COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has operating leases predominantly for operating facilities. As of December 31, 2021, the remaining lease terms on our operating leases range from one to sixty-three months. Termination options are not reasonably certain of exercise by the Company. There is no transfer of title or option to purchase the leased assets upon expiration. There are no residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. There are no significant finance leases as of December 31, 2021. Rent expense for the year ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020 was approximately $190,000 and $217,000 respectively.

Future minimum lease payments as of December 31,2021 are as follows:

	Totals
2022	$	393,000
2023		88,000
2024		37,000
2025		4,000
2026		2,000
Total lease payments		524,000
Less: Imputed Interest		(11,000	)
Present value of remaining lease payments	$	513,000
Current	$	393,000
Noncurrent	$	120,000
Weighted-average remaining lease term (years)		1.6
Weighted-average discount rate		4.2	%

Employment Agreements - The Company has employment or severance agreements with members of its management team. The employment or severance agreements provide for severance payments in the event of termination for certain causes. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company accrued approximately $7,276,000 and $4,300,000, respectively, for Mr. Heng Fai Ambrose Chan, an executive of the Company’s DSS Cyber Security Pte. Ltd subsidiary in accordance with the terms of his employment contract. Also, as of December 31, 2021, the minimum severance payments under these employment agreements are, in aggregate, approximately $220,000.

Legal Proceedings –

The Apple Litigation

On November 26, 2013, DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“DSSTM”) 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 DSSTM’s patents that relate to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. DSSTM is seeking a judgment 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, Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California was granted. On December 30, 2014, Apple filed two Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions with the 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. The California District Court then stayed the case pending the outcome of those IPR proceedings. Oral arguments of the IPRs took place on March 15, 2016, and on June 17, 2016, PTAB ruled in favor of Apple on both IPR petitions. DSSTM then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) seeking reversal of the PTAB decisions. Oral arguments for the appeal were held on August 9, 2017. On March 23, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, finding that the PTAB erred when it found the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 to be unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed its decision on July 12, 2018, when it denied Apple’s petition for panel rehearing of the Federal Circuit’s Opinion and Judgment issued on March 23, 2018. On July 27, 2018, the District Court judge lifted the Stay resuming the litigation, which had a trial date set for the week of February 24, 2020. On January 14, 2020, the Court in the case DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 4:14-cv-05330-HSG pending in the Northern District of California issued an order that denied DSS’ motion to amend its infringement contentions. In the same order, the Court granted Apple’s motion to strike DSS’ infringement expert report. DSS filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying DSS the right to amend its infringement contentions and motion to strike DSS infringement expert report. On February 18, 2020, the Court denied DSS’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. On February 24, 2020, the Court signed a Final Judgment stipulating that Apple was “entitled to a judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 as a matter of law.” On March 10, 2020, DSS filed an appeal of this Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Federal Circuit Docket no. 2020-1570. On April 27, 2021, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument, and on April 30, 2021, the Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. After considering all factors the Company has elected to not pursue any further appeals on this matter. Case is deemed closed.

The Ronaldi Litigation

In April 2019 DSS commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, Index No. E2019003542, against Jeffrey Ronaldi, our former Chief Executive Officer. This New York action seeks a declaratory judgment that, contrary to informal claims made by him, Mr. Ronaldi’s employment agreement with us expired by its terms and that he is not entitled to any cash bonuses or other unpaid amounts. The lawsuit also seeks an injunction against Mr. Ronaldi from interfering with any of DSS’ IP litigation. Mr. Ronaldi subsequently commenced an action against DSS in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on November 8, 2019, under case number 37-2019-00059664-CU-CO-CTL, in which he alleged that DSS terminated his employment in April 2019 in order to avoid paying him certain employment-related amounts. DSS was successful in dismissing the California case and consolidating it with the action pending in Monroe County, New York. Mr. Ronaldi asserted counterclaims in the Monroe County, New York action similar to those he originally brought in California. Mr. Ronaldi claims that his termination violated an alleged employment agreement or implied-in-fact employment agreement and that he should have remained employed through 2019. Mr. Ronaldi seeks to recover: (i) $144,658 in wages from April 11, 2019 through December 31, 2019; (ii) $769 in alleged unpaid based salary for time worked before April 11, 2019; (iii) $15,385 in alleged paid time off compensation; (iv) $3,077 in alleged unpaid sick time compensation; (v) $26,077 in waiting-time penalties; (vi) $91,000 in unspecified expense reimbursement; (vii) $300,000 in alleged cash bonuses ($100,000 per year) based on DSS’s performance in 2017, 2018 and 2019; and (viii) a $450,000 performance bonus based on the result of certain alleged net proceeds from patent infringement litigation. He further claims an interest in any recovery in DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cf05330-HSG. The court recently ordered Mr. Ronaldi to produce several categories of documents that he sought to withhold. Discovery is ongoing.

Additionally, on March 2, 2020 DSS and DSSTM filed a second litigation action against Jeffrey Ronaldi in the State of New York, Supreme Court, County of Monroe, Document Security Systems, Inc. and DSS Technology Management, Inc. vs. Jeffrey Ronaldi, Index No.: 2020002300, alleging acts of self-dealing and conflicts of interest while he served as CEO of both DSS and DSS TM. Mr. Ronaldi filed a Notice of Removal of this civil litigation to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York where it was assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-06265-EAW. Mr. Ronaldi filed a motion seeking to compel DSS to advance his legal fees to defend the action, which motion was fully briefed as of June 30, 2020 and remains pending and undecided. On March 16, 2021 the Western District of New York granted Mr. Ronaldi’s motion to have his defense costs advanced to him during the pendency of the action as they are incurred. On March 26, 2021 Mr. Ronaldi applied to the court for reimbursement of $160,896.25 in legal fees which was subsequently reduced to $159,771.25. A second application was filed on November 12, 2021 seeking $121,672.51 in fees for a total demand of $281,443.76.  The Company has objected to the size of those bills as they were based on out-of-town billing rates and the result of an excessive number of hours spent on litigation. The parties now engaged in discovery, awaiting a decision on the Company’s objection to Mr. Ronaldi’s fee applications. The parties engaged in court-ordered mediation on June 17, 2021, but the matter did not resolve. Following mediation the Company moved to stay the federal court action pending the outcome of the state court action to avoid inconsistent rulings on common issues of law and fact. The motion to stay was denied. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute this action.

Maiden Biosciences Litigation

On February 15, 2021, Maiden Biosciences, Inc. (“Maiden”) commenced an action against DSS, Inc. (“DSS”), Decentralized Sharing Systems, Inc. (“Decentralized”), HWH World, Inc. (“HWH”), RBC Life International, Inc., RBC Life Sciences, Inc (“RBC”)., Frank D. Heuszel (“Heuszel”), Steven E. Brown, Clinton Howard, and Andrew Howard (collectively, “Defendants”). The lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, and is styled and numbered Maiden Biosciences, Inc. v. DSS, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00327.

This lawsuit relates to two promissory notes executed by RBC in the 4^th quarter of 2019 in favor of Decentralized and HWH, totaling approximately $800,000. Maiden, a 2020 default judgment creditor of RBC, in the principal amount of $4,329,000, now complains about those notes, the funding of those notes, the subsequent default of those notes by RBC, and HWH and Decentralized’s subsequent Article 9 foreclosure or deed-in-lieu debt conveyances. In the instant lawsuit, Maiden asserts claims against Defendants for unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Maiden also seeks a judgment from the court declaring: “(1) Defendants lacked a valid security interest in RBC and RBC Subsidiaries’ assets and therefore lacked the authority to sell the assets during the public foreclosure sale; (2) Defendant Heuszel’s low bid at the public foreclosure sale was invalid and void; (3) the public foreclosure sale was conducted in a commercially unreasonable manner; and (4) Defendants do not have the legal authority to transfer RBC and RBC’s Subsidiaries assets to Heuszel and HWH.” Maiden seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) treble damages or, alternatively, damages in the amount of their underlying judgment plus the other creditors’ claims or the value of the assets transferred, whichever is less, plus punitive or exemplary damages; (2) pre and post-judgment interest; and (3) attorneys’ fees and cost.

On March 30, 2021, Defendants DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC Life International, Inc., and Heuszel filed a motion to dismiss seeking to dismiss Maiden’s unjust enrichment, exemplary damages, and RICO claims against DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC Life International, Inc., and Heuszel, as well as Maiden’s fraudulent transfer claims against DSS and RBC International, Inc. On August 9, 2021, the Court then entered an order granting in part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC Life International, Inc., and Heuszel. Among other things, the Court held that Maiden failed to plausibly plead certain causes of action, including (1) the civil RICO claim against DSS, Decentralized, HWH, RBC Life International, Inc., and Heuszel, (2) the TUFTA claim against DSS, and (3) the unjust enrichment claim against DSS and RBC Life International, Inc. Notably, the Court declined the request to dismiss the TUFTA claim against RBC Life International, Inc. The Court granted Maiden leave to file an amended complaint. Maiden’s deadline to do so is Monday, September 6, 2021. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position. On September 3, 2021, Maiden filed its amended complaint, asserting a single cause of action against the DSS Defendants and RBC for an alleged TUFTA violation. Generally, Maiden is seeking the same relief requested in its original complaint. Maiden, however, has abandoned its request for treble damages. On September 17, 2021, the DSS Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint seeking to dismiss Maiden’s TUFTA claim to the extent it seeks to avoid a transfer of assets owned by any of RBC’s subsidiaries, including but not limited to RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc. Further, the motion to dismiss also seeks the dismissal of Maiden’s TUFTA claim against Heuszel. The DSS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint will be ripe for determination on or after October 22, 2021. Trial is currently set for December 5, 2022 on the Court’s two-week docket.

In addition to the foregoing, we may become subject to other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Adverse decisions in any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition. The Company accrues for potential litigation losses when a loss is probable and estimable.

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 December 31, 2021, the Company had 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 December 31, 2021, there are no contingent payments due.