Commitments and Contingencies
|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 31, 2016
|Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]|
|COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES||
On January 30, 2012, MacroSolve, Inc. filed suit against Newegg, Inc. in the United States District Court Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of one or more claims of United States Patent #7,822,816. On March 7, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) sent MacroSolve, Inc. an office action related to an ex parte reexamination of the ‘816 patent, which rejected all the claims in the patent (the USPTO Office Action”). As a result of the USPTO Office Action, on March 31, 2014, the Company dismissed its patent enforcement case against Newegg Inc. with prejudice. On April 6, 2015, the court denied the motion by Newegg for recovery of defendant legal fees of approximately $400,000 from the Company. On April 24, 2015, Newegg filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 19, 2015, the Company filed a Brief of Appellee MacroSolve, Inc. with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and on September 8, 2015, Newegg filed a Reply Brief. Oral arguments occurred on February 1, 2016. The Federal Circuit decision affirming the district court’s denial of fees came down on February 9, 2016 in the form of a Rule 36 (‘summary affirmance”) per curiam decision. Newegg has ninety days to file a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to review. The Company has prevailed in this matter but should the case be accepted by the Supreme Court and the Company not prevail in that venue, the judgment would be borne by the former MacroSolve directors who sold their loans on April 17, 2014.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef