Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Employment Agreements Pursuant to a restated employment agreement, dated November 30, 2014, with the Company’s president and chief executive officer, the Company agreed to employ him as president and chief executive officer for a term of three years, commencing January 1, 2014, and continuing on a year-to-year basis unless terminated by either party on not less than 90 days’ notice prior to the expiration of the initial term or any one-year extension. Pursuant to the agreement, the chief executive officer currently receives an annual salary to $300,000. The chief executive officer is entitled to a bonus if the Company meets or exceed performance criteria established by the compensation committee. In August 2016, the Company’s board of directors approved annual bonus compensation equal to 30% of the amount by which the Company’s consolidated income before income taxes exceeds $500,000, but, if the Company is subject to the limitation on deductibility of executive compensation pursuant to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, the bonus cannot exceed the amount which would be deductible pursuant to Section 162(m). The chief executive officer is also eligible to participate in any executive incentive plans which the Company may adopt. Inventor Royalties, Contingent Litigation Funding Fees and Contingent Legal Expenses In connection with the investment in certain patents and patent rights, certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries executed agreements which grant to the former owners of the respective patents or patent rights, the right to receive inventor royalties based on future net revenues (as defined in the respective agreements) generated as a result of licensing and otherwise enforcing the respective patents or patent portfolios. The Company’s operating subsidiaries may engage third party funding sources to provide funding for patent licensing and enforcement. The agreements with the third-party funding sources may provide that the funding source receive a portion of any negotiated fees, settlements or judgments. In certain instances, these third-party funding sources are entitled to receive a significant percentage of any proceeds realized until the third-party funder has recouped agreed upon amounts based on formulas set forth in the underlying funding agreement, which may reduce or delay and proceeds due to the Company. The Company’s operating subsidiaries may retain the services of law firms in connection with their licensing and enforcement activities. These law firms may be retained on a contingent fee basis whereby the law firms are paid on a scaled percentage of any negotiated fees, settlements or judgments awarded based on how and when the fees, settlements or judgments are obtained. Depending on the amount of any recovery, it is possible that all the proceeds from a specific settlement may be paid to the funding source and legal counsel. The economic terms of the inventor agreements, funding agreements and contingent legal fee arrangements associated with the patent portfolios owned or controlled by the Company’s operating subsidiaries, if any, including royalty rates, proceeds sharing rates, contingent fee rates and other terms, vary across the patent portfolios owned or controlled by the operating subsidiaries. Inventor royalties, payments to noncontrolling interests, payments to third party funding providers and contingent legal fees expenses fluctuate period to period, based on the amount of revenues recognized each period, the terms and conditions of revenue agreements executed each period and the mix of specific patent portfolios with varying economic terms and obligations generating revenues each period. Inventor royalties, payments to third party funding sources and contingent legal fees expenses will continue to fluctuate and may continue to vary significantly period to period, based primarily on these factors. In March 2014, the Company entered into a funding agreement whereby a third party agreed to provide funds to the Company to enable the Company to implement a structured licensing program, including litigation if necessary, for the Mobile Data. Under the funding agreement, the third party receives an interest in the proceeds from the program, and the Company has no other obligation to the third party. In April and June 2014, as part of a structured licensing program for the Mobile Data portfolio, Quest Licensing Corporation brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the District of Delaware against Bloomberg LP et. al., FactSet Research Systems Inc., Interactive Data Corporation, SunGard Data Systems Inc. and The Charles Schwab Corporation et. al. These cases have been consolidated for trial. In June and August 2016, Quest Licensing Corporation entered into a settlement agreement with SunGard Data Systems Inc. and FactSet Research Systems Inc. As of the date of filing the third-party funder has advanced approximately $3,000,000 in litigation fees, costs and expenses. Under the terms of the funding agreement, the third-party funder is entitled to a priority return of funds advanced from any proceeds recovered. The Company’s management fees and management support services expenses relate to this agreement. Patent Enforcement and Other Litigation Certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries are engaged in litigation to enforce their patents and patent rights. In connection with these patent enforcement actions, it is possible that a defendant may request and/or a court may rule that an operating subsidiary has violated statutory authority, regulatory authority, federal rules, local court rules, or governing standards relating to the substantive or procedural aspects of such enforcement actions. In such event, a court may issue monetary sanctions against the Company or its operating subsidiaries or award attorney’s fees and/or expenses to a defendant(s), which could be material, and if required to be paid by the Company or its operating subsidiaries, could materially harm the Company’s operating results and financial position and could result in a default under the Company’s loans. Since the operating subsidiaries do not have any assets other than the patents, and the Company does not have any available financial resources to pay any judgment which a defendant may obtain against a subsidiary, such a judgement may result in the bankruptcy of the subsidiary and/or the loss of the patents, which are the subsidiaries’ only assets. On January 19, 2017, the court in the Mobile Data Portfolio litigation granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, which Quest Licensing Corporation has appealed. Following the court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the defendants moved for an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act, which provides that “the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” Such a motion, if granted, would result in a judgment against Quest Licensing Corporation, which does not have the financial resources to enable it to pay any judgment which may be rendered against it, and, the defendants may seek to enforce their judgment by seeking to foreclose on the patents owned by the subsidiary or seek to force the subsidiary into bankruptcy and purchase the patents in the bankruptcy proceeding, either of which could result in a default under the Company’s agreement with United Wireless. The possible amount of any judgment cannot be estimated and the funding source for the litigation will not provide the Company with funds to pay an adverse judgment. On June 29, 2017, the defendants’ motion for attorney fees in the Mobile Data litigation was denied, without prejudice. Defendants may renew their motion thirty days from the decision of the appellate court. On June 8, 2018 the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision. On June 9, 2018 Quest Licensing Corporation filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court. On July 30, 2018 the appellate court denied Quest Licensing Corporations petition for rehearing. On August 8, 2018, the defendants’ renewed their motion for an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act.

NOTE 9 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Employment Agreements

Pursuant to a restated employment agreement, dated November 30, 2014, with the Company’s president and chief executive officer, the Company agreed to employ him as president and chief executive officer for a term of three years, commencing January 1, 2014, and continuing on a year-to-year basis unless terminated by either party on not less than 90 days’ notice prior to the expiration of the initial term or any one-year extension. Pursuant to the agreement, the chief executive officer currently receives an annual salary to $300,000. The chief executive officer is entitled to a bonus if the Company meets or exceed performance criteria established by the compensation committee. In August 2016, the Company’s board of directors approved annual bonus compensation equal to 30% of the amount by which the Company’s consolidated income before income taxes exceeds $500,000, but, if the Company is subject to the limitation on deductibility of executive compensation pursuant to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, the bonus cannot exceed the amount which would be deductible pursuant to Section 162(m). The chief executive officer is also eligible to participate in any executive incentive plans which the Company may adopt.

Inventor Royalties, Contingent Litigation Funding Fees and Contingent Legal Expenses

In connection with the investment in certain patents and patent rights, certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries executed agreements which grant to the former owners of the respective patents or patent rights, the right to receive inventor royalties based on future net revenues (as defined in the respective agreements) generated as a result of licensing and otherwise enforcing the respective patents or patent portfolios.

The Company’s operating subsidiaries may engage third party funding sources to provide funding for patent licensing and enforcement. The agreements with the third-party funding sources may provide that the funding source receive a portion of any negotiated fees, settlements or judgments. In certain instances, these third-party funding sources are entitled to receive a significant percentage of any proceeds realized until the third-party funder has recouped agreed upon amounts based on formulas set forth in the underlying funding agreement, which may reduce or delay and proceeds due to the Company.

The Company’s operating subsidiaries may retain the services of law firms in connection with their licensing and enforcement activities. These law firms may be retained on a contingent fee basis whereby the law firms are paid on a scaled percentage of any negotiated fees, settlements or judgments awarded based on how and when the fees, settlements or judgments are obtained.

Depending on the amount of any recovery, it is possible that all the proceeds from a specific settlement may be paid to the funding source and legal counsel.

The economic terms of the inventor agreements, funding agreements and contingent legal fee arrangements associated with the patent portfolios owned or controlled by the Company’s operating subsidiaries, if any, including royalty rates, proceeds sharing rates, contingent fee rates and other terms, vary across the patent portfolios owned or controlled by the operating subsidiaries. Inventor royalties, payments to noncontrolling interests, payments to third party funding providers and contingent legal fees expenses fluctuate period to period, based on the amount of revenues recognized each period, the terms and conditions of revenue agreements executed each period and the mix of specific patent portfolios with varying economic terms and obligations generating revenues each period. Inventor royalties, payments to third party funding sources and contingent legal fees expenses will continue to fluctuate and may continue to vary significantly period to period, based primarily on these factors.

In March 2014, the Company entered into a funding agreement whereby a third party agreed to provide funds to the Company to enable the Company to implement a structured licensing program, including litigation if necessary, for the Mobile Data. Under the funding agreement, the third party receives an interest in the proceeds from the program, and the Company has no other obligation to the third party. In April and June 2014, as part of a structured licensing program for the Mobile Data portfolio, Quest Licensing Corporation brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the District of Delaware against Bloomberg LP et. al., FactSet Research Systems Inc., Interactive Data Corporation, SunGard Data Systems Inc. and The Charles Schwab Corporation et. al. These cases have been consolidated for trial. In June and August 2016, Quest Licensing Corporation entered into a settlement agreement with SunGard Data Systems Inc. and FactSet Research Systems Inc. As of the date of filing the third-party funder has advanced approximately $3,000,000 in litigation fees, costs and expenses. Under the terms of the funding agreement, the third-party funder is entitled to a priority return of funds advanced from any proceeds recovered. The Company’s management fees and management support services expenses relate to this agreement.

Patent Enforcement and Other Litigation

Certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries are engaged in litigation to enforce their patents and patent rights. In connection with these patent enforcement actions, it is possible that a defendant may request and/or a court may rule that an operating subsidiary has violated statutory authority, regulatory authority, federal rules, local court rules, or governing standards relating to the substantive or procedural aspects of such enforcement actions. In such event, a court may issue monetary sanctions against the Company or its operating subsidiaries or award attorney’s fees and/or expenses to a defendant(s), which could be material, and if required to be paid by the Company or its operating subsidiaries, could materially harm the Company’s operating results and financial position and could result in a default under the Company’s loans. Since the operating subsidiaries do not have any assets other than the patents, and the Company does not have any available financial resources to pay any judgment which a defendant may obtain against a subsidiary, such a judgement may result in the bankruptcy of the subsidiary and/or the loss of the patents, which are the subsidiaries’ only assets.

On January 19, 2017, the court in the Mobile Data Portfolio litigation granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, which Quest Licensing Corporation has appealed. Following the court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the defendants moved for an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act, which provides that “the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” Such a motion, if granted, would result in a judgment against Quest Licensing Corporation, which does not have the financial resources to enable it to pay any judgment which may be rendered against it, and, the defendants may seek to enforce their judgment by seeking to foreclose on the patents owned by the subsidiary or seek to force the subsidiary into bankruptcy and purchase the patents in the bankruptcy proceeding, either of which could result in a default under the Company’s agreement with United Wireless. The possible amount of any judgment cannot be estimated and the funding source for the litigation will not provide the Company with funds to pay an adverse judgment. On June 29, 2017, the defendants’ motion for attorney fees in the Mobile Data litigation was denied, without prejudice. Defendants may renew their motion thirty days from the decision of the appellate court. On June 8, 2018 the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision. On June 9, 2018 Quest Licensing Corporation filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court. On July 30, 2018 the appellate court denied Quest Licensing Corporations petition for rehearing. On August 8, 2018, the defendants’ renewed their motion for an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act.