“Toshiba”), Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Avaya Inc. (“Avaya”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), or Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”). While most of the claims found to be unpatentable were not asserted in our enforcement actions, we intend to vigorously defend all of the claims of the ’704 Patent. The PTAB’s decision could lead to challenges to other claims of our patents, particularly if the decision withstands appeal. |
|
|
|
Additional Inter Partes Review |
|
|
|
On August 22, 2014, Samsung filed three petitions with the PTAB for IPR of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704, 6,009,469, and 6,131,121. Straight Path IP Group filed the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Statement in each of these proceedings on December 9, 2014. On March 6, 2015, the PTAB instituted the requested IPR of these claims based on Samsung’s petitions, citing certain findings in the Sipnet decision. Cisco, Avaya, and LG, Toshiba, and Vizio have requested to join the instituted Samsung IPRs using joinder provisions provided under PTAB rules, by filing petitions identical to the Samsung petitions, but the PTAB has not ruled on that request. LG, Toshiba, and Vizio have since notified the PTAB that they intend to withdraw their motions to join. On June 8, 2015, Straight Path IP Group filed its Patent Owner’s Response to the institution. |
|
|
|
On October 31, 2014, LG, Toshiba, Vizio and Hulu filed three petitions with the PTAB for IPR of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704, 6,009,469, and 6,131,121. Straight Path IP Group filed the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Statements for U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 on February 18, 2015 and U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704 and 6,009,469 on February 20, 2015. On May 15, 2015, the PTAB instituted the requested IPR of these claims based on these petitions, citing certain findings in the Sipnet decision. |
|
|
|
Patent Enforcement |
|
On August 1, 2013, Straight Path IP Group filed complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LG”), Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively “Toshiba”) and Vizio, Inc., alleging infringement of three of its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704, 6,009,469, and 6,131,121), and seeking damages related to such infringement. The actions against LG, Toshiba, and Vizio have been consolidated (“consolidated action”). In October 2014, Hulu, LLC intervened in the action as to Hulu’s streaming functionality in the accused products. In that same month, Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) moved to intervene, sever, and stay claims related to Amazon’s streaming functionality in the accused products. On October 13, 2014, Amazon filed an action seeking declaratory relief of non-infringement of Straight Path IP Group’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,009,469, 6,108,704, and 6,131,121 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California based in part on the allegations related to the actions in Virginia. On December 5, 2014, Straight Path IP Group filed a motion to dismiss Amazon’s complaint, or in the alternative, to transfer venue to Virginia. On May 28, 2015, the California court transferred the matter to Virginia, where we expect that it will be consolidated and stayed with the other actions. In November 2014, Straight Path IP Group, defendants, and Hulu jointly moved to stay the consolidated action pending the completion of the defendants’ and Hulu’s IPR petitions of the asserted patents and the completion of the Sipnet Appeal. On November 4, 2014, the court granted the parties’ request and also held the briefing in the Amazon intervention in abeyance. |
|
|
|
|
|
On August 23, 2013, Straight Path IP Group filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) alleging infringement of three of its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704, 6,009,469, and 6,131,121) and seeking damages related to such infringement. In September 2014, Straight Path IP Group and Samsung jointly filed a motion to stay the action. On October 29, 2014, the court granted the motion and stayed the action pending the outcome of the Sipnet Appeal and the IPR petitions filed by Samsung. |
|
On September 24, 2014, Straight Path IP Group filed complaints against each of Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), Avaya Inc. (“Avaya”), and Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Straight Path IP Group claims that (a) Apple’s telecommunications products, including FaceTime software, infringe four of its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704, 6,131,121, 6,701,365, and 7,149,208); that (b) Avaya’s IP telephony, video conference and telepresence products such as Defendant’s Aura Platform infringe four of its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,009,469, 6,108,704, 6,131,121, and 6,701,365); and (c) Cisco’s IP telephony, video conference and telepresence products such as the Unified Communications Solutions infringe four of its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,009,469, 6,108,704, 6,131,121, and 6,701,365). On December 24, 2014, Straight Path IP Group dismissed the complaints against Avaya and Cisco without prejudice. On January 5, 2015, Straight Path IP Group dismissed the complaint against Apple without prejudice. |
|
On September 26, 2014, Straight Path IP Group filed a complaint against Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (collectively “Verizon”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Straight Path IP Group claims Verizon’s telephony products such as its Advanced Communications Products, including Unified Communications and Collaboration and VOIP infringe three of its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704, 6,131,121, and 6,701,365). On November 24, 2014, Straight Path IP Group dismissed the complaint without prejudice subject to a confidential Standstill Agreement with Verizon. |
|
|
|
Arbitration with the Former SPIP CEO |
|
|
|
On December 11, 2012, Straight Path IP Group filed a demand for arbitration seeking a declaration that the former Chief Executive Officer of Straight Path IP (the “Former SPIP CEO”) employment was properly terminated for cause and that the Former SPIP CEO is not entitled to severance or certain equity rights under his employment agreement. On March 15, 2013, the Former SPIP CEO filed a response and counterclaims alleging breach of contract and seeking various forms of relief. Specifically, he sought certain declarations related to the termination of his employment, and certain payments and the vesting of options to purchase common stock representing 5% of the outstanding common stock of Straight Path IP Group, damages for unpaid compensation and severance, a sum in excess of $35 million in compensatory damages, and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. The arbitration was held in November 2014. On February 26, 2015, the Arbitrator issued his Final Award. The Arbitrator concluded that the Former SPIP CEO is not entitled to any further compensation and does not have any entitlement to equity interests in Straight Path IP Group. On May 27, 2015, the Former SPIP CEO filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York to vacate the arbitration award. We intend to oppose the petition. |
|
|
|
Other Commitments and Contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
The former Chief Executive Officer of Straight Path Spectrum (the “Former SPSI CEO”) is entitled to receive payments from future revenues generated from the leasing, licensing or sale of rights in certain of Straight Path Spectrum’s wireless spectrum licenses. Those payments are to be made out of 50% of the covered revenue and are in a maximum aggregate amount of $3.25 million. The payments arise under the June 2013 settlement of certain claims and disputes with the Former SPSI CEO and parties related to the Former SPSI CEO. Approximately $3,000 and $44,000 was incurred to the Former SPSI CEO for this obligation for the three and nine months ended April 30, 2015, respectively, and approximately $33,000 and $87,000 for the three and nine months ended April 30, 2014, respectively. |
|
|
|
Straight Path IP Group generally pays law firms that represent it in litigation against alleged infringers of its intellectual property rights a percentage of the amounts recovered ranging from 0% to 40% depending on several factors. |
|
|
|
In March 2015, the Company extended the term of its Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey satellite office from October 31, 2017 to April 30, 2018. The annual rent will continue to be approximately $37,000 per year. In May 2015, the Company extended the lease for its headquarters in Glen Allen, Virginia from May 31, 2015 to May 31, 2017. The annual rent will be approximately $7,000 per year. |