Note 2 - Current Developments, Future Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources	6 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Going Concern [Text Block]	2. Current Developments, Future Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources The condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue to operate as a going concern, which contemplates that we will realize returns on our assets and satisfy our liabilities and commitments in the ordinary course of business. Our condensed consolidated financial statements do not reflect any adjustments related to the uncertainty of this outcome. As discussed elsewhere in this report, we are currently generating no revenues and have ceased traditional operations. Our future is highly dependent on our ability to successfully resolve our current and future litigation, monetize our portfolio of patents, generate positive cash flows and/or obtain borrowings or raise capital to meet our liquidity needs. We are primarily focused on potentially realizing value from our ongoing IP enforcement actions and other litigation as well as exploring opportunities to further expand, protect, and monetize our patent portfolio, including through the potential sale or licensing our patent portfolio. On March 10, 2014, we filed a lawsuit in federal court against Targus Group International, Inc. (“Targus”) for patent infringement, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, violation of business and professional codes, misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. On March 26, 2016, we entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement with Targus that resolved all claims arising from the aforementioned litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, we granted Targus a world-wide license to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products (as defined below), as well as a sublicense to have Licensed Products manufactured by third parties solely for the benefit of and sale to Targus. In addition, we granted Targus, for a limited number of units, the right to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products for third-party original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). “Licensed Products” means any power adaptor or power supply incorporating patents or other intellectual property owned or licensed by us. In exchange for the license granted under the settlement agreement, Targus paid us a one-time, lump-sum payment on April 1, 2016, plus the possibility of future per-unit royalty payments if Targus exceeds the limit on Licensed Products that Targus may sell to OEMs under the settlement agreement. We have been granted confidential treatment from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) related to the one-time payment, the calculation of royalty payments and the OEM unit limit pursuant to aconfidential treatment request filed by us with the SEC. Two of our other recent litigation matters have also concluded. In the Chicony Power Technology, Co. Ltd., (“Chicony”) matter, effective as of May 15, 2014, Chicony entered into a settlement agreement with us that dismissed all claims between us and Chicony arising from the litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Chicony agreed to pay us $7.6 million, which was paid in May 2014. Of the $7.6 million, we retained $6.5 million, after distributing $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees and other costs. In connection with the settlement, certain contract manufacturer costs payable to Chicony totaling $1.1 million were discharged and reflected as a reduction of cost of revenues. In our litigation with ACCO Brands USA LLC and its Kensington Computer Products Group division (collectively “Kensington”), on February 4, 2014, we entered into a confidential settlement and licensing agreement with an effective date of February 1, 2014 that established a forward royalty program and dismissed all claims between the two parties arising from this matter. On February 3, 2015, we filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) for patent infringement. The complaint alleges that Apple products sold in the United States utilizing the Apple Lightning® power supply adapter system, including most iPad®, iPhone®, and iPod® products, infringe our patented intellectual property. This lawsuit represents our most significant enforcement effort to date, and demonstrates our ongoing and accelerated efforts to methodically pursue those companies that we believe have infringed on the intellectual property estate that we have developed over the last 20 years. We intend to vigorously pursue our rights in this case, although the outcome of this matter is not determinable as of the date of this report. On February 13, 2015, we filed a lawsuit against Best Buy Co., Inc. (“Best Buy”) for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States. The complaint alleges that certain Best Buy power charging products sold in the United States under the Rocketfish brand infringe our patented intellectual property. We intend to vigorously pursue our rights in this case, although the outcome of this matter is not determinable as of the date of this report. We believe that our patent portfolio covering key technical aspects of our products could potentially generate a future revenue stream based upon royalties paid to us by others for the use of some or all of our patents in third party products. We continue to explore opportunities to expand, protect, and monetize our patent portfolio, including through the sale or licensing of our patent portfolio. We may or may not resume our traditional activities of producing innovative charging solutions for battery powered devices. There are no assurances that any of these potential opportunities or activities will occur or be successful. We had working capital of approximately $0.7 million as of July 31, 2016, which includes liabilities related to the remaining balance owed to our former counsel Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (“Pillsbury”). The $0.1 million remaining balance due to Pillsbury will be paid, if at all, in the event we obtain any monetary recovery, whether through settlement, judgment or otherwise, from or as a result of any of our current or future lawsuits related to our intellectual property (see Note 6). During the quarter ended April 30, 2016, we paid Pillsbury approximately $0.4 million as a result of the Settlement Agreement with Targus and owe a balance of approximately $0.1 million. During the quarter ended July 31, 2016, we wrote off receivables of $0.1 million from and liabilties of $0.6 million to Zheng Ge as the statute of limitation on the related contracts has lapsed. Because of the contingent nature of our liability to Pillsbury, we believe that our working capital will allow us to discharge non-contingent liability in the normal course of business over the next twelve months. We are currently generating no revenues and have ceased traditional operations. Our future is highly dependent on our ability to successfully resolve our current litigation, capitalize on our portfolio of patents, generate positive cash flows and/or obtain borrowings or raise capital to meet our future liquidity needs. We have and will continue to analyze alternatives to build and/or preserve value for our stakeholders, including, but not limited to, exploring additional investment and incremental financing from current and/or new investors, the engagement of advisors to assist in exploring strategic options for us as well as identifying potential partnerships for the purpose of monetizing some or all of the our patent portfolio and past, present, and future infringement claims. However, there can be no assurances that we will be successful in identifying and/or implementing any of these alternatives, or if implemented, that any of these alternatives will successfully preserve or increase shareholder value.

2. Current Developments, Future Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources

The condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue to operate as a going concern, which contemplates that we will realize returns on our assets and satisfy our liabilities and commitments in the ordinary course of business. Our condensed consolidated financial statements do not reflect any adjustments related to the uncertainty of this outcome. As discussed elsewhere in this report, we are currently generating no revenues and have ceased traditional operations. Our future is highly dependent on our ability to successfully resolve our current and future litigation, monetize our portfolio of patents, generate positive cash flows and/or obtain borrowings or raise capital to meet our liquidity needs.

We are primarily focused on potentially realizing value from our ongoing IP enforcement actions and other litigation as well as exploring opportunities to further expand, protect, and monetize our patent portfolio, including through the potential sale or licensing our patent portfolio.

On March 10, 2014, we filed a lawsuit in federal court against Targus Group International, Inc. (“Targus”) for patent infringement, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, violation of business and professional codes, misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. On March 26, 2016, we entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement with Targus that resolved all claims arising from the aforementioned litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, we granted Targus a world-wide license to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products (as defined below), as well as a sublicense to have Licensed Products manufactured by third parties solely for the benefit of and sale to Targus. In addition, we granted Targus, for a limited number of units, the right to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products for third-party original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). “Licensed Products” means any power adaptor or power supply incorporating patents or other intellectual property owned or licensed by us.

In exchange for the license granted under the settlement agreement, Targus paid us a one-time, lump-sum payment on April 1, 2016, plus the possibility of future per-unit royalty payments if Targus exceeds the limit on Licensed Products that Targus may sell to OEMs under the settlement agreement. We have been granted confidential treatment from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) related to the one-time payment, the calculation of royalty payments and the OEM unit limit pursuant to aconfidential treatment request filed by us with the SEC.

Two of our other recent litigation matters have also concluded. In the Chicony Power Technology, Co. Ltd., (“Chicony”) matter, effective as of May 15, 2014, Chicony entered into a settlement agreement with us that dismissed all claims between us and Chicony arising from the litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Chicony agreed to pay us $7.6 million, which was paid in May 2014. Of the $7.6 million, we retained $6.5 million, after distributing $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees and other costs. In connection with the settlement, certain contract manufacturer costs payable to Chicony totaling $1.1 million were discharged and reflected as a reduction of cost of revenues. In our litigation with ACCO Brands USA LLC and its Kensington Computer Products Group division (collectively “Kensington”), on February 4, 2014, we entered into a confidential settlement and licensing agreement with an effective date of February 1, 2014 that established a forward royalty program and dismissed all claims between the two parties arising from this matter.

On February 3, 2015, we filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) for patent infringement. The complaint alleges that Apple products sold in the United States utilizing the Apple Lightning® power supply adapter system, including most iPad®, iPhone®, and iPod® products, infringe our patented intellectual property. This lawsuit represents our most significant enforcement effort to date, and demonstrates our ongoing and accelerated efforts to methodically pursue those companies that we believe have infringed on the intellectual property estate that we have developed over the last 20 years. We intend to vigorously pursue our rights in this case, although the outcome of this matter is not determinable as of the date of this report.

On February 13, 2015, we filed a lawsuit against Best Buy Co., Inc. (“Best Buy”) for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States. The complaint alleges that certain Best Buy power charging products sold in the United States under the Rocketfish brand infringe our patented intellectual property. We intend to vigorously pursue our rights in this case, although the outcome of this matter is not determinable as of the date of this report.

We believe that our patent portfolio covering key technical aspects of our products could potentially generate a future revenue stream based upon royalties paid to us by others for the use of some or all of our patents in third party products. We continue to explore opportunities to expand, protect, and monetize our patent portfolio, including through the sale or licensing of our patent portfolio. We may or may not resume our traditional activities of producing innovative charging solutions for battery powered devices. There are no assurances that any of these potential opportunities or activities will occur or be successful.

We had working capital of approximately $0.7 million as of July 31, 2016, which includes liabilities related to the remaining balance owed to our former counsel Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (“Pillsbury”). The $0.1 million remaining balance due to Pillsbury will be paid, if at all, in the event we obtain any monetary recovery, whether through settlement, judgment or otherwise, from or as a result of any of our current or future lawsuits related to our intellectual property (see Note 6). During the quarter ended April 30, 2016, we paid Pillsbury approximately $0.4 million as a result of the Settlement Agreement with Targus and owe a balance of approximately $0.1 million. During the quarter ended July 31, 2016, we wrote off receivables of $0.1 million from and liabilties of $0.6 million to Zheng Ge as the statute of limitation on the related contracts has lapsed. Because of the contingent nature of our liability to Pillsbury, we believe that our working capital will allow us to discharge non-contingent liability in the normal course of business over the next twelve months.

We are currently generating no revenues and have ceased traditional operations. Our future is highly dependent on our ability to successfully resolve our current litigation, capitalize on our portfolio of patents, generate positive cash flows and/or obtain borrowings or raise capital to meet our future liquidity needs.

We have and will continue to analyze alternatives to build and/or preserve value for our stakeholders, including, but not limited to, exploring additional investment and incremental financing from current and/or new investors, the engagement of advisors to assist in exploring strategic options for us as well as identifying potential partnerships for the purpose of monetizing some or all of the our patent portfolio and past, present, and future infringement claims. However, there can be no assurances that we will be successful in identifying and/or implementing any of these alternatives, or if implemented, that any of these alternatives will successfully preserve or increase shareholder value.