Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	5. Commitments and Contingencies On November 26, 2013, DSS Technology Management filed suit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple“), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for patent infringement (the “Apple Litigation“). The complaint alleges infringement by Apple of DSS Technology Management’s patents that relate to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. DSS Technology Management is seeking a judgement for infringement, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages from Apple. On October 28, 2014, the case was stayed by the District Court pending a determination of Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. On November 7, 2014, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. In December 2014, Apple filed two Inter Partes Review (“IPR“) petitions with USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB“) for review of the patents at issue in the case. The PTAB instituted the IPRs on June 25, 2015. Oral arguments of the IPRs took place on March 15, 2016. On June 17, 2016, PTAB ruled in favor of Apple on both IPR petitions. The patent assets underlying this matter had no carrying value as of the date of the decision and therefore, there were no impairment considerations as a result of the decision. DSS Technology Management intends to appeal the PTAB decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the third quarter of 2016. On March 10, 2014, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC North America, TSMC Development, Inc. (referred to collectively as TSMC), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC (referred to collectively as Samsung), and NEC Corporation of America (referred to as NEC), for patent infringement involving certain of its semiconductor patents. DSS Technology Management sought a judgment for infringement, injunctive relief, and money damages from each of the named defendants. In June, 2014, TSMC filed an IPR petition with PTAB for review of the patents at issue. Samsung then filed an IPR petition relating to the same patents in September 2014, and filed a corrected IPR petition in October 2014. On December 31, 2014, the PTAB instituted review of several of the patent claims at issue in the case. Samsung then filed a motion with PTAB to join TSMC’s IPR proceeding. The request was granted by PTAB. On November 30, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision invalidating the patent claims at issue in the case. A Markman hearing was held in the Eastern District of Texas. Based on the District Court’s claim construction order issued on April 9, 2015, DSS Technology Management and TSMC entered in to a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Final Judgment of Non-Infringement dated May 4, 2015, subject to DSS Technology Management’s right to appeal the court’s claim construction order to the Federal Circuit, thus preserving the status quo in the event an appeal resulted in a remand for further proceedings in the District Court. On March 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of TSMC in the appeal. On April 28, 2015, DSS Technology Management reached a confidential settlement with NEC, ending the litigation with NEC. On April 1, 2016, TSMC and DSS Technology Management reached a confidential settlement, which included a sale of certain of the Company’s patent assets to TSMC, ending the litigation with TSMC. On February 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, against defendants Intel Corporation, Dell, Inc., GameStop Corp., Conn’s Inc., Conn Appliances, Inc., NEC Corporation of America, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, and AT&T, Inc. The complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks judgment for infringement of two of DSSTM’s patents, injunctive relief and money damages. On December 9, 2015, Intel filed IPR petitions with PTAB for review of the patents at issue in the case. Intel’s IPRs were instituted by PTAB on June 8, 2016. The Intel litigation has been stayed pending final determination of the IPR proceedings. On July 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed three separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of certain of its semiconductor patents. The defendants are SK Hynix et al., Samsung Electronics et al., and Qualcomm Incorporated. Each respective complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks judgment for infringement, injunctive relief and money damages. On November 12, 2015, SK Hynix filed an IPR petition with PTAB for review of the patent at issue in their case. SK Hynix’s IPR was instituted by PTAB on May 11, 2016. On March 18, 2016, Samsung filed an IPR petition as well. As of the date of this Report, PTAB has not yet made a determination whether Samsung’s IPR will be instituted. On January 29, 2016, the Company received notice of the dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit filed in New York State Court in April 2015 by Benjamin Lapin, derivatively and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert Fagenson, Jeffrey Ronaldi, Peter Hardigan, Robert Bzdick, Jonathon Perrelli, Warren Hurwitz, Ira Greenstein, David Klein and Philip Jones, Defendants, and the Company, as Nominal Defendant. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. I The Company accrues for potential litigation losses when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. In the event any fees, costs, penalties or other monetary awards are assessed against us in any of the litigation in which we are currently involved, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. *Contingent Litigation Payments* – The Company retains the services of professional service providers, including law firms that specialize in intellectual property licensing, enforcement and patent law. These service providers are often retained on an hourly, monthly, project, contingent or a blended fee basis. In contingency fee arrangements, a portion of the legal fee is based on predetermined milestones or the Company’s actual collection of funds. The Company accrues contingent fees when it is probable that the milestones will be achieved and the fees can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2016, the Company has not accrued any contingent legal fees pursuant to these arrangements. *Contingent Payments* – The Company is party to certain agreements with funding partners who have rights to portions of intellectual property monetization proceeds that the Company receives. As of June 30, 2016, there are no contingent payments due.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

5. Commitments and Contingencies

On November 26, 2013, DSS Technology Management filed suit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple“), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for patent infringement (the “Apple Litigation“). The complaint alleges infringement by Apple of DSS Technology Management’s patents that relate to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. DSS Technology Management is seeking a judgement for infringement, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages from Apple. On October 28, 2014, the case was stayed by the District Court pending a determination of Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. On November 7, 2014, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. In December 2014, Apple filed two Inter Partes Review (“IPR“) petitions with USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB“) for review of the patents at issue in the case. The PTAB instituted the IPRs on June 25, 2015. Oral arguments of the IPRs took place on March 15, 2016. On June 17, 2016, PTAB ruled in favor of Apple on both IPR petitions. The patent assets underlying this matter had no carrying value as of the date of the decision and therefore, there were no impairment considerations as a result of the decision. DSS Technology Management intends to appeal the PTAB decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the third quarter of 2016.

On March 10, 2014, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC North America, TSMC Development, Inc. (referred to collectively as TSMC), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC (referred to collectively as Samsung), and NEC Corporation of America (referred to as NEC), for patent infringement involving certain of its semiconductor patents. DSS Technology Management sought a judgment for infringement, injunctive relief, and money damages from each of the named defendants. In June, 2014, TSMC filed an IPR petition with PTAB for review of the patents at issue. Samsung then filed an IPR petition relating to the same patents in September 2014, and filed a corrected IPR petition in October 2014. On December 31, 2014, the PTAB instituted review of several of the patent claims at issue in the case. Samsung then filed a motion with PTAB to join TSMC’s IPR proceeding. The request was granted by PTAB. On November 30, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision invalidating the patent claims at issue in the case. A Markman hearing was held in the Eastern District of Texas. Based on the District Court’s claim construction order issued on April 9, 2015, DSS Technology Management and TSMC entered in to a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Final Judgment of Non-Infringement dated May 4, 2015, subject to DSS Technology Management’s right to appeal the court’s claim construction order to the Federal Circuit, thus preserving the status quo in the event an appeal resulted in a remand for further proceedings in the District Court. On March 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of TSMC in the appeal. On April 28, 2015, DSS Technology Management reached a confidential settlement with NEC, ending the litigation with NEC. On April 1, 2016, TSMC and DSS Technology Management reached a confidential settlement, which included a sale of certain of the Company’s patent assets to TSMC, ending the litigation with TSMC.

On February 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, against defendants Intel Corporation, Dell, Inc., GameStop Corp., Conn’s Inc., Conn Appliances, Inc., NEC Corporation of America, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, and AT&T, Inc. The complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks judgment for infringement of two of DSSTM’s patents, injunctive relief and money damages. On December 9, 2015, Intel filed IPR petitions with PTAB for review of the patents at issue in the case. Intel’s IPRs were instituted by PTAB on June 8, 2016. The Intel litigation has been stayed pending final determination of the IPR proceedings.

On July 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed three separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of certain of its semiconductor patents. The defendants are SK Hynix et al., Samsung Electronics et al., and Qualcomm Incorporated. Each respective complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks judgment for infringement, injunctive relief and money damages. On November 12, 2015, SK Hynix filed an IPR petition with PTAB for review of the patent at issue in their case. SK Hynix’s IPR was instituted by PTAB on May 11, 2016. On March 18, 2016, Samsung filed an IPR petition as well. As of the date of this Report, PTAB has not yet made a determination whether Samsung’s IPR will be instituted.

On January 29, 2016, the Company received notice of the dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit filed in New York State Court in April 2015 by Benjamin Lapin, derivatively and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert Fagenson, Jeffrey Ronaldi, Peter Hardigan, Robert Bzdick, Jonathon Perrelli, Warren Hurwitz, Ira Greenstein, David Klein and Philip Jones, Defendants, and the Company, as Nominal Defendant.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. I The Company accrues for potential litigation losses when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. In the event any fees, costs, penalties or other monetary awards are assessed against us in any of the litigation in which we are currently involved, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Contingent Litigation Payments – The Company retains the services of professional service providers, including law firms that specialize in intellectual property licensing, enforcement and patent law. These service providers are often retained on an hourly, monthly, project, contingent or a blended fee basis. In contingency fee arrangements, a portion of the legal fee is based on predetermined milestones or the Company’s actual collection of funds. The Company accrues contingent fees when it is probable that the milestones will be achieved and the fees can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2016, the Company has not accrued any contingent legal fees pursuant to these arrangements.

Contingent Payments – The Company is party to certain agreements with funding partners who have rights to portions of intellectual property monetization proceeds that the Company receives. As of June 30, 2016, there are no contingent payments due.