Replies to post #5726 on AIkido Pharma Inc (AIKI)

[TechKim]

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we actively pursue legal remedies to enforce our intellectual property rights and to stop unauthorized use of our technology. Other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business and other than as set forth below, we know of no material, active or pending legal proceedings against us, except for those described below.

Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

On August 30, 2013, we initiated litigation against VTech Telecommunications Ltd. and VTech Communications, Inc. (collectively “VTech”) in Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al ., Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 5,892,814; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that VTech has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of VTech’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On November 11, 2013, VTech filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the Asserted Patents are non-infringed and invalid. On December 5, 2013, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims, in which we denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case setting trial to begin on January 11, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, VTech Communications, Inc., together with Uniden America Corporation, filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. The PTAB also suggested an accelerated IPR schedule to culminate in an oral hearing on or about September 28, 2015. The PTAB held a conference call with the parties on March 17, 2015 to finalize the IPR schedule. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court. The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014. Both the Technology Tutorial and the Markman hearing were held jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al. case (see below). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties. On April 2, 2015, we filed an Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and the parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that the parties have not yet resumed settlement negotiations. The Court has ordered the parties to hold a settlement conference not later than December 28, 2015. On April 15, 2015, we filed a Motion to Compel Production of Technical Documents against Defendants. On April 20, 2015, we filed an Opposed Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Infringement Contentions. Also on April 20, 2015, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to our Amended Complaint with their counterclaims. On May 1, 2015, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims. On May 5, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. On May 6, 2015, the Court entered the Stipulation, in which the Court estimated the trial date to occur in July of 2016 and ordered the parties to be ready for trial on or after June 22, 2016. Our patent owner’s response to the petition in the IPR was timely filed on May 26, 2015. On September 28, 2015, the hearing in the IPR proceedings was held before the PTAB. On October 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the litigation pending the issuance of the PTAB’s final written decisions in the IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Court granted the stay and administratively closed the case until the PTAB issues its final written decisions. On February 3, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding invalid eight of the 15 asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (“the ’599 Patent”) and all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,614,899. Our deadline to file a Notice of Appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is April 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, at the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered that the stay of the case remain in effect for 30 days so the parties may work to resolve the case without further Court intervention. The Court also ordered the parties to file an updated status report on or before March 31, 2016 advising the Court of their progress toward resolving this litigation without further Court intervention and whether it is appropriate to reopen the case and lift the stay. The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report on March 31, 2016, in which they requested that the stay remain in effect pending the Federal Circuit issuing a ruling in connection with the appeal of IPR2014-01431 relating to the ‘599 Patent. On April 1, 2016, we filed our Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal in IPR2014-01431. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. On May 23, 2016, we granted RPX Corporation the ability to grant to VTech a sublicense for a fully paid portfolio license, including a license to the Asserted Patents. On June 15, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims asserted in the case. On June 21, 2016, the Court granted the joint motion to dismiss. On June 17, 2016, we filed a motion with the Federal Circuit requesting that VTech be withdrawn as a party to the appeal. On June 21, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted the motion to withdraw VTech as a party.

27


Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

On August 30, 2013, we initiated litigation against Uniden Corporation and Uniden America Corporation (collectively “Uniden”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al. , Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Uniden has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of Uniden’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On April 15, 2014, Uniden filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue are non-infringed and invalid. On April 28, 2014, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims, in which we denied that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order for the case setting trial to begin on February 10, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, Uniden America Corporation, together with VTech Communications, Inc., filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the PTAB entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. The PTAB also suggested an accelerated IPR schedule to culminate in an oral hearing on September 28, 2015. The PTAB held a conference call with the parties on March 17, 2015 to finalize the IPR schedule. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court. The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014, with both hearings occurring jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al. case (see above). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties. On April 2, 2015, we filed an Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and the parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that the parties have not yet resumed settlement negotiations. The Court has ordered the parties to hold a settlement conference not later than January 20, 2016. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify Patent Scheduling Order. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted the Motion. On April 20, 2015, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to our Amended Complaint with their counterclaims. On May 1, 2015, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims. Our patent owner’s response to the petition in the IPR was timely filed on May 26, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court issued a modified Scheduling Order setting the Final Pretrial Conference for February 2, 2016 and confirming the Trial Date beginning February 20, 2016. On September 9, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion to stay the case pending the decision in the two IPR proceedings. On September 10, 2015, the Court stayed the case and ordered the parties to file a status report within 10 days of the Patent Office issuing its decision in the IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Court ordered the case administratively closed until the PTAB issues its final written decisions. On February 3, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding invalid eight of the 15 asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (“the ’599 Patent”) and all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,614,899. Our deadline to file a Notice of Appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is April 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, at the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered that the stay of the case remain in effect for 30 days so the parties may work to resolve the case without further Court intervention. The Court also ordered the parties to file an updated status report on or before March 31, 2016 advising the Court of their progress toward resolving this litigation without further Court intervention and whether it is appropriate to reopen the case and lift the stay. The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report on March 31, 2016, in which they requested that the stay remain in effect pending the Federal Circuit issuing a ruling in connection with the appeal of IPR2014-01431 relating to the ‘599 Patent. On April 1, 2016, we filed our Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal in IPR2014-01431. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. On July 18, 2016, we timely filed our Opening Brief in our appeal to the Federal Circuit. Uniden’s reply brief is due on August 29, 2016.

Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On March 28, 2014, we initiated litigation against Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc. , Case No. 1:14-cv-00393- SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,697,325; 6,578,086; 6,222,848; 6,130,877; 5,970,125; 6,807,174; 7,397,763; 7,664,123; 7,385,998; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Cisco has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of Cisco’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, we filed an amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to our wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC (“NNPT”), based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT was added as a co-plaintiff with us. On August 5, 2014, Cisco filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 26, 2014, we and NNPT filed an opposition to Cisco’s motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2014, Cisco filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2015, Cisco moved to consolidate certain claims relating to alleged obligations by us to license Cisco on two unrelated patents, which Cisco had made against us on June 6, 2014 in the pending case Bockstar Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. , Case No. 1:13-cv-02020- SLR-SRF (see below). On March 23, 2015, we filed our opposition to Cisco’s motion to consolidate. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Cisco’s motion to dismiss allegations of “willful” infringement. Spherix’s allegations of patent infringement for the eleven (11) patents continue. Spherix has the ability to re-allege “willful” infringement at a later time. On April 3, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. petitioned the U.S. Patent Office for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of Spherix patents 7,397,763 and 8,607,323. The remaining nine patents Spherix has asserted against Cisco were not part of the petitions and the time for Cisco to petition the USPTO for an IPR on those remaining patents expired on April 6, 2015. On April 10, 2015, Cisco withdrew its March 9, 2015 motion to consolidate claims from the Bockstar case. On May 5, 2015, Cisco filed its Answer to our amended complaint with counterclaims under the Sherman Act, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contract, promissory estoppel, and requesting a declaration that the patents at issue are non-infringed and invalid. On June 10, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case. The Court set the Markman hearing to occur in two phases, for two different sets of patents, to occur on June 24, 2016 and September 8, 2016. The Court set trial to begin on January 16, 2018. On July 13, 2015, we filed our oppositions to Cisco’s IPR petitions. On July 20, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss or transfer certain of Cisco’s counterclaims. On September 22, 2015, the PTAB issued orders instituting the two IPR proceedings, Nos. IPR2015-00999 and IPR2015-01001, as requested by Cisco. On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015. On December 3, 2015, the parties also filed a Joint Motion to Terminate in each of the two IPR proceedings, which the PTAB granted on December 4, 2015.

28


Spherix Incorporated v Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On May 2, 2014, we initiated litigation against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Juniper Networks, Inc. , Case No. 1:14-cv- 00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 7,385,998; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Juniper has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of Juniper’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, we filed an amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to our wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC, based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT LLC was added as a co-plaintiff with us. On August 8, 2014, Juniper filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, we filed our opposition to Juniper’s motion to dismiss. On September 15, 2014, Juniper filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Juniper’s motion to dismiss allegations of “willful” infringement. Spherix’s allegations of patent infringement for the eleven (11) patents continue. Spherix has the ability to reallege “willful” infringement at a later time. On April 14, 2015, Juniper filed its Answer to our amended complaint. On May 6, 2015, the Court held an in-person Scheduling Conference in court and ordered the parties to submit the final proposed Scheduling Order to the Court. On May 28, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case setting the Markman hearing for June 24, 2016 and trial to begin on May 15, 2017. On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 2, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

On June 9, 2014, NNPT initiated litigation against Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Cooperatif U.A., and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. (collectively “Huawei”), in NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al. , Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“the Court”), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 6,697,325; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). On September 8, 2014, Huawei filed its answers to the complaint in which defendant Huawei Technologies USA asserted counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On October 8, 2014, NNPT filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which it denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On January 20, 2015, the Court held a Scheduling Conference and set the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016. On January 28, 2015, the Court appointed as mediator for the parties, Hon. David Folsom, former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On February 24, 2015, the Court issued its Docket Control Order setting the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016. The Court also set an August 14, 2015 deadline to complete mediation. On June 11, 2015, Huawei filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On July 7, 2015, the Court reset the Markman hearing date for August 5, 2015. The Markman hearing was held on August 5, 2015 as scheduled. The parties held an initial mediation on August 6, 2015. On August 17, 2015, the Court issued its Markman Order. On August 20, 2015, the mediator filed a report with the Court reporting that the parties reached a settlement of the case on August 14, 2015. On August 31, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay and Notice of Settlement. On September 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case and set a status conference for October 2, 2015. On September 18, 2015, the parties filed in the PTAB a joint motion to terminate the two IPR petitions file by Huawei, Nos. IPR2015-01382 and IPR2015-01390. On September 24, 2015, the PTAB issued orders terminating the two IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, we received Huawei’s fully executed copy of a confidential settlement and license agreement, the terms of which are set forth in our Current Report on Form 8-K, dated October 19, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in this prospectus. On November 16, 2015, the parties file a Stipulation of Dismissal and the Court ordered the case dismissed on November 17, 2015.

29


Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On June 11, 2014, we initiated litigation against Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon South Inc.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Federal Inc.; Verizon Business Network Services Inc.; and MCI Communications Services, Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al. , Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648; 6,882,800; 6,980,564; and 8,166,533. On July 2, 2014, we filed an Amended Complaint in the case in which we added allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167. On August 15, 2014, Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. On September 9, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order adopting the parties’ Joint Proposed Discovery Plan. According to the Scheduling Order, the Markman hearing is currently scheduled for March 16, 2015. On September 12, 2014, we filed our opposition to Verizon’s motion to dismiss, and on September 26, 2014, Verizon filed its reply brief. On October 3, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and issued a Minute Entry stating that motion was denied. The Court stated that an Order would follow. On October 17, 2014, Verizon filed an Answer to our Amended Complaint. The parties agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648 and 6,882,800, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. The parties filed a joint motion to that effect on October 27, 2014, which was granted on October 30, 2014. The parties further agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 8,166,533 and 7,478,167, and filed a joint motion to that effect on November 6, 2014. On November 13, 2014, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the ‘533 Patent and the ‘167 Patent without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. On December 18, 2014, the Court set the case for a five-day trial beginning on May 18, 2015. On January 9, 2015, we and Verizon each filed their motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions. On January 12, 2015, the Court set the motions for summary adjudication for hearing on March 16, 2015 along with the Markman hearing. On January 22, 2015, the parties filed their oppositions to the motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions, and on February 5, 2015, the parties filed their reply briefs. On March 16, 2015, the Court held the Markman hearing as scheduled. On March 25, 2015, the Court reset the May 18, 2015 jury trial date to August 10, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the Court clarified that the trial will be held on August 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 of 2015. On, June 11, 2015, Verizon filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the Asserted Patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On July 1, 2015, the Court granted Verizon’s motion for summary judgment as to indefiniteness and non-infringement. On July 30, 2015, we filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 31, 2015, a settlement agreement between Spherix and Verizon was entered into, resolving all outstanding litigation between the two companies. On September 4, 2015, we filed an unopposed motion to withdraw our Notice of Appeal. On September 8, 2015, the Court granted the motion to withdraw the Notice of Appeal. On September 10, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminated the IPR proceeding. On September 14, 2015, the PTAB terminated Verizon’s petition.

Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On May 1, 2015, we initiated litigation against Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon South Inc.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Federal Inc.; Verizon Business Network Services Inc.; MCI Communications Services, Inc.; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; and Cisco Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al. , Case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,959,990; 6,111,876; RE40,999; RE44,775; RE45,065; RE45,081; RE45,095; and RE45,121 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Defendants has used, manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, damages sufficient to compensate us for Defendants’ infringement, together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, and our attorney’s fees. On June 30, 2014, we filed an Amended Complaint to add allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE45,521 and RE45,598. On July 15, 2015, Cisco filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware. On July 17, 2015, Verizon filed an Answer and Counterclaims to the Complaint. On July 17, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting the Final Pretrial Conference for November 19, 2015, with trial to be set within 4-8 weeks of the pretrial conference. On July 31, 2015, we filed our Opposition to Cisco’s motion to transfer. On August 5, 2015, the Court held an Initial Pretrial Conference in the case to discuss the discovery plan for the case. On August 6, 2015, we filed our answer to Verizon’s counterclaims. On August 11, 2015, the Court issued its Scheduling Order regarding the discovery schedule, setting discovery to be concluded by November 15, 2015. On August 31, 2015, a settlement agreement between Spherix and Verizon was entered into, resolving all outstanding litigation between the two companies. Cisco was not a party to the agreement and the case continues against Cisco. On September 1, 2015, the Spherix and Verizon filed a joint motion to dismiss the Verizon entities from the case. On September 2, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Verizon. On September 23, 2015, Cisco filed a Consent Motion to transfer the action to the District of Delaware, and on September 25, 2015, the Court granted the motion. The case has been transferred to the District of Delaware and assigned new case number 1:15-cv-00869-SLR (“Delaware Case”). On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in the Delaware Case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

30


Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Spherix Incorporated, 1:15-cv-00559-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On June 30, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. initiated litigation against us in United States District Court for the District of Delaware, requesting a declaration of non-infringement U.S. Patent No. RE45,598, which issued on June 30, 2015, and, with respect to that patent, alleging breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contract and promissory estoppel. On August 28, 2015, we filed motions to dismiss the case in light of our previously filed case, case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the Eastern District of Virginia, which involves U.S. Patent No. RE45,598. On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

Spherix Incorporated v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On April 26, 2016, we initiated litigation against Fairpoint Communications, Inc. in Spherix Incorporated v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc. , Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (the ‘999 Patent”). We are seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the ‘999 Patent, damages sufficient to compensate us for Defendants’ infringement together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and our attorney’s fees.

Spherix Incorporated v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00307-RGA, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On April 26, 2016, we initiated litigation against Level 3 Communications, Inc. and TW Telecom, Inc. in Spherix Incorporated v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al. , Case No. 1:16-cv-00307-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (the ‘999 Patent”). We are seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the ‘999 Patent, damages sufficient to compensate us for Defendants’ infringement together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and our attorney’s fees.

Counterclaims

In the ordinary course of business, we, along with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, will initiate litigation against parties whom we believe have infringed on our intellectual property rights and technologies. The initiation of such litigation exposes us to potential counterclaims initiated by the defendants. Currently, as stated above, defendants in the case Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation have filed counterclaims against us. We have evaluated the counterclaims and believe they are without merit and have not recorded a loss provision relating to such matters. We can provide no assurance that the outcome of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results from operations.