Dominari Holdings Inc. - Quarter Report: 2016 June (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C.  20549 

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one) 

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016

For the transition period from ____________ to

Commission file number   000-05576

SPHERIX INCORPORATED

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)  

One Rockefeller Plaza

New York, NY 10020

(Address of principal executive offices)

(212) 745-1374

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes x     No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files.) Yes x      No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. 

Large Accelerated Filer    ¨ Accelerated Filer    ¨ Non-accelerated Filer    ¨ Smaller Reporting Company    x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes ¨ No x

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the Registrant’s classes of Common Stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Spherix Incorporated and Subsidiaries 

Form 10-Q 

For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 

Index

Part I.  Financial Information

Item 1.  Financial Statements

SPHERIX INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

($ in thousands except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements

SPHERIX INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

($ in thousands except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements

SPHERIX INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

($ in thousands)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements

Organization and Description of Business

Spherix Incorporated (the “Company”) is an intellectual property company incorporated in the State of Delaware that owns patented and unpatented intellectual property. The Company was formed in 1967 as a scientific research company and for much of its history pursued drug development including through Phase III clinical studies which were discontinued. Through the Company’s acquisition of patents and patent applications developed by Nortel Networks Corporation from Rockstar Consortium US, LP (“Rockstar”) and Harris Corporation from North South Holdings Inc. (“North South”) in 2013, the Company has expanded its activities and is a significant owner of intellectual property assets. 

The Company is a patent commercialization company focused on generating revenues from the monetization of intellectual property, or IP. Such monetization includes, but is not limited to, acquiring IP from patent holders in order to maximize the value of the patent holdings by conducting and managing a licensing campaign, or through the settlement and litigation of patents. We intend to generate revenues and related cash flows from the granting of intellectual property rights for the use of patented technologies that we own, or that we manage for others. To date, we have generated minimal revenues and no assurance can be provided that our business model will be successful.

We continually work to enhance our portfolio of intellectual property through acquisition and strategic partnerships. Our mission is to partner with inventors, or other entities, who own undervalued intellectual property. We then work with the inventors or other entities to commercialize the IP. 

In March 2016, the Company entered into an agreement (which was subsequently amended in April and May 2016) with Equitable IP Corporation (“Equitable”) to facilitate the monetization of its patents (the “Monetization Agreement”). Pursuant to the Monetization Agreement, the Company will work together with Equitable to further develop and revise its ongoing litigation plan. See Note 4 for additional details surrounding the Monetization Agreement.

Reverse Stock Split and Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation

The Company’s common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “SPEX.” One of the requirements for continued listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market is maintenance of a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share. On March 24, 2015, the Company received a letter (the “Notice”) from the Listing Qualifications Staff of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) notifying the Company that, based upon the closing bid price of the Company’s common stock, $0.0001 par value per share (the “Common Stock”) for the 30 consecutive business days preceding receipt of such letter, the Common Stock had no longer met the requirement to maintain a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share, as set forth in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5550(a)(2).

In accordance with NASDAQ’s Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), the Company initially had a period of 180 calendar days, or until September 21, 2015, to regain compliance with the Rule. After determining that it would not be in compliance with the Rule by September 21, 2015, the Company notified NASDAQ and applied for an extension of the cure period, as permitted under the original notification. In accordance with NASDAQ Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), NASDAQ granted a second grace period of 180 calendar days, or until March 21, 2016, to regain compliance with the minimum closing bid price requirement for continued listing.

On February 26, 2016, the Company’s stockholders approved an amendment to the Company’s certificate of incorporation and authorized the Company’s Board of Directors to effect a reverse stock split of Common Stock at a ratio in the range of 1-for-12 to 1-for-24. The Company implemented this reverse stock split on March 4, 2016 with a ratio of 1-for-19 (the “Reverse Stock Split”). No fractional shares were issued in connection with the Reverse Stock Split. Stockholders who otherwise would have been entitled to receive a fractional share in connection with the Reverse Stock Split received a cash payment in lieu thereof. The par value and other terms of the common stock were not affected by the Reverse Stock Split. In addition, the amendment to the Company’s certificate of incorporation that effected the Reverse Stock Split also simultaneously reduced the number of authorized shares of Common Stock from 200,000,000 to 100,000,000.

The Company’s Common Stock began trading at its post-Reverse Stock Split price at the beginning of trading on March 4, 2016.

On March 18, 2016, the Company received a letter from NASDAQ indicating that it had regained compliance with the minimum bid price requirement under NASDAQ Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) for continued listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market. The Company’s common stock continues to be listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market.

Immediately following the Reverse Stock Split, the number of outstanding shares of Common Stock were reduced from 48,259,430 shares to 2,539,847. All per share amounts and outstanding shares of Common Stock including stock options, restricted stock and warrants, have been retroactively adjusted in these condensed consolidated financial statements for all periods presented to reflect the 1-for-19 Reverse Stock Split. Further, exercise prices of stock options and warrants have been retroactively adjusted in these condensed consolidated financial statements for all periods presented to reflect the 1-for-19 Reverse Stock Split. Numbers of shares of the Company’s preferred stock were not affected by the Reverse Stock Split; however, the conversion ratios have been adjusted to reflect the Reverse Stock Split.

Note 2. Liquidity and Financial Condition

The Company continues to incur ongoing administrative and other expenses, including public company expenses, in excess of corresponding (non-financing related) revenue. While the Company continues to implement its business strategy, it intends to finance its activities through:

As a result of the Company’s recurring operating losses and net operating cash flow deficits, there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  The condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern and do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

The Company’s ultimate success is dependent on its ability to obtain additional financing and generate sufficient cash flow to meet its obligations on a timely basis.  The Company’s business will require significant amounts of capital to sustain operations and make the investments it needs to execute its longer term business plan.  The Company’s working capital amounted to approximately $2.5 million at June 30, 2016, and net loss amounted to approximately $2.1 million and $2.1 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively.  The Company had an approximately $137.4 million of accumulated deficit as of June 30, 2016.  The Company’s existing liquidity is not sufficient to fund its operations, anticipated capital expenditures, working capital and other financing requirements for the foreseeable future.  Absent generation of sufficient revenue from the execution of the Company’s business plan, the Company will need to obtain additional debt or equity financing, especially if the Company experiences downturns in its business that are more severe or longer than anticipated, or if the Company experiences significant increases in expense levels resulting from being a publicly-traded company or operations.  If the Company attempts to obtain additional debt or equity financing, the Company cannot assume that such financing will be available to the Company on favorable terms, or at all.

Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical. The Company may be forced to litigate against others to enforce or defend its intellectual property rights or to determine the validity and scope of other parties’ proprietary rights. The defendants or other third parties involved in the lawsuits in which the Company is involved may allege defenses and/or file counterclaims or initiate inter parties reviews in an effort to avoid or limit liability and damages for patent infringement or cause the Company to incur additional costs as a strategy.  If such efforts are successful, they may have an impact on the value of the patents and preclude the Company from deriving revenue from the patents. The patents could be declared invalid by a court or the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in whole or in part, or the costs of the Company can increase. Recent rulings also create an increased risk that if the Company is unsuccessful in litigation it could be responsible to pay the attorneys’ fees and other costs of defendants by lowering the standard for legal fee shifting sought by defendants in patent cases.

As a result, a negative outcome of any such litigation, or one or more claims contained within any such litigation, could materially and adversely impact the Company’s business. Additionally, the Company anticipates that legal fees which are not included in contingency fee arrangements, experts and other expenses will be material and could have an adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations if its efforts to monetize its patents are unsuccessful.

In addition, the costs of enforcing the Company’s patent rights may exceed its recoveries from such enforcement activities.  Accordingly, in order for the Company to generate a profit from its patent enforcement and monetization activities, the revenues from such enforcement and monetization activities must be high enough to offset both the cash outlays and the contingent fees payable from such revenues, including any profit sharing arrangements with inventors or prior owners of the patents. The Company’s failure to monetize its patent assets or the occurrence of unforeseen circumstances that could have a negative impact on the Company’s liquidity could significantly harm its business.

Note 3. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Significant Accounting Policies

There have been no material changes in the Company’s significant accounting policies other than described below to those previously disclosed in the 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016.

Basis of Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company are unaudited and do not include all of the information and disclosures generally required for annual financial statements. In the opinion of management, the statements contain all material adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position as of June 30, 2016, and the condensed consolidated results of its operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, and the condensed consolidated results of its cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015. This report should be read in conjunction with the Company’s 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K, which does contain the complete information and disclosure for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”). This requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the period. The Company’s significant estimates and assumptions include the recoverability and useful lives of long-lived assets, stock-based compensation, the valuation of derivative liabilities, and the valuation allowance related to the Company’s deferred tax assets. Certain of the Company’s estimates, including the carrying amount of the intangible assets, could be affected by external conditions, including those unique to the Company and general economic conditions. It is reasonably possible that these external factors could have an effect on the Company’s estimates and could cause actual results to differ from those estimates and assumptions.

Reclassification

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year amounts to conform to the current year presentation on the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

Marketable Securities

Marketable securities are classified as trading and are carried at fair value. The Company’s marketable securities consist of corporate bonds as of June 30, 2016, and consisted of highly liquid mutual funds and exchange-traded & closed-end funds during 2015.

During the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company incurred realized gains of approximately $10,000 and realized losses $8,000, respectively, and unrealized gains of approximately $17,000 and loss of $12,000, respectively, on its investments in marketable securities, which are included in other income, net on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. In addition, during the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company earned dividend income of approximately $4,000 and $15,000, respectively, which is included in other income, net on the condensed consolidated statement of operations.  

During the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company incurred realized losses of approximately $57,000 and $61,000, respectively, and unrealized gains of approximately $29,000 and loss of $45,000, respectively, on its investments in marketable securities, which are included in other income, net on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. In addition, during the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company earned dividend income of approximately $17,000 and $41,000, respectively, which is included in other income, net on the condensed consolidated statement of operations.  The fair values of marketable securities held as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 were approximately $5.7 million and $3.4 million, respectively.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets (Including Patent Assets)

The Company monitors the carrying value of long-lived assets for potential impairment and tests the recoverability of such assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts may not be recoverable. If a change in circumstance occurs, the Company performs a test of recoverability by comparing the carrying value of the asset or asset group to its undiscounted expected future cash flows. If cash flows cannot be separately and independently identified for a single asset, the Company will determine whether impairment has occurred for the group of assets for which the Company can identify the projected cash flows. If the carrying values are in excess of undiscounted expected future cash flows, the Company measures any impairment by comparing the fair value of the asset or asset group to its carrying value. There were no indicators of impairment during the first half of 2016. 

Accounting for Warrants

The Company accounts for the issuance of common stock purchase warrants issued in connection with its previously consummated equity offerings in accordance with the provisions of ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging (“ASC 815”). The Company classifies as equity any contracts that (i) require physical settlement or net-share settlement or (ii) gives the Company a choice of net-cash settlement or settlement in its own shares (physical settlement or net-share settlement). The Company classifies as assets or liabilities any contracts that (i) require net-cash settlement (including a requirement to net-cash settle the contract if an event occurs and if that event is outside the control of the Company) or (ii) gives the counterparty a choice of net-cash settlement or settlement in shares (physical settlement or net-share settlement). In addition, Under ASC 815, registered common stock warrants that require the issuance of registered shares upon exercise and do not expressly preclude an implied right to cash settlement are accounted for as derivative liabilities. The Company classifies these derivative warrant liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as a current liability.

The Company assessed the classification of common stock purchase warrants as of the date of each offering and determined that such instruments met the criteria for liability classification. Accordingly, the Company classified the warrants as a liability at their fair value and adjusts the instruments to fair value at each reporting period. This liability is subject to re-measurement at each balance sheet date until the warrants are exercised or expired, and any change in fair value is recognized as “change in the fair value of warrant liabilities” in the consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the warrants has been estimated using a Black-Scholes valuation model (see Note 5). 

Convertible Preferred Stock

The Company has evaluated its convertible preferred stock and warrants in accordance with the provisions of ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, including consideration of embedded derivatives requiring bifurcation. The issuance of the convertible preferred stock could generate a beneficial conversion feature (“BCF”), which arises when a debt or equity security is issued with an embedded conversion option that is beneficial to the investor or in the money at inception because the conversion option has an effective strike price that is less than the market price of the underlying stock at the commitment date. The Company recognized the BCF by allocating the intrinsic value of the conversion option, which is the number of shares of common stock available upon conversion multiplied by the difference between the effective conversion price per share and the fair value of common stock per share on the commitment date, to additional paid-in capital, resulting in a discount on the convertible preferred stock. As the convertible preferred stock may be converted immediately, the Company recognized the BCF as a deemed dividend in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Net Loss per Share

Basic loss per share is computed by dividing the net income or loss applicable to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares and, if dilutive, potential common shares outstanding during the period. Potential common shares consist of the incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options (using the treasury stock method) and the conversion of the Company’s convertible preferred stock and warrants (using the if-converted method). Diluted loss per share excludes the shares issuable upon the conversion of preferred stock and the exercise of stock options and warrants from the calculation of net loss per share if their effect would be anti-dilutive.

The following table summarizes the earnings (loss) per share calculation (in thousands, except per share amount):

Securities that could potentially dilute loss per share in the future that were included in the computation of diluted loss per share at June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015 are as follows:

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. ASU 2016-01 requires equity investments to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income; simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment; eliminates the requirement for public business entities to disclose the methods and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet; requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments; requires separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial assets on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements; and clarifies that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. ASU 2016-01 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is currently evaluating the impact ASU 2016-01 will have on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which supersedes FASB ASC Topic 840, Leases (Topic 840) and provides principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both lessees and lessors. The new standard requires lessees to apply a dual approach, classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether or not the lease is effectively a financed purchase by the lessee. This classification will determine whether lease expense is recognized based on an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease, respectively. A lessee is also required to record a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases with a term of greater than twelve months regardless of classification. Leases with a term of twelve months or less will be accounted for similar to existing guidance for operating leases. The standard is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted upon issuance. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position and results of operations.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations. The purpose of ASU 2016-08 is to clarify the implementation of guidance on principal versus agent considerations. The amendments in ASU 2016-08 are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company is currently assessing the impact of ASU 2016-08 on the condensed consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718), Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. Under ASU No. 2016-09, companies will no longer record excess tax benefits and certain tax deficiencies in additional paid-in capital (“APIC”). Instead, they will record all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement and the APIC pools will be eliminated. In addition, ASU No. 2016-09 eliminates the requirement that excess tax benefits be realized before companies can recognize them. ASU No. 2016-09 also requires companies to present excess tax benefits as an operating activity on the statement of cash flows rather than as a financing activity. Furthermore, ASU No. 2016-09 will increase the amount an employer can withhold to cover income taxes on awards and still qualify for the exception to liability classification for shares used to satisfy the employer’s statutory income tax withholding obligation. An employer with a statutory income tax withholding obligation will now be allowed to withhold shares with a fair value up to the amount of taxes owed using the maximum statutory tax rate in the employee’s applicable jurisdiction(s). ASU No. 2016-09 requires a company to classify the cash paid to a tax authority when shares are withheld to satisfy its statutory income tax withholding obligation as a financing activity on the statement of cash flows. Under current U.S. GAAP, it was not specified how these cash flows should be classified. In addition, companies will now have to elect whether to account for forfeitures on share-based payments by (1) recognizing forfeitures of awards as they occur or (2) estimating the number of awards expected to be forfeited and adjusting the estimate when it is likely to change, as is currently required. The amendments of this ASU are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted but all of the guidance must be adopted in the same period. The Company is currently assessing the impact that ASU No. 2016-09 will have on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customer. The new guidance is an update to ASC 606 and provides clarity on: identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation. For public companies, ASU No. 2016-10 is effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that ASU No. 2016-10 will have on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses: Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. ASU No. 2016-13 requires that expected credit losses relating to financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis and available-for-sale debt securities be recorded through an allowance for credit losses. ASU No. 2016-13 limits the amount of credit losses to be recognized for available-for-sale debt securities to the amount by which carrying value exceeds fair value and also requires the reversal of previously recognized credit losses if fair value increases. The new standard will be effective on January 1, 2020. Early adoption will be available on January 1, 2019. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on its condensed consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

Note 4. Intangible Assets

Patent Portfolio and Patent Rights

The Company’s intangible assets with finite lives consist of its patents and patent rights. For all periods presented, all of the Company’s identifiable intangible assets were subject to amortization. The gross carrying amounts related to acquired intangible assets as of June 30, 2016 are as follows ($ in thousands):

The amortization expenses related to acquired intangible assets for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 are as follows ($ in thousands):

The future amortization of these intangible assets was based on the adjusted carrying amount. Future amortization of all patents is as follows ($ in thousands):

Equitable Agreement

In March 2016, the Company entered into an agreement (which was subsequently amended) with Equitable IP Corporation (“Equitable”) to facilitate the monetization of the Company’s patents (the “Monetization Agreement”). Pursuant to the Monetization Agreement, the Company will work together with Equitable to develop and revise the Company’s ongoing litigation plan. Under the Monetization Agreement, Equitable is obligated to use its best, commercially reasonable efforts to monetize the Company’s patents. To that end, Equitable has agreed to file eight additional litigations by September 30, 2016. The Company will share net monetization revenue derived from all monetization activity equally with Equitable. To facilitate the litigation plan, approximately 186 of over 330 of the Company’s patents and applications have been assigned to Equitable, which will pay all maintenance and prosecution fees going forward. If Equitable fails to timely file the eight litigations, then the Company has the option to reacquire the assigned patents at no cost. No assigned patents may be transferred by Equitable to a third party without the Company’s consent. In the event that all terms of the Monetization Agreement are met by December 2017, the Company will further assign approximately 140 additional patents and applications to Equitable for monetization. The Company has retained a grant-back license to practice all transferred patents.

The Company concluded that the Monetization Agreement did not constitute a sale of the patents. The Company’s retention of the right to use the patents, the requirement for the Company’s consent to any sale, and the significant economic benefits the Company retained with respect to the litigation, licensing, and sale proceeds, did not meet the sale of patent criteria. The Monetization Agreement has been treated as an agreement to outsource its licensing activities to an outside servicer, for contingent fees based on the success of the servicer’s efforts. As such, the Company will not remove the patents from its condensed consolidated balance sheet, and will record its share of litigation, licensing, and sales proceeds, if any, when those proceeds are received, or when due if the other revenue recognition criteria are met under ASC 605, Revenue Recognition.

Note 5. Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, accounts and other receivables, accounts payable and accrued liabilities are carried at cost, which management believes approximates fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. The Company measures the fair value of financial assets and liabilities based on the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The Company maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value.

The Company uses three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1 - quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities

Level 2 - quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets or inputs that are observable

Level 3 - inputs that are unobservable (for example, cash flow modeling inputs based on assumptions)

The following table presents the Company’s assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 ($ in thousands):

There were no transfers between Level 1, 2 or 3 during the six months ended June 30, 2016.

Level 3 Valuation Techniques

Level 3 financial liabilities consist of the warrant liabilities for which there is no current market for these securities such that the determination of fair value requires significant judgment or estimation. Changes in fair value measurements categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are analyzed each period based on changes in estimates or assumptions and recorded as appropriate.

A significant decrease in the volatility or a significant decrease in the Company’s stock price, in isolation, would result in a significantly lower fair value measurement. Changes in the values of the warrant liabilities are recorded in “fair value adjustments for warrant liabilities” in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations.

On July 21, 2015, the Company issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 370,263 shares of common stock (the “July 2015 Warrants”) to the investors in the July 2015 Financing. The July 2015 Warrants became exercisable on January 22, 2016 at an exercise price of $8.17 per share. The warrants require, at the option of the holder, a net-cash settlement following certain fundamental transactions (as defined in the July 2015 Warrants) at the Company and therefore are classified as liabilities. The July 2015 Warrants have been recorded at their fair value using the Black-Scholes valuation model, and will be recorded at their respective fair value at each subsequent balance sheet date. This model incorporates transaction details such as the Company’s stock price, contractual terms, maturity, risk free rates, as well as volatility.

On December 7, 2015, the Company issued Series A warrants to purchase up to 1,052,624 shares of common stock and Series B warrants to purchase up to 842,099 shares of common stock contained in December Offering. Series A Warrants have an exercise price of $3.80 per share and are exercisable at any time between December 7, 2015 and May 6, 2016. 852,624 shares of Series A warrants expired on May 24, 2016, and no Series A Warrants remain outstanding as of June 30, 2016. Series B Warrants have an exercise price of $4.75 per share and are exercisable at any time between December 7, 2015 and December 6, 2020. The Warrants require the issuance of registered shares upon exercise, do not expressly preclude an implied right to cash settlement and are therefore accounted for as derivative liabilities.  The Company classifies these derivative warrant liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as a current liability.

The Series A and Series B warrants have been recorded at their fair value using the Black-Scholes valuation model, and will be recorded at their respective fair value at each subsequent balance sheet date. This model incorporates transaction details such as the Company’s stock price, contractual terms, maturity, risk free rates, as well as volatility.

A summary of quantitative information with respect to the valuation methodology and significant unobservable inputs used for the Company’s warrant liabilities that are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy at the date of issuance and as of June 30, 2016 is as follows:

The risk-free interest rate was based on rates established by the Federal Reserve. For the July 2015 Warrants, the expected volatility in the Black-Scholes model is based on an expected volatility of 100% for both periods which represents the percentage required to be used when valuing the cash settlement feature as contractually stated in the form of warrant. The general expected volatility is based on standard deviation of the Company’s underlying stock price's daily logarithmic returns. The expected life of the warrants was determined by the expiration date of the warrants. The expected dividend yield was based upon the fact that the Company has not historically paid dividends on its common stock, and does not expect to pay dividends on its common stock in the future.

The following table sets forth a summary of the changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 ($ in thousands):

Note 6. Stockholders’ Equity and Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock

Restated Certificate of Incorporation

On March 4, 2016, the Company implemented a Reverse Stock Split with a ratio of 1-for-19. The par value and other terms of the common stock were not affected by the Reverse Stock Split. In addition, the amendment to the Company’s certificate of incorporation that effected the Reverse Stock Split simultaneously reduced the number of authorized shares of Common Stock from 200,000,000 to 100,000,000 (see Note 1).

Preferred Stock

The Company had designated separate series of its capital stock as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 as summarized below:

Series H Convertible Preferred Stock

On December 31, 2013, the Company designated 459,043 shares of preferred stock as Series H Preferred Stock.  On December 31, 2013, the Company issued approximately $38.3 million of Series H Preferred Stock (or 459,043 shares) to Rockstar.  Each share of Series H Preferred Stock is convertible into ten-nineteenths of a share of Common Stock and has a stated value of $83.50.  The conversion ratio is subject to adjustment in the event of stock splits, stock dividends, combination of shares and similar recapitalization transactions.   The Company is prohibited from effecting the conversion of the Series H Preferred Stock to the extent that, as a result of such conversion, the holder beneficially owns more than 4.99% (which may be increased to 9.99% and subsequently to 19.99%, each upon 61 days’ written notice), in the aggregate, of issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock calculated immediately after giving effect to the issuance of shares of Common Stock upon the conversion of the Series H Preferred Stock.  Holders of the Series H Preferred Stock shall be entitled to vote on all matters submitted to the Company’s stockholders and shall be entitled to the number of votes equal to the number of shares of Common Stock into which the shares of Series H Preferred Stock are convertible, subject to applicable beneficial ownership limitations.  The Series H Preferred Stock provides a liquidation preference of $83.50 per share.  The shares of Series H Preferred Stock were not immediately convertible and did not possess any voting rights until such a time as the Company had obtained stockholder approval of the issuance, pursuant to NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635.  On April 16, 2014, the Company obtained the required stockholder approval and, as a result, all outstanding shares of Series H Preferred Stock are convertible and possess voting rights in accordance with its terms. On May 28, 2014, 20,000 shares of Series H Preferred Stock were converted into 10,526 shares of Common Stock.

In January 2015, Rockstar transferred its remaining outstanding Series H Preferred Stock to RPX Clearinghouse LLC, an affiliate of RPX, but retained certain recovery benefits set forth in the 2013 Patent Purchase Agreement between the Company and Rockstar.

According to the RPX License Agreement disclosed in Note 7, on November 23, 2015, RPX transferred to the Company for cancellation 57,076 shares of Series H Preferred Stock then held by RPX, having a total carrying amount of $4,765,846 at the time the stock was issued to Rockstar.

In connection with a second, separate, licensing agreement, on May 23, 2016, RPX transferred to the Company for cancellation of 100% of the remaining 381,967 shares of Series H Preferred Stock held by RPX, having a total carrying amount of $31,894,244 at the time the stock was issued to Rockstar (see Note 7 for further details).

As of June 30, 2016, no shares of Series H Preferred Stock remained issued and outstanding.

Series K Convertible Preferred Stock

On December 2, 2015, the Company designated 1,240 shares of preferred stock as Series K Preferred Stock.  On December 7, 2015, the Company issued 1,240 shares of Series K Preferred Stock in December 2015 Offering.  Each share of Series K Preferred Stock is convertible into five thousand-nineteenths of a share of Common Stock and has a stated value of $1,000.  The conversion ratio is subject to adjustment in the event of stock splits, stock dividends, combination of shares and similar recapitalization transactions. The Series K Preferred does not generally have any voting rights but are convertible into shares of Common Stock. At no time may shares of Series K Preferred Stock be converted if such conversion would cause the holder to hold in excess of 4.99% of the issued and outstanding Common Stock, subject to an increase in such limitation up to 9.99% of the issued and outstanding Common Stock on 61 days’ written notice to the Company by such holder.  The conversion ratio of the Series K Preferred Stock is subject to adjustment in the event of stock splits, stock dividends, combination of shares and similar recapitalization transactions.

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, 1,240 shares of Series K Preferred Stock were converted into 326,315 shares of Common Stock. As of June 30, 2016, no shares of Series K Preferred Stock remained issued and outstanding.

Warrants

A summary of warrant activity for the six months ended June 30, 2016 is presented below:

During the quarter ended June 30, 2016, 200,000 Series A warrants with a weighted average exercise price of $3.80 were exercised for cash of $760,000. No Series A warrants remain outstanding as of June 30, 2016.

Stock Options

Also approved by the Company’s Stockholders on February 26, 2016 was an amendment to the Company’s 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, which increased the number of shares of common stock authorized to be issued pursuant to the 2014 Plan from 4,161,892 to 8,250,000 prior to effectuation of the 1:19 reverse stock split, proportionately reducing the total share authorization under the plan to 434,210 shares.

During the second quarter ended June 30, 2016, pursuant to and subject to the available number of shares reserved under the 2014 Plan, the Company issued 19,735 options to five of the Company’s directors. The aggregate grant date fair value of these options was approximately $31,000.

A summary of option activity under the Company’s employee stock option plan for the six months ended June 30, 2016 is presented below:

A summary of option activity under the Company’s non-employee stock option plan for the six months ended June 30, 2016 is presented below:

Stock-based compensation associated with the amortization of stock option expense was approximately $19,000 and $14,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, and was approximately $21,000 and $0.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Unamortized stock-based compensation expense amounted to approximately $14,000 at June 30, 2016, and will be amortized over 0.84 years.

Restricted Stock Awards

In December 2015, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with a third party for consulting services. The Company agreed to pay the consultant $50,000 in shares of the Company’s common stock, which were issued in two equal parts. The first $25,000 (8,771 shares) of restricted stock was issued in January 2016, and the second $25,000 (or 10,870 shares) of restricted stock was issued in June 2016.

In December 2015, the Company determined to pay each of Mr. Reiner and Mr. Dotson, in accordance with their respective employment agreements, $60,000 in shares of common stock in respect of their performance for the 2015 fiscal year which, as of the closing price of December 21, 2015, would have constituted a total of 42,106 shares. The shares were issued in March 2016.

On January 26, 2016, the Company issued 652 shares of restricted common stock to a third party for consulting services. The restricted stock award vested immediately. The grant date fair value of restricted stock was $1,487. 

On February 4, 2016, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with a third party. The Company has agreed to pay the consultant three cash retainer payments for a total of $70,000, and granted $100,000 in shares of restricted stock. On February 4, 2016, the Company issued 42,445 restricted shares based on the average closing price for the 10 trading days immediately prior to February 4, 2016. The restricted stock award vested immediately.

On February 26, 2016, the Company granted each of two consultants 7,895 shares of restricted common stock for consulting services. The restricted stock award vested on March 31, 2016 based upon the closing price on February 26, 2016. The grant date fair value of each restricted stock award was $15,000, respectively. 

On June 22, 2016, the Company granted two consultants 10,870 and 43,479 shares of restricted common stock for consulting services, respectively. The restricted stock award vested immediately. The grant date fair value of restricted stock was $25,000 and $100,000, respectively.

A summary of the restricted stock award activity for the six months ended June 30, 2016 is as follows:

Restricted Stock Units

On May 20, 2016, Mr. Hayes was granted an award of restricted stock units totaling 118,512 shares of common stock, which will vest upon the achievement of agreed upon performance milestones.

A summary of the restricted stock award activity for the six months ended June 30, 2016 is as follows:

As of June 30, 2016, the Company had unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to restricted stock unit awards of approximately $0.1 million, which is expected to be recognized over the remaining weighted-average vesting period of 0.5 years.

Stock-based Compensation

Stock-based compensation for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 was comprised of the following ($ in thousands):

Note 7. May RPX License Agreement

On November 23, 2015, the Company and RPX Corporation (“RPX”) entered into a Patent License Agreement (the “RPX License Agreement”) under which the Company granted RPX the right to sublicense various patent license rights to certain RPX members. The consideration to the Company included: (i) the transfer to the Company for cancellation of its remaining outstanding Series I Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series I Preferred Stock”), as to which a $5,000,000 mandatory redemption payment would have been due from the Company on or by December 31, 2015; (ii) the transfer to the Company for cancellation of 13%, or 57,076 shares, of its Series H Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series H Preferred Stock”) then held by RPX, having a total carrying amount of $4,765,846 at the time the stock was issued to Rockstar; (iii) cancellation of the only outstanding security interest on 101 of the Company’s patents and patent applications that originated at Nortel Networks (“Nortel”) and were purchased by the Company from Rockstar, which security interest had previously been transferred to RPX by Rockstar (“RPX Security Interest”); and (iv) $300,000 in cash to the Company. While the license granted to RPX is non-exclusive and the duration of the license is for the life of the patents, the Company’s ongoing obligations in the arrangement is to provide certain specific RPX licensors with a non-exclusive license to any new patents that may be acquired by or exclusively licensed to the Company during the two-year period following the effective date of the agreement. Therefore, the Company will recognize $0.6 million revenue ratably over the two-year period that it is obligated to provide these RPX licensees with licenses to such new patents. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company recorded approximately $72,000 and $144,000, respectively, in revenue related to the amortization of the license.

On May 23, 2016, the Company, and RPX, entered into a second, separate, Patent License Agreement (the “RPX License”) under which the Company granted RPX the right to sublicense various patent rights only to current RPX clients (as of May 23, 2016). In exchange for the rights granted by the Company under the RPX License, the Company received the following consideration: (i) a cash payment made to the Company in May 2016 in the amount of $4,355,000; and (ii) cancellation of 100% of the remaining 381,967 shares of the Company’s outstanding Series H Convertible Preferred Stock currently held by RPX, having a total carrying amount of $31,894,244 at the time the stock was issued to Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar”).

In consideration of the above, the Company granted RPX the rights to grant to its current clients: (i) a fully paid portfolio license, to the extent such parties did not already have licenses to the Company’s patents; (ii) a covenant-not-to-sue current RPX clients for supply of chipsets; (iii) a standstill of litigation involving any patents acquired in the next five years (“Standstill”).

The Company also granted to Alcatel-Lucent a license to the portfolio acquired from the Harris Corporation.

Under a separate agreement between the Company and RPX, the Company granted RPX the ability to grant to VTech Telecommunications Ltd. (“VTech”) a sublicense for a fully paid portfolio license in exchange for an additional $20,000 in cash consideration.

The license granted under the terms of the RPX License described herein does not extend to entities/companies that are not clients of RPX and provide chipsets or other hardware to current RPX clients.

The carrying value of Series H Convertible Preferred Stock on the extinguishment date was estimated at approximately $31.9 million. The fair value on the same date was estimated at approximately $414,000 based upon equivalent common shares that the Series H Convertible Preferred Stock could have converted into at the closing price on May 23, 2016. This resulted in the Company receiving cash from RPX of $4.4 million, a deemed dividend of approximately $31.5 million, short term deferred revenue $1.1 million and long term deferred revenue of $3.7 million. The deferred revenue will be amortized over a 5-year service period as the RPX License includes a standstill agreement which requires Spherix to provide the licensee with the right to use any future acquired patents for five years. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company recorded approximately $105,000, in revenue related to the amortization of the license.

ASC 260-10-S99-2, Effect on the Calculation of Earnings per Share for the Redemption or Induced Conversion of Preferred Stock, requires the gain or loss on extinguishment of equity-classified preferred stock to be included in net income per common stockholder used to calculate earnings per share (similar to the treatment of dividends paid on preferred stock). The difference between (1) the fair value of the consideration transferred to the holders of the preferred stock and (2) the carrying amount of the preferred stock (net of issuance costs) is subtracted from (or added to) net income to arrive at income available to common stockholders in the calculation of earnings per share.

Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, the Company actively pursues legal remedies to enforce its intellectual property rights and to stop unauthorized use of our technology.  From time to time, the Company may be involved in various claims and counterclaims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business.  There were no pending material claims or legal matters as of the date of this report other than the following matters:

Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

On August 30, 2013, the Company initiated litigation against VTech Telecommunications Ltd. and VTech Communications, Inc. (collectively “VTech”) in Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al, Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 5,892,814; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that VTech has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company is seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of VTech’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On November 11, 2013, VTech filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the Asserted Patents are non-infringed and invalid. On December 5, 2013, the Company filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which the Company denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case setting trial to begin on January 11, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, VTech Communications, Inc., together with Uniden America Corporation, filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. The PTAB also suggested an accelerated IPR schedule to culminate in an oral hearing on or about September 28, 2015. The PTAB held a conference call with the parties on March 17, 2015 to finalize the IPR schedule. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court. The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014. Both the Technology Tutorial and the Markman hearing were held jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al. case (see below). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties. On April 2, 2015, the Company filed an Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and the parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that the parties have not yet resumed settlement negotiations. The Court has ordered the parties to hold a settlement conference not later than December 28, 2015. On April 15, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Production of Technical Documents against Defendants. On April 20, 2015, the Company filed an Opposed Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Infringement Contentions. Also on April 20, 2015, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to the Company’s Amended Complaint with their counterclaims. On May 1, 2015, the Company filed its Answer to the counterclaims. On May 5, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. On May 6, 2015, the Court entered the Stipulation, in which the Court estimated the trial date to occur in July of 2016 and ordered the parties to be ready for trial on or after June 22, 2016. The Company’s patent owner’s response to the petition in the IPR was timely filed on May 26, 2015. On September 28, 2015, the hearing in the IPR proceedings was held before the PTAB. On October 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to stay the litigation pending the issuance of the PTAB’s final written decisions in the IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Court granted the stay and administratively closed the case until the PTAB issues its final written decisions. On February 3, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding invalid eight of the 15 asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (“the ’599 Patent”) and all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,614,899. The Company’s deadline to file a Notice of Appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is April 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, at the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered that the stay of the case remain in effect for 30 days so the parties may work to resolve the case without further Court intervention. The Court also ordered the parties to file an updated status report on or before March 31, 2016 advising the Court of their progress toward resolving this litigation without further Court intervention and whether it is appropriate to reopen the case and lift the stay. The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report on March 31, 2016, in which they requested that the stay remain in effect pending the Federal Circuit issuing a ruling in connection with the appeal of IPR2014-01431 relating to the ‘599 Patent. On April 1, 2016, the Company filed its Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal in IPR2014-01431. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. On May 23, 2016, we granted RPX Corporation the ability to grant to VTech a sublicense for a fully paid portfolio license, including a license to the Asserted Patents. On June 15, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims asserted in the case. On June 21, 2016, the Court granted the joint motion to dismiss. On June 17, 2016, we filed a motion with the Federal Circuit requesting that VTech be withdrawn as a party to the appeal. On June 21, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted the motion to withdraw VTech as a party.

Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

On August 30, 2013, the Company initiated litigation against Uniden Corporation and Uniden America Corporation (collectively “Uniden”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al, Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Uniden has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company is seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of Uniden’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On April 15, 2014, Uniden filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue are non-infringed and invalid. On April 28, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which the Company denied that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order for the case setting trial to begin on February 10, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, Uniden America Corporation, together with VTech Communications, Inc., filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the PTAB entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. The PTAB also suggested an accelerated IPR schedule to culminate in an oral hearing on September 28, 2015. The PTAB held a conference call with the parties on March 17, 2015 to finalize the IPR schedule. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court. The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014, with both hearings occurring jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al. case (see above). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties. On April 2, 2015, the Company filed its Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and the parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that the parties have not yet resumed settlement negotiations. The Court has ordered the parties to hold a settlement conference not later than January 20, 2016. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify Patent Scheduling Order. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted the Motion. On April 20, 2015, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to the Company’s Amended Complaint with their counterclaims. On May 1, 2015, the Company filed its Answer to the counterclaims. The Company’s patent owner’s response to the petition in the IPR was timely filed on May 26, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court issued a modified Scheduling Order setting the Final Pretrial Conference for February 2, 2016 and confirming the Trial Date beginning February 20, 2016. On September 9, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion to stay the case pending the decision in the two IPR proceedings. On September 10, 2015, the Court stayed the case and ordered the parties to file a status report within 10 days of the Patent Office issuing its decision in the IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Court ordered the case administratively closed until the PTAB issues its final written decisions. On February 3, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding invalid eight of the 15 asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (“the ’599 Patent”) and all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,614,899. The Company’s deadline to file a Notice of Appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is April 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, at the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered that the stay of the case remain in effect for 30 days so the parties may work to resolve the case without further Court intervention. The Court also ordered the parties to file an updated status report on or before March 31, 2016 advising the Court of their progress toward resolving this litigation without further Court intervention and whether it is appropriate to reopen the case and lift the stay. The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report on March 31, 2016, in which they requested that the stay remain in effect pending the Federal Circuit issuing a ruling in connection with the appeal of IPR2014-01431 relating to the ‘599 Patent. On April 1, 2016, the Company filed its Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal in IPR2014-01431. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. On July 18, 2016, we timely filed our Opening Brief in our appeal to the Federal Circuit. Uniden’s reply brief is due on August 29, 2016.

Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

On March 28, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393- SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,697,325; 6,578,086; 6,222,848; 6,130,877; 5,970,125; 6,807,174; 7,397,763; 7,664,123; 7,385,998; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Cisco has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company is seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of Cisco’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, the Company filed its amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to its wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC (“NNPT”), based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT was added as a co-plaintiff with the Company. On August 5, 2014, Cisco filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 26, 2014, the Company and NNPT filed an opposition to Cisco’s motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2014, Cisco filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2015, Cisco moved to consolidate certain claims relating to alleged obligations by the Company to license Cisco on two unrelated patents, which Cisco had made against the Company on June 6, 2014 in the pending case Bockstar Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02020- SLR-SRF (see below). On March 23, 2015, the Company filed its opposition to Cisco’s motion to consolidate. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Cisco’s motion to dismiss allegations of “willful” infringement. Spherix’s allegations of patent infringement for the eleven (11) patents continue. Spherix has the ability to re-allege “willful” infringement at a later time. On April 3, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. petitioned the U.S. Patent Office for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of Spherix patents 7,397,763 and 8,607,323. The remaining nine patents Spherix has asserted against Cisco were not part of the petitions and the time for Cisco to petition the USPTO for an IPR on those remaining patents expired on April 6, 2015. On April 10, 2015, Cisco withdrew its March 9, 2015 motion to consolidate claims from the Bockstar case. On May 5, 2015, Cisco filed its Answer to the Company’s amended complaint with counterclaims under the Sherman Act, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contract, promissory estoppel, and requesting a declaration that the patents at issue are non-infringed and invalid. On June 10, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case. The Court set the Markman hearing to occur in two phases, for two different sets of patents, to occur on June 24, 2016 and September 8, 2016. The Court set trial to begin on January 16, 2018. On July 13, 2015, the Company filed its oppositions to Cisco’s IPR petitions. On July 20, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or transfer certain of Cisco’s counterclaims. On September 22, 2015, the PTAB issued orders instituting the two IPR proceedings, Nos. IPR2015-00999 and IPR2015-01001, as requested by Cisco. On November 23, 2015, the Company and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015. On December 3, 2015, the parties also filed a Joint Motion to Terminate in each of the two IPR proceedings, which the PTAB granted on December 4, 2015.

Spherix Incorporated v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On May 2, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 7,385,998; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Juniper has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company is seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by the Company as a result of Juniper’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, the Company filed its amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC, based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT LLC was added as a co-plaintiff with the Company. On August 8, 2014, Juniper filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the Company filed its opposition to Juniper’s motion to dismiss. On September 15, 2014, Juniper filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Juniper’s motion to dismiss allegations of “willful” infringement. Spherix’s allegations of patent infringement for the eleven (11) patents continue. Spherix has the ability to reallege “willful” infringement at a later time. On April 14, 2015, Juniper filed its Answer to the Company’s amended complaint. On May 6, 2015, the Court held an in-person Scheduling Conference in court and ordered the parties to submit the final proposed Scheduling Order to the Court. On May 28, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case setting the Markman hearing for June 24, 2016 and trial to begin on May 15, 2017. On November 23, 2015, the Company and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 2, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

On June 9, 2014, NNPT initiated litigation against Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Cooperatif U.A., and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. (collectively “Huawei”), in NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“the Court”), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 6,697,325; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). On September 8, 2014, Huawei filed its answers to the complaint in which defendant Huawei Technologies USA asserted counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On October 8, 2014, NNPT filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which it denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On January 20, 2015, the Court held a Scheduling Conference and set the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016. On January 28, 2015, the Court appointed as mediator for the parties, Hon. David Folsom, former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On February 24, 2015, the Court issued its Docket Control Order setting the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016. The Court also set an August 14, 2015 deadline to complete mediation. On June 11, 2015, Huawei filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On July 7, 2015, the Court reset the Markman hearing date for August 5, 2015. The Markman hearing was held on August 5, 2015 as scheduled. The parties held an initial mediation on August 6, 2015. On August 17, 2015, the Court issued its Markman Order. On August 20, 2015, the mediator filed a report with the Court reporting that the parties reached a settlement of the case on August 14, 2015. On August 31, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay and Notice of Settlement. On September 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case and set a status conference for October 2, 2015. On September 18, 2015, the parties filed in the PTAB a joint motion to terminate the two IPR petitions file by Huawei, Nos. IPR2015-01382 and IPR2015-01390. On September 24, 2015, the PTAB issued orders terminating the two IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Company received Huawei’s fully executed copy of a confidential settlement and license agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provides Huawei with a fully paid-up, non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license (without the right to sub-license) to make, sell and otherwise dispose of certain specifically listed licensed products under eleven (11) of the Company’s patents (the “License”). Hence, the License is not a license to the Company’s entire portfolio. The Company agreed that it will not bring suit or otherwise assert a claim with respect to the licensed products. In exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Company in the amount of $295,000, the Company will have granted the License and an irrevocable release in law and equity of all claims and liabilities involved in the Litigation. On November 16, 2015, the parties file a Stipulation of Dismissal and the Court ordered the case dismissed on November 17, 2015.

Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On June 11, 2014, the Company initiated litigation against Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon South Inc.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Federal Inc.; Verizon Business Network Services Inc.; and MCI Communications Services, Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648; 6,882,800; 6,980,564; and 8,166,533. On July 2, 2014, the Company filed its Amended Complaint in the case in which the Company added allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167. On August 15, 2014, Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. On September 9, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order adopting the parties’ Joint Proposed Discovery Plan. According to the Scheduling Order, the Markman hearing is currently scheduled for March 16, 2015. On September 12, 2014, the Company filed its opposition to Verizon’s motion to dismiss, and on September 26, 2014, Verizon filed its reply brief. On October 3, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and issued a Minute Entry stating that motion was denied. The Court stated that an Order would follow. On October 17, 2014, Verizon filed its Answer to the Company’s Amended Complaint. The parties agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648 and 6,882,800, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. The parties filed a joint motion to that effect on October 27, 2014, which was granted on October 30, 2014. The parties further agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 8,166,533 and 7,478,167, and filed a joint motion to that effect on November 6, 2014. On November 13, 2014, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the ‘533 Patent and the ‘167 Patent without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. On December 18, 2014, the Court set the case for a five-day trial beginning on May 18, 2015. On January 9, 2015, the Company and Verizon each filed their motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions. On January 12, 2015, the Court set the motions for summary adjudication for hearing on March 16, 2015 along with the Markman hearing. On January 22, 2015, the parties filed their oppositions to the motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions, and on February 5, 2015, the parties filed their reply briefs. On March 16, 2015, the Court held the Markman hearing as scheduled. On March 25, 2015, the Court reset the May 18, 2015 jury trial date to August 10, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the Court clarified that the trial will be held on August 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 of 2015. On, June 11, 2015, Verizon filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the Asserted Patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On July 1, 2015, the Court granted Verizon’s motion for summary judgment as to indefiniteness and non-infringement. On July 30, 2015, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 31, 2015, a settlement agreement between Spherix and Verizon was entered into, resolving all outstanding litigation between the two companies. On September 4, 2015, the Company filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its Notice of Appeal. On September 8, 2015, the Court granted the motion to withdraw the Notice of Appeal. On September 10, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding. On September 14, 2015, the PTAB terminated Verizon’s petition.

Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On May 1, 2015, the Company initiated litigation against Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon South Inc.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Federal Inc.; Verizon Business Network Services Inc.; MCI Communications Services, Inc.; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; and Cisco Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al , Case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,959,990; 6,111,876; RE40,999; RE44,775; RE45,065; RE45,081; RE45,095; and RE45,121 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Defendants has used, manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Company is seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, damages sufficient to compensate the Company for Defendants’ infringement, together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, and the Company’s attorney’s fees. On June 30, 2015, the Company filed its Amended Complaint to add allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE45,521 and RE45,598. On July 15, 2015, Cisco filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware. On July 17, 2015, Verizon filed its Answer and Counterclaims to the Complaint. On July 17, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting the Final Pretrial Conference for November 19, 2015, with trial to be set within 4-8 weeks of the pretrial conference. On July 31, 2015, the Company filed its Opposition to Cisco’s motion to transfer. On August 5, 2015, the Court held an Initial Pretrial Conference in the case to discuss the discovery plan for the case. On August 6, 2015, the Company filed its answer to Verizon's counterclaims. On August 11, 2015, the Court issued its Scheduling Order regarding the discovery schedule, setting discovery to be concluded by November 15, 2015. On August 31, 2015, a settlement agreement between Spherix and Verizon was entered into, resolving all outstanding litigation between the two companies. Cisco was not a party to the agreement and the case continues against Cisco. On September 1, 2015, the Company and Verizon filed a joint motion to dismiss the Verizon entities from the case. On September 2, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Verizon. On September 23, 2015, Cisco filed a Consent Motion to transfer the action to the District of Delaware, and on September 25, 2015, the Court granted the motion. The case has been transferred to the District of Delaware and assigned new case number 1:15-cv-00869-SLR “(Delaware Case”). On November 23, 2015, the Company and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in the Delaware Case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Spherix Incorporated, 1:15-cv-00559-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On June 30, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. initiated litigation against the Company in United States District Court for the District of Delaware, requesting a declaration of non-infringement U.S. Patent No. RE45,598, which issued on June 30, 2015, and, with respect to that patent, alleging breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contract and promissory estoppel. On August 28, 2015, the Company filed motions to dismiss the case in light of previously filed case, case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the Eastern District of Virginia, which involves U.S. Patent No. RE45,598. On November 23, 2015, the Company and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

Spherix Incorporated v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On April 26, 2016, the Company initiated litigation against Fairpoint Communications, Inc. in Spherix Incorporated v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (the ‘999 Patent”). The Company is seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the ‘999 Patent, damages sufficient to compensate the Company for Defendants’ infringement together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the Company’s attorney’s fees.

Spherix Incorporated v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00307-RGA, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On April 26, 2016, the Company initiated litigation against Level 3 Communications, Inc. and TW Telecom, Inc. in Spherix Incorporated v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00307-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (the ‘999 Patent”). The Company is seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the ‘999 Patent, damages sufficient to compensate the Company for Defendants’ infringement together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the Company’s attorney’s fees.

Counterclaims

In the ordinary course of business, the Company, along with the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, will initiate litigation against parties whom the Company believe have infringed on intellectual property rights and technologies. The initiation of such litigation exposes us to potential counterclaims initiated by the defendants. Currently, as stated above, defendants in the case Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation have filed counterclaims against the Company. The Company has evaluated the counterclaims and believe they are without merit and have not recorded a loss provision relating to such matters. The Company can provide no assurance that the outcome of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results from operation.

Note 9. Compensatory Arrangements

On May 20, 2016, the Company entered into a new employment agreement with the Company’s CEO, Anthony Hayes (the “Employment Agreement”) retroactively effective to April 1, 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Hayes will be paid an annual base salary of $350,000 (“Base Salary”) and a target annual bonus opportunity equal to a maximum of 100% of the Base Salary upon the achievement of certain milestones as agreed to by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. There has been no increase in the dollar amounts of the base salary or maximum target bonus amounts from the prior effective employment agreement of Mr. Hayes. In the event that Mr. Hayes’ employment is terminated by the Company without “cause” or by Mr. Hayes for “good reason” (each as defined in the Employment Agreement), Mr. Hayes will be entitled to receive, subject to his execution and non-revocation of a separation and release agreement, a separation payment in the amount of one year’s base salary at the then-current rate payable, plus any payment on a pro-rated basis for any bonus earned in connection with any bonus plan to which he was a participant at the date of such termination within thirty days of such termination.

The employment agreement with Mr. Hayes also contains customary confidentiality, noncompetition, non-solicitation and non-disparagement provisions.

In addition, as previously disclosed, Mr. Hayes was granted an award of restricted stock units totaling 118,512 shares of common stock, which will vest upon the achievement of certain agreed upon milestones.

Note 10. Assignment and Assumption of Rights Agreement with TOI

On June 16, 2012, the Company and Transfer Online, Inc. (“TOI”) entered into an Assignment and Assumption of Rights Agreement (the “Assignment”) to that certain Rights Agreement, effective January 1, 2013 (valid through December 31, 2017, referred to herein as the “Rights Agreement”) originally entered into between the Company and Equity Stock Transfer (“EST”), and previously filed by the Company on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2013. The Assignment of the Rights Agreement replaced EST as the Rights Agent and to appoint TOI as the successor Rights Agent on July 15, 2016.

On August 2, 2016, pursuant to the Company’s effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-198498), and the prospectus supplements filed thereto, the Company entered into an underwriting agreement (the “Underwriting Agreement”) with Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd. as representative of the several underwriters listed on Schedule I thereto (the “Underwriters”), relating to the public offering and sale of up to 1,592,357 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price to the public of $1.57 per share.  Under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement, the Company has granted the representative of the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to 231,349 additional shares of its common stock. The gross proceeds to the Company were $2,500,000, before deducting the underwriting discount and other estimated offering expenses payable by the Company assuming no exercise by the Underwriters of their over-allotment option, or $2,863,218 if the Underwriters exercise their over-allotment option. The sale of such 1,592,357 shares closed on August 8, 2016.

Item 2.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Forward-Looking Statements

You should read this discussion together with the Financial Statements, related Notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this Form 10-Q. The following discussion contains assumptions, estimates and other forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. These risks could cause our actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. All references to “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Spherix Incorporated, a Delaware corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries unless the context requires otherwise.

Overview

We are an intellectual property company that owns patented and unpatented intellectual property. Spherix Incorporated was formed in 1967 as a scientific research company and for much of our history pursued drug development including through Phase III clinical studies which were largely discontinued in 2012. In 2012 and 2013, we shifted our focus to being a firm that owns, develops, acquires and monetizes intellectual property assets. Through our acquisitions of 108 patents and patent applications from Rockstar Consortium US, LP and acquisition of several hundred patents issued to Harris Corporation as a result of our acquisition of North South, we have expanded our activities in wireless communications and telecommunication sectors including antenna technology, Wi-Fi, base station functionality and cellular.

Our activities generally include the acquisition and development of patents through internal or external research and development. In addition, we seek to acquire existing rights to intellectual property through the acquisition of already issued patents and pending patent applications, both in the United States and abroad. We may alone, or in conjunction with others, develop products and processes associated with our intellectual property and license our intellectual property to others seeking to develop products or processes or whose products or processes infringe our intellectual property rights through legal processes. Using our patented technologies, we employ strategies seeking to permit us to derive value from licensing, commercialization, settlement and litigation from our patents. We will continue to seek to obtain patents from inventors and other patent owners to monetize patent portfolios.

Results of Operations

Three months ended June 30, 2016 compared to three months ended June 30, 2015

During the three months ended June 30, 2016, revenue was approximately $0.2 million, which is the amortization of deferred revenue related to RPX License Agreements. During the three months ended June 30, 2015, revenue was nominal.

During the three months ended June 30, 2016, we incurred a loss from operations of $1.6 million, compared to $40.3 million for the same period in 2015.  The reduction in net loss was primarily attributable to the $37.2 million impairment charge taken against goodwill and intangible assets in the 2015 period. During the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, we recorded $0.5 million and $2.5 million in amortization expenses related to the Rockstar patents acquired by the Company during 2013.

During the three months ended June 30, 2016, other expenses, net was approximately $0.5 million as compared to $5,000 for the comparable prior period. The increase in other expenses was primarily attributed to a $0.5 million increase in change in fair value of warrant liabilities.

During the three months ended June 30, 2016, we incurred a $31.5 million of deemed capital contribution on preferred stock related to the cancellation of 381,967 shares of Series H Preferred Stock pursuant to the RPX license agreement.

Six months ended June 30, 2016 compared to six months ended June 30, 2015

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, revenue was approximately $0.2 million, which is the amortization of deferred revenue related to RPX License Agreements. During the six months ended June 30, 2015, revenue was nominal.

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, we incurred a loss from operations of $3.2 million, compared to $44.4 million for the same period in 2015.  The reduction in net loss was primarily attributable to the $37.2 million impairment charge taken against goodwill and intangible assets in the 2015 period. During the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, we recorded $1.1 million and $4.9 million in amortization expenses related to the Rockstar patents acquired by the Company during 2013.

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, other income, net was approximately $1.1 million as compared to $25,000 for the comparable prior period. The increase in other expenses was primarily attributed to a $1.0 million decrease in change in fair value of warrant liabilities due to expiration of 853,179 shares of warrants during the six months ended June 30, 2016.

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, we incurred a $31.5 million of deemed capital contribution on preferred stock related to the cancellation of 381,967 shares of Series H Preferred Stock pursuant to the RPX license agreement.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We continue to incur ongoing administrative and other expenses, including public company expenses, in excess of corresponding revenue.

We intend to finance our activities through:

·managing current cash and cash equivalents on hand from our past equity offerings and licensing agreements,

·seeking additional funds raised through the sale of additional securities in the future,

·seeking additional liquidity through credit facilities or other debt arrangements,

·increasing revenue from the monetization of its patent portfolios, license fees and new business ventures, and

·reducing litigation and other expenses via collaboration arrangements, where available.

Our business will require significant amounts of capital to sustain operations and make the investments we need to execute our longer term business plan. We have a working capital of approximately $2.5 million and working capital deficiency of $0.6 million at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Cash and cash equivalents were approximately $0.4 million and $0.1 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Marketable securities were approximately $5.7 million and $3.4 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

Cash Flows from Operating Activities - During the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, we generated approximately $1.8 million and used $2.5 million, respectively, of cash in operating activities.  The cash provided by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2016 primarily resulted from significant non-cash charges related to amortization expenses of $1.1 million, stock-based compensation expense of approximately $0.3 million and approximately $4.1 million of deferred revenue, partially offset by approximately $2.1 million of net loss and $1.0 million of change in fair value of warrant liabilities.

Cash Flows from Investing Activities - During the six months ended June 30, 2016, we used approximately $2.3 million of cash investing activities.  The cash used in investing activities primarily resulted from our purchase of marketable securities for the six months ended June 30, 2016 of approximately $10.2 million and purchase of property and equipment of approximately $3,000, partially offset by sale of marketable securities of approximately $7.9 million. The cash used in investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2015 primarily resulted from our sale of marketable securities of $6.5 million, offset by purchase of marketable securities of $3.8 million.

Cash Flows from Financing Activities - Cash provided by financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2016 was approximately $0.8 million, which related to approximately $0.8 million proceeds from exercise of 200,000 shares of warrants, partially offset by the payment for the cancellation of common stock of approximately $4,000. Cash used in financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2015 was approximately $1.0 million, which related to the redemption of Series I redeemable convertible preferred stock.

Our financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2016 indicated there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as we are dependent on our ability to retain short-term financing and ultimately to generate sufficient cash flow to meet our obligations on a timely basis in order to attain profitability, as well as successfully obtain financing on favorable terms to fund our long-term plans. Our business will require significant amounts of capital to sustain operations and make the investments we need to execute our longer term business plan. Our working capital amounted to approximately $2.5 million at June 30, 2016.  Our existing liquidity is not sufficient to fund our operations, anticipated capital expenditures, working capital and other financing requirements for the foreseeable future. We will need to obtain additional debt or equity financing, especially if we experience downturns in our business that are more severe or longer than anticipated, or if we experience significant increases in expense levels resulting from being a publicly-traded company or from the litigations in which we participate.  If we attempt to obtain additional debt or equity financing, we cannot assume that such financing will be available to us on favorable terms, or at all.

Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical.  We may be forced to litigate against others to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity and scope of other parties’ proprietary rights. The defendants or other third parties involved in the lawsuits in which we are involved may allege defenses and/or file counterclaims or initiate inter parties reviews in an effort to avoid or limit liability and damages for patent infringement or cause us to incur additional costs as a strategy. If such efforts are successful, they may have an impact on the value of the patents and preclude us from deriving revenue from the patents, the patents could be declared invalid by a court or the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in whole or in part, or the costs could increase.

As a result, a negative outcome of any such litigation, or one or more claims contained within any such litigation, could materially and adversely impact our business. Additionally, we anticipate that legal fees which are not included in contingency fee arrangements, experts and other expenses will be material and could have an adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations if its efforts to monetize these patents are unsuccessful.

In addition, the costs of enforcing our patent rights may exceed its recoveries from such enforcement activities. Accordingly, in order for us to generate a profit from our patent enforcement and monetization activities, the revenues from such enforcement and monetization activities must be high enough to offset both the cash outlays, litigation-related expenses and contingent fees payable from such revenues including any profit sharing arrangements with inventors or prior owners of the patents. Our failure to monetize our patent assets or the occurrence of unforeseen circumstances that could have a negative impact on our liquidity could significantly harm our business.

Should we be unsuccessful in our efforts to execute our business plan, it could become necessary for us to reduce expenses, curtail operations or explore various alternative business opportunities or possibly suspend or discontinue our business activities.

On November 23, 2015, we entered into a Patent License Agreement with RPX pursuant to which all remaining outstanding Series I Preferred Stock was transferred to us and subsequently cancelled. As a result of this license agreement, we no longer have any further obligations to redeem Series I Preferred Stock, and none of the Series I Preferred Stock remains issued and outstanding. Furthermore, pursuant to the Patent License Agreement, the security interest that RPX held in favor of our patents acquired from Rockstar was extinguished. On May 23, 2016, the Company and RPX entered into a second, separate, Patent License Agreement (the “RPX License”) under which the Company granted RPX the right to sublicense various patent rights only to current RPX clients (as of May 23, 2016). In exchange for the rights granted by the Company under the RPX License, the Company received a cash payment made to the Company in May 2016 in the amount of $4,355,000, and cancellation of 100% of the remaining 381,967 shares of the Company’s outstanding Series H Convertible Preferred Stock currently held by RPX, having a total carrying amount of $31,894,244 at the time the stock was issued to Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar”). Under a separate agreement between the Company and RPX, the Company granted RPX the ability to grant to VTech Telecommunications Ltd. (“VTech”) a sublicense for a fully paid portfolio license in exchange for an additional $20,000 in cash consideration.

We have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-198498) filed with the SEC, which was filed and prepared in reliance on Instruction I.B.6. of Form S-3. Instruction I.B.6 imposes a limitation on the maximum amount of securities that we may sell pursuant to the registration statement during any twelve-month period, which is as follows:  at the time we sell securities pursuant to this registration statement, the amount of securities to be sold plus the amount of any securities we have sold during the prior twelve months in reliance on Instruction I.B.6. may not exceed one-third of the aggregate market value of our outstanding common stock held by non-affiliates as of a day during the 60 days immediately preceding such sale.  Based on this calculation and primarily as a result of our sale of approximately $1.5 million of Common Stock and warrants for the purchase of Common Stock on July 15, 2015, we were ineligible to sell any securities pursuant to our effective registration statement on Form S-3 until August 1, 2016.  On August 2, 2016, pursuant to the Company’s effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3, and the prospectus supplements filed thereto, the Company entered into an underwriting agreement with Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd. as representative of the several underwriters listed on Schedule I thereto, relating to the public offering and sale of up to 1,592,357 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price to the public of $1.57 per share. Under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement, the Company has granted the representative of the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to 231,349 additional shares of its common stock. The gross proceeds to the Company were $2,500,000, before deducting the underwriting discount and other estimated offering expenses payable by the Company assuming no exercise by the Underwriters of their over-allotment option, or $2,863,218 if the Underwriters exercise their over-allotment option. The sale of such 1,592,357 shares closed on August 8, 2016.

Pursuant to the 2013 Patent Purchase Agreement, Rockstar remains entitled to receive a contingent recovery percentage of future profits (“Participation Payments”) from licensing, settlements and judgments against defendants with respect to patents purchased under the First Patent Purchase Agreement; however, no payment is required unless we receive a recovery. The Participation Payments under the First Patent Purchase Agreement are equal to zero percent until we recover with respect to patents purchased under the First Patent Purchase Agreement at least (a) $8.0 million or (b) if we recover less than $17.0 million, an amount equal to $5.0 million plus $3.0 million times a fraction equal to total recoveries minus $10.0 million, divided by $7.0 million (clause (a) or (b), as applicable, being the “Initial Return”), in each case net of certain expenses.  Once we obtain recoveries in excess of the Initial Return, we are required to make a payment to Rockstar of $13.0 million, payable only from the proceeds of such recovery, within six months after such recovery. In addition, no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter in which we make such a recovery, we are required to pay to Rockstar a percentage of such recovery, net of certain expenses, scaling from 30% if such cumulative recoveries net of certain expenses are less than or equal to $50.0 million, to 70% to the extent cumulative recoveries net of certain expenses are in excess of $1.0 billion.

Rockstar will also be entitled to receive Participation Payments from licensing, settlements and judgments against defendants with respect to patents purchased under the Second Patent Purchase Agreement; however, no payment is required unless we receive a recovery that meets or exceeds the thresholds noted here. The Participation Payments under the Second Patent Purchase Agreement are equal to zero percent until we recover with respect to patents purchased under the Second Patent Purchase Agreement at least $120.0 million, net of certain expenses.  Once we obtain recoveries in excess of that amount, we are required to pay to Rockstar 50% of our recovery in excess of that amount, no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter in which we make such a recovery.

Our ability to fund these Participation Payments or the $13.0 million contingent payment will depend on the liquidity of our assets, recoveries, alternative demands for cash resources and access to capital at the time.  Furthermore, our obligation to fund Participation Payments could adversely impact our liquidity and financial position.

Item 3.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Not required for smaller reporting companies.

Item 4.  Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We maintain “disclosure controls and procedures,” as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Interim Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that disclosure controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the disclosure controls and procedures are met. Additionally, in designing disclosure controls and procedures, our management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible disclosure controls and procedures.

The design of any disclosure controls and procedures also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions.

With respect to the quarter ended June 30, 2016, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operations of our disclosure controls and procedures. Based upon this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of June 30, 2016. We have a lack of segregation of duties, and a lack of controls in place to ensure that all material transactions and developments impacting the financial statements are reflected.

However, to the extent possible, we will implement procedures to assure that the initiation of transactions, the custody of assets and the recording of transactions will be performed by separate individuals. We believe that the foregoing steps will remediate the material weakness identified above, and we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these steps and make any changes that our management deems appropriate.

Management is in the process of determining how best to make the required changes that are needed to implement an effective system of internal control over financial reporting. Our management acknowledges the existence of this problem, and intends to develop procedures to address it to the extent possible given our limitations in financial and human resources.

Management does not expect that our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control systems are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, no evaluation of internal control over financial reporting can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been or will be detected.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting:

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2016 which have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Part II.  Other Information

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we actively pursue legal remedies to enforce our intellectual property rights and to stop unauthorized use of our technology. Other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business and other than as set forth below, we know of no material, active or pending legal proceedings against us, except for those described below.

Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

On August 30, 2013, we initiated litigation against VTech Telecommunications Ltd. and VTech Communications, Inc. (collectively “VTech”) in Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03494-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 5,892,814; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that VTech has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of VTech’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On November 11, 2013, VTech filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the Asserted Patents are non-infringed and invalid. On December 5, 2013, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims, in which we denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case setting trial to begin on January 11, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, VTech Communications, Inc., together with Uniden America Corporation, filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. The PTAB also suggested an accelerated IPR schedule to culminate in an oral hearing on or about September 28, 2015. The PTAB held a conference call with the parties on March 17, 2015 to finalize the IPR schedule. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court. The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014. Both the Technology Tutorial and the Markman hearing were held jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al. case (see below). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties. On April 2, 2015, we filed an Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and the parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that the parties have not yet resumed settlement negotiations. The Court has ordered the parties to hold a settlement conference not later than December 28, 2015. On April 15, 2015, we filed a Motion to Compel Production of Technical Documents against Defendants. On April 20, 2015, we filed an Opposed Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Infringement Contentions. Also on April 20, 2015, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to our Amended Complaint with their counterclaims. On May 1, 2015, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims. On May 5, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. On May 6, 2015, the Court entered the Stipulation, in which the Court estimated the trial date to occur in July of 2016 and ordered the parties to be ready for trial on or after June 22, 2016. Our patent owner’s response to the petition in the IPR was timely filed on May 26, 2015. On September 28, 2015, the hearing in the IPR proceedings was held before the PTAB. On October 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the litigation pending the issuance of the PTAB’s final written decisions in the IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Court granted the stay and administratively closed the case until the PTAB issues its final written decisions. On February 3, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding invalid eight of the 15 asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (“the ’599 Patent”) and all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,614,899. Our deadline to file a Notice of Appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is April 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, at the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered that the stay of the case remain in effect for 30 days so the parties may work to resolve the case without further Court intervention. The Court also ordered the parties to file an updated status report on or before March 31, 2016 advising the Court of their progress toward resolving this litigation without further Court intervention and whether it is appropriate to reopen the case and lift the stay. The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report on March 31, 2016, in which they requested that the stay remain in effect pending the Federal Circuit issuing a ruling in connection with the appeal of IPR2014-01431 relating to the ‘599 Patent. On April 1, 2016, we filed our Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal in IPR2014-01431. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. On May 23, 2016, we granted RPX Corporation the ability to grant to VTech a sublicense for a fully paid portfolio license, including a license to the Asserted Patents. On June 15, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims asserted in the case. On June 21, 2016, the Court granted the joint motion to dismiss. On June 17, 2016, we filed a motion with the Federal Circuit requesting that VTech be withdrawn as a party to the appeal. On June 21, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted the motion to withdraw VTech as a party.

Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

On August 30, 2013, we initiated litigation against Uniden Corporation and Uniden America Corporation (collectively “Uniden”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03496-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Uniden has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of Uniden’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On April 15, 2014, Uniden filed its Answer with counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue are non-infringed and invalid. On April 28, 2014, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims, in which we denied that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order for the case setting trial to begin on February 10, 2016. On June 3, 2014, in an effort to narrow the case, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,752,195. On September 4, 2014, Uniden America Corporation, together with VTech Communications, Inc., filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On March 3, 2015, the PTAB entered decisions instituting, on limited grounds, IPR proceedings regarding a portion of the claims for the two Spherix patents. The PTAB also suggested an accelerated IPR schedule to culminate in an oral hearing on September 28, 2015. The PTAB held a conference call with the parties on March 17, 2015 to finalize the IPR schedule. On October 27, 2014, the Court held a Technology Tutorial Hearing for the educational benefit of the Court. The Markman hearing was held on November 21 and 26, 2014, with both hearings occurring jointly with the Spherix Incorporated v. VTech Telecommunications Ltd. et al. case (see above). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued its Markman order, construing a total of 13 claim terms that had been disputed by the parties. On April 2, 2015, we filed an Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and the parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that the parties have not yet resumed settlement negotiations. The Court has ordered the parties to hold a settlement conference not later than January 20, 2016. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify Patent Scheduling Order. On April 10, 2015, the Court granted the Motion. On April 20, 2015, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to our Amended Complaint with their counterclaims. On May 1, 2015, we filed our Answer to the counterclaims. Our patent owner’s response to the petition in the IPR was timely filed on May 26, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court issued a modified Scheduling Order setting the Final Pretrial Conference for February 2, 2016 and confirming the Trial Date beginning February 20, 2016. On September 9, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion to stay the case pending the decision in the two IPR proceedings. On September 10, 2015, the Court stayed the case and ordered the parties to file a status report within 10 days of the Patent Office issuing its decision in the IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, the Court ordered the case administratively closed until the PTAB issues its final written decisions. On February 3, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding invalid eight of the 15 asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,581,599 (“the ’599 Patent”) and all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,614,899. Our deadline to file a Notice of Appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is April 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, at the parties’ joint request, the Court ordered that the stay of the case remain in effect for 30 days so the parties may work to resolve the case without further Court intervention. The Court also ordered the parties to file an updated status report on or before March 31, 2016 advising the Court of their progress toward resolving this litigation without further Court intervention and whether it is appropriate to reopen the case and lift the stay. The parties timely filed a Joint Status Report on March 31, 2016, in which they requested that the stay remain in effect pending the Federal Circuit issuing a ruling in connection with the appeal of IPR2014-01431 relating to the ‘599 Patent. On April 1, 2016, we filed our Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal in IPR2014-01431. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ motion to continue the stay. On July 18, 2016, we timely filed our Opening Brief in our appeal to the Federal Circuit. Uniden’s reply brief is due on August 29, 2016.

Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On March 28, 2014, we initiated litigation against Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00393- SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,697,325; 6,578,086; 6,222,848; 6,130,877; 5,970,125; 6,807,174; 7,397,763; 7,664,123; 7,385,998; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Cisco has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of Cisco’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, we filed an amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to our wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC (“NNPT”), based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT was added as a co-plaintiff with us. On August 5, 2014, Cisco filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 26, 2014, we and NNPT filed an opposition to Cisco’s motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2014, Cisco filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2015, Cisco moved to consolidate certain claims relating to alleged obligations by us to license Cisco on two unrelated patents, which Cisco had made against us on June 6, 2014 in the pending case Bockstar Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02020- SLR-SRF (see below). On March 23, 2015, we filed our opposition to Cisco’s motion to consolidate. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Cisco’s motion to dismiss allegations of “willful” infringement. Spherix’s allegations of patent infringement for the eleven (11) patents continue. Spherix has the ability to re-allege “willful” infringement at a later time. On April 3, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. petitioned the U.S. Patent Office for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of Spherix patents 7,397,763 and 8,607,323. The remaining nine patents Spherix has asserted against Cisco were not part of the petitions and the time for Cisco to petition the USPTO for an IPR on those remaining patents expired on April 6, 2015. On April 10, 2015, Cisco withdrew its March 9, 2015 motion to consolidate claims from the Bockstar case. On May 5, 2015, Cisco filed its Answer to our amended complaint with counterclaims under the Sherman Act, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contract, promissory estoppel, and requesting a declaration that the patents at issue are non-infringed and invalid. On June 10, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case. The Court set the Markman hearing to occur in two phases, for two different sets of patents, to occur on June 24, 2016 and September 8, 2016. The Court set trial to begin on January 16, 2018. On July 13, 2015, we filed our oppositions to Cisco’s IPR petitions. On July 20, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss or transfer certain of Cisco’s counterclaims. On September 22, 2015, the PTAB issued orders instituting the two IPR proceedings, Nos. IPR2015-00999 and IPR2015-01001, as requested by Cisco. On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015. On December 3, 2015, the parties also filed a Joint Motion to Terminate in each of the two IPR proceedings, which the PTAB granted on December 4, 2015.

Spherix Incorporated v Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On May 2, 2014, we initiated litigation against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 00578-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE40467; 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 7,385,998; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Juniper has manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all damages sustained by us as a result of Juniper’s infringement, actual damages, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, attorney’s fees and costs. On July 8, 2014, we filed an amended complaint to reflect that certain of the patents asserted were assigned to our wholly-owned subsidiary NNPT LLC, based in Longview, Texas. By the amended complaint, NNPT LLC was added as a co-plaintiff with us. On August 8, 2014, Juniper filed a motion to dismiss certain claims alleged in the amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, we filed our opposition to Juniper’s motion to dismiss. On September 15, 2014, Juniper filed its reply brief regarding its motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Juniper’s motion to dismiss allegations of “willful” infringement. Spherix’s allegations of patent infringement for the eleven (11) patents continue. Spherix has the ability to reallege “willful” infringement at a later time. On April 14, 2015, Juniper filed its Answer to our amended complaint. On May 6, 2015, the Court held an in-person Scheduling Conference in court and ordered the parties to submit the final proposed Scheduling Order to the Court. On May 28, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for the case setting the Markman hearing for June 24, 2016 and trial to begin on May 15, 2017. On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 2, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

On June 9, 2014, NNPT initiated litigation against Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Cooperatif U.A., and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. (collectively “Huawei”), in NNPT, LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al. , Case No. 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“the Court”), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,578,086; 6,130,877; 6,697,325; 7,664,123; and 8,607,323 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). On September 8, 2014, Huawei filed its answers to the complaint in which defendant Huawei Technologies USA asserted counterclaims requesting a declaration that the patents at issue were non-infringed and invalid. On October 8, 2014, NNPT filed its Answer to the counterclaims, in which it denied that the Asserted Patents were non-infringed and invalid. On January 20, 2015, the Court held a Scheduling Conference and set the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016. On January 28, 2015, the Court appointed as mediator for the parties, Hon. David Folsom, former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On February 24, 2015, the Court issued its Docket Control Order setting the Markman hearing for July 17, 2015 and trial to begin on February 8, 2016. The Court also set an August 14, 2015 deadline to complete mediation. On June 11, 2015, Huawei filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two of the Asserted Patents in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On July 7, 2015, the Court reset the Markman hearing date for August 5, 2015. The Markman hearing was held on August 5, 2015 as scheduled. The parties held an initial mediation on August 6, 2015. On August 17, 2015, the Court issued its Markman Order. On August 20, 2015, the mediator filed a report with the Court reporting that the parties reached a settlement of the case on August 14, 2015. On August 31, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay and Notice of Settlement. On September 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case and set a status conference for October 2, 2015. On September 18, 2015, the parties filed in the PTAB a joint motion to terminate the two IPR petitions file by Huawei, Nos. IPR2015-01382 and IPR2015-01390.  On September 24, 2015, the PTAB issued orders terminating the two IPR proceedings. On October 13, 2015, we received Huawei’s fully executed copy of a confidential settlement and license agreement, the terms of which are set forth in our Current Report on Form 8-K, dated October 19, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in this prospectus. On November 16, 2015, the parties file a Stipulation of Dismissal and the Court ordered the case dismissed on November 17, 2015.

Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On June 11, 2014, we initiated litigation against Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon South Inc.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Federal Inc.; Verizon Business Network Services Inc.; and MCI Communications Services, Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al. , Case No. 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“the Court”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648; 6,882,800; 6,980,564; and 8,166,533. On July 2, 2014, we filed an Amended Complaint in the case in which we added allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167. On August 15, 2014, Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. On September 9, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order adopting the parties’ Joint Proposed Discovery Plan. According to the Scheduling Order, the Markman hearing is currently scheduled for March 16, 2015. On September 12, 2014, we filed our opposition to Verizon’s motion to dismiss, and on September 26, 2014, Verizon filed its reply brief. On October 3, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and issued a Minute Entry stating that motion was denied. The Court stated that an Order would follow. On October 17, 2014, Verizon filed an Answer to our Amended Complaint. The parties agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,507,648 and 6,882,800, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. The parties filed a joint motion to that effect on October 27, 2014, which was granted on October 30, 2014. The parties further agreed to narrow the case by dismissing without prejudice the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 8,166,533 and 7,478,167, and filed a joint motion to that effect on November 6, 2014. On November 13, 2014, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the ‘533 Patent and the ‘167 Patent without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees as to the dismissed claims. On December 18, 2014, the Court set the case for a five-day trial beginning on May 18, 2015. On January 9, 2015, we and Verizon each filed their motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions. On January 12, 2015, the Court set the motions for summary adjudication for hearing on March 16, 2015 along with the Markman hearing. On January 22, 2015, the parties filed their oppositions to the motions for summary adjudication and entry of proposed claim constructions, and on February 5, 2015, the parties filed their reply briefs. On March 16, 2015, the Court held the Markman hearing as scheduled. On March 25, 2015, the Court reset the May 18, 2015 jury trial date to August 10, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the Court clarified that the trial will be held on August 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 of 2015. On, June 11, 2015, Verizon filed a request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the Asserted Patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On July 1, 2015, the Court granted Verizon’s motion for summary judgment as to indefiniteness and non-infringement. On July 30, 2015, we filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 31, 2015, a settlement agreement between Spherix and Verizon was entered into, resolving all outstanding litigation between the two companies. On September 4, 2015, we filed an unopposed motion to withdraw our Notice of Appeal. On September 8, 2015, the Court granted the motion to withdraw the Notice of Appeal. On September 10, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to terminated the IPR proceeding. On September 14, 2015, the PTAB terminated Verizon’s petition.

Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On May 1, 2015, we initiated litigation against Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon South Inc.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Federal Inc.; Verizon Business Network Services Inc.; MCI Communications Services, Inc.; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; and Cisco Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) in Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,959,990; 6,111,876; RE40,999; RE44,775; RE45,065; RE45,081; RE45,095; and RE45,121 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint alleges that Defendants has used, manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. We seek relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the Asserted Patents, damages sufficient to compensate us for Defendants’ infringement, together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, and our attorney’s fees. On June 30, 2014, we filed an Amended Complaint to add allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE45,521 and RE45,598. On July 15, 2015, Cisco filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware. On July 17, 2015, Verizon filed an Answer and Counterclaims to the Complaint. On July 17, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting the Final Pretrial Conference for November 19, 2015, with trial to be set within 4-8 weeks of the pretrial conference. On July 31, 2015, we filed our Opposition to Cisco’s motion to transfer. On August 5, 2015, the Court held an Initial Pretrial Conference in the case to discuss the discovery plan for the case. On August 6, 2015, we filed our answer to Verizon’s counterclaims. On August 11, 2015, the Court issued its Scheduling Order regarding the discovery schedule, setting discovery to be concluded by November 15, 2015. On August 31, 2015, a settlement agreement between Spherix and Verizon was entered into, resolving all outstanding litigation between the two companies. Cisco was not a party to the agreement and the case continues against Cisco. On September 1, 2015, the Spherix and Verizon filed a joint motion to dismiss the Verizon entities from the case. On September 2, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Verizon. On September 23, 2015, Cisco filed a Consent Motion to transfer the action to the District of Delaware, and on September 25, 2015, the Court granted the motion. The case has been transferred to the District of Delaware and assigned new case number 1:15-cv-00869-SLR (“Delaware Case”). On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in the Delaware Case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Spherix Incorporated, 1:15-cv-00559-SLR, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On June 30, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. initiated litigation against us in United States District Court for the District of Delaware, requesting a declaration of non-infringement U.S. Patent No. RE45,598, which issued on June 30, 2015, and, with respect to that patent, alleging breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contract and promissory estoppel. On August 28, 2015, we filed motions to dismiss the case in light of our previously filed case, case No. 1:15-cv-0576-GBL-IDD, in the Eastern District of Virginia, which involves U.S. Patent No. RE45,598. On November 23, 2015, we and RPX entered into the RPX License Agreement (see Note 7), which resolved all issues in this case. On December 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on December 4, 2015.

Spherix Incorporated v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

On April 26, 2016, we initiated litigation against Fairpoint Communications, Inc. in Spherix Incorporated v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00305-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (the ‘999 Patent”). We are seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the ‘999 Patent, damages sufficient to compensate us for Defendants’ infringement together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and our attorney’s fees.

Spherix Incorporated v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00307-RGA, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

On April 26, 2016, we initiated litigation against Level 3 Communications, Inc. and TW Telecom, Inc. in Spherix Incorporated v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00307-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 (the ‘999 Patent”). We are seeking relief in the form of a finding of infringement of the ‘999 Patent, damages sufficient to compensate us for Defendants’ infringement together with pre-and post-judgment interest and costs, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and our attorney’s fees.

Counterclaims 

In the ordinary course of business, we, along with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, will initiate litigation against parties whom we believe have infringed on our intellectual property rights and technologies. The initiation of such litigation exposes us to potential counterclaims initiated by the defendants. Currently, as stated above, defendants in the case Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation have filed counterclaims against us. We have evaluated the counterclaims and believe they are without merit and have not recorded a loss provision relating to such matters. We can provide no assurance that the outcome of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results from operations.

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Business

Because we have a limited operating history to evaluate our company, the likelihood of our success must be considered in light of the problems, expenses, difficulties, complications and delays frequently encountered by an early-stage company.

Since we have a limited operating history in our current business of patent licensing and monetization, it will make it difficult for investors and securities analysts to evaluate our business and prospects.  You must consider our prospects in light of the risks, expenses and difficulties we face as an early stage company with a limited operating history.  Investors should evaluate an investment in our securities in light of the uncertainties encountered by early-stage companies in an intensely competitive industry and in which the potential licenses and/or defendants from which we seek to obtain recoveries are largely well capitalized companies with resources (financial and otherwise) significantly greater than us.  There can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful or that we will be able to become profitable.

We continue to incur operating losses and may not achieve profitability.

Our loss from operations for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $52.0 million and $30.6 million, respectively. Our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $42.3 million and $30.5 million, respectively. Our accumulated deficit was $135.3 million at December 31, 2015.

Our loss from operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 was $1.6 million and 3.2 million. Our net income attributable to common stockholders for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 was $29.4 million and $29.4 million. Our accumulated deficit was $137.4 million at June 30, 2016. We may not achieve profitable operations.

We expect to need additional capital to fund our growing operations, and if we are unable to obtain sufficient capital we may be forced to limit the scope of our operations.

We expect that as our business continues to grow we will need additional working capital.  If adequate additional debt and/or equity financing is not available on reasonable terms or at all, we may not be able to continue to expand our business or pay our outstanding obligations, and we will have to modify our business plans accordingly.  These factors would have a material and adverse effect on our future operating results and our financial condition.

If we reach a point where we are unable to raise needed additional funds to continue as a going concern, we will be forced to cease our activities and dissolve the Company.  In such an event, we will need to satisfy various creditors and other claimants, severance, lease termination and other dissolution-related obligations and we may not have sufficient funds to pay to our stockholders.

Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which may hinder our ability to obtain future financing.

In their reports for each of our last two fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, our independent registered public accountants stated that substantial doubt existed regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.  Our ability to continue as a going concern, which may hinder our ability to obtain future financing, is an issue raised as a result of recurring losses from operations.  We continue to experience net operating losses.  Our ability to continue as a going concern is subject to our ability to generate a profit and/or obtain necessary funding from outside sources, including obtaining additional funding from the sale of our securities, increasing sales or obtaining loans from various financial institutions where possible.  Our continued net operating losses increase the difficulty in meeting such goals and there can be no assurances that such methods will prove successful.

Further impairment charges could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are required to assess goodwill for impairment if events occur or circumstances changed that would more likely than not reduce our enterprise fair value below its book value. In addition, we are required to test our finite-lived intangible assets for impairment if events occur or circumstances change that would indicate the remaining net book value of the finite-lived intangible assets might not be recoverable. These events or circumstances could include a significant change in the business climate, including a significant sustained decline in an entity’s market value, legal factors, operating performance indicators, competition, sale or disposition of a significant portion of our business, potential government actions and other factors. By way of example, as a result of decline in the market value of our common stock during the year ended December 31, 2015, we recorded a $38.9 million impairment charges to our intangible assets. If the fair value of our reporting units or finite intangible assets is less than their book value in the future, we could be required to record additional impairment charges. A continued or future decline of the market price of our common stock could result in additional impairment charges in the future. The amount of any impairment could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our reported financial results for the period in which the charge is taken.

The focus of our business is to monetize intellectual property, including through licensing and enforcement.  We may not be able to successfully monetize the patents which we acquire and thus may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of such acquisition.

We acquired our patents and patent applications during 2013 in three transactions which significantly changed the focus of our business and operations.  We currently own several hundred patent assets and although we may seek to commercialize and develop products, alone or with others, there is no assurance that we will be able to successfully commercialize or develop products and such commercialization and development is not a core focus of our business.  There is significant risk involved in connection with our activities in which we acquire and seek to monetize the patent portfolios that we acquired from Rockstar and North South.  Our business is commonly referred to as a non-practicing entity model (or “NPE”) since we do not currently commercialize or develop products under the recently acquired patents.  As an entity, we have limited prior experience as an NPE.  The acquisition of the patents and an NPE business model could fail to produce anticipated benefits, or could have other adverse effects that we do not currently foresee.  Failure to successfully monetize our patent assets or to operate an NPE business may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the acquisition of patent portfolios is subject to a number of risks, including, but not limited to the following:

Therefore, there is no assurance that the monetization of the patent portfolios we acquire will be successful, will occur timely or in a timeframe that is capable of prediction or will generate enough revenue to recoup our investment.

We presently rely exclusively on the patent assets we acquired from North South and Rockstar.  If we are unable to commercialize, license or otherwise monetize such assets and generate revenue and profit through those assets or by other means, there is a significant risk that our business will fail.

If our efforts to generate revenue from our patent portfolios acquired from Rockstar and North South fail, we will have incurred significant losses.  We may not seek and may be unable to acquire additional assets and therefore may be wholly reliant on our present portfolios for revenue.  If we are unable to generate revenue from our current assets and fail to acquire any additional assets, our business will likely fail.

In connection with our business, we may commence legal proceedings against certain companies whose size and resources could be substantially greater than ours; we expect such litigation to be time-consuming, lengthy and costly which may adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to survive or operate our business, even if the patents are valid and the cases we bring have merit.

To license or otherwise monetize our patent assets, we may be required to commence legal proceedings against certain large and well established and well capitalized companies.  For instance, we are currently involved in litigation against Uniden Telecommunications, who is much larger and better capitalized than we are.  We may allege that such companies infringe on one or more of our patents.  Our viability could be highly dependent on the outcome of this litigation, and there is a risk that we may be unable to achieve the results we desire from such litigation.  The defendants in litigation brought by us are likely to be much larger than us and have substantially more resources than we do, which would make success of our litigation efforts subject to factors other than the validity of our patents or infringement claims asserted.  Furthermore, as a public company, our level of cash resources and ability to incur expenditures on enforcing infringement claims is available to the public, including the entities against whom we seek to enforce our patents, and defendants may engage in tactics in an effort for us to utilize our remaining resources. The inability to successfully enforce our patents against larger more well-capitalized companies could result in realization through settlement or election to not pursue certain infringers, or less value from our patents, and could result in substantially lower than anticipated revenue realized from infringements and lower settlement values.

We anticipate that legal proceedings against infringers of our patents may continue for several or more years and may require significant expenditures for legal fees and other expenses.  Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical.  In addition, courts and the laws are constantly changing in a manner that could increase our fees and expenses for pursuing infringers, and also could result in our assumption of legal fees of defendants if we are unsuccessful.  Once initiated, we may be forced to litigate against others to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity and scope of other parties’ proprietary rights.  The defendants or other third parties involved in the lawsuits in which we are involved may allege defenses and/or file counterclaims in an effort to avoid or limit liability and damages for patent infringement.  Potential defendants could challenge our patents and our actions by commencing lawsuits seeking declaratory judgments declaring our patents invalid, not infringed, or for improper or unlawful activities.  If such defenses or counterclaims are successful, they may preclude our ability to obtain damages for infringement or derive licensing revenue from the patents.  A negative outcome of any such litigation, or one or more claims contained within any such litigation, could materially and adversely impact our business.  For example, on July 1, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Court issued a Markman Order interpreting certain key claims in favor of the defendants in one of our actions against Verizon, resulting in the dismissal of our claims against Verizon with respect to one of our patents. Additionally, we anticipate that our legal fees and other expenses will be material and will negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations and may result in our inability to continue our business. 

Parties who are alleged infringers of our patent rights may also challenge the validity of our patents in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  These potential proceedings include ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, or covered business method patent challenges.  These proceedings could result in certain of our patent claims being dismissed or certain of our patents being invalidated.  We would expend signification legal fees to defend against such actions.

We have been the subject of litigation and, due to the nature of our business, may be the target of future legal proceedings that could have an adverse effect on our business and our ability to monetize our patents.

In the ordinary course of business, we, along with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, will initiate litigation against parties whom we believe have infringed on our intellectual property rights and technologies. The initiation of such litigation exposes us to potential counterclaims initiated by the defendants. Currently, defendants in the case Spherix Incorporated v. Uniden Corporation have filed counterclaims against us.

We may become subject to similar actions in the future which will be costly and time consuming to defend, the outcome of which are uncertain.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud and our business may be harmed and our stock price may be adversely impacted.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and to effectively prevent fraud.  Any inability to provide reliable financial reports or to prevent fraud could harm our business.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires management to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.  In order to continue to comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we are required to continuously evaluate and, where appropriate, enhance our policies, procedures and internal controls.  If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls over financial reporting, we could be subject to litigation or regulatory scrutiny and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports.  We cannot assure you that in the future we will be able to fully comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or that management will conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective.  If we fail to fully comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our business may be harmed and our stock price may decline.

Our assessment, testing and evaluation of the design and operating effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting resulted in our conclusion that, as of December 31, 2015, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective, due to our lack of segregation of duties, and lack of controls in place to ensure that all material transactions and developments impacting the financial statements are reflected.  We can provide no assurance as to conclusions of management with respect to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in the future.

We may seek to internally develop additional new inventions and intellectual property, which would take time and be costly.  Moreover, the failure to obtain or maintain intellectual property rights for such inventions would lead to the loss of our investments in such activities.

Part of our business may include the internal development of new inventions or intellectual property that we will seek to monetize.  However, this aspect of our business would likely require significant capital and would take time to achieve.  Such activities could also distract our management team from its present business initiatives, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business.  There is also the risk that our initiatives in this regard would not yield any viable new inventions or technology, which would lead to a loss of our investments in time and resources in such activities.

In addition, even if we are able to internally develop new inventions, in order for those inventions to be viable and to compete effectively, we would need to develop and maintain, and we would heavily rely upon, a proprietary position with respect to such inventions and intellectual property.  However, there are significant risks associated with any such intellectual property we may develop principally, including the following:

We cannot be certain that patents will be issued as a result of any future applications, or that any of our patents, once issued, will provide us with adequate protection from competing products.  For example, issued patents may be circumvented or challenged, declared invalid or unenforceable, or narrowed in scope.  In addition, since publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we will be the first to make our additional new inventions or to file patent applications covering those inventions.  It is also possible that others may have or may obtain issued patents that could prevent us from commercializing our products or require us to obtain licenses requiring the payment of significant fees or royalties in order to enable us to conduct our business.  As to those patents that we may license or otherwise monetize, our rights will depend on maintaining our obligations to the licensor under the applicable license agreement, and we may be unable to do so.  Our failure to obtain or maintain intellectual property rights for our inventions would lead to the loss our business.

Moreover, patent application delays could cause delays in recognizing revenue from our internally generated patents and could cause us to miss opportunities to license patents before other competing technologies are developed or introduced into the market.

We may be reliant on third parties to generate revenue for us, and such arrangements with third parties may have adverse accounting consequences.

In March of 2016, we announced that we have entered into a collaboration agreement with Equitable IP Corporation (“Equitable”), a leading patent enforcement and monetization fund, pursuant to which Equitable will have the right to enforce our patent portfolio in exchange for royalties from enforcement proceeds. These agreements generally do not impose any affirmative obligation on the part of our contractual counterparties to enforce any rights under our patents. If these counterparties do seek to enforce rights under our patents, legal proceedings against infringers of our patents may continue for several or more years and it may be a significant period of time before we derive any income from these arrangements, if at all. Failure of these third parties to successfully enforce our patents may have an adverse effect on our revenues and our current business plan. As of May 24, under our agreement with Equitable, control was transferred to Equitable with regard to the ability to grant licenses to nonclients of RPX Corporation (“RPX”) and to set the amount of consideration that would be required exchange for such licenses. As previously disclosed, we entered into a Patent License Agreement with RPX on May 23, 2016, under which the Company granted RPX the right to sublicense current RPX clients.

The agreements that we have entered into with Equitable may require us to take a loss on sale or transfer of patents or an impairment charge with respect to the intangible assets set forth on our balance sheet, and such loss on sale or transfer of patents or impairment charge may be material.

Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely affected by certain of our agreements.

Our ability to raise additional capital for use in our operating activities may be adversely impacted by the terms of a securities purchase agreement, dated as of July 15, 2015 (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”), between us and the investors who purchased securities in our July 2015 offering of our common stock and warrants for the purchase of our common stock. The Securities Purchase Agreement provides that, until the warrants issued thereunder are no longer outstanding, we will not affect or enter into a variable rate transaction, which includes issuances of securities whose prices or conversion prices may vary with the trading prices of or quotations for the shares of our Common Stock at any time after the initial issuance of such securities, as well as the entry into agreements where our stock would be issued at a future-determined price. These warrants may remain outstanding as late as January 22, 2021, when the warrants expire in accordance with their terms. The Securities Purchase Agreement also provides the investors an 18-month right of participation for an amount up to 100% of such subsequent financing of common stock (or common stock equivalents or a combination thereof), including any financing that may be consummated pursuant to this prospectus during such period, on the same terms and conditions of such transaction. Last, proceeds we received under the Securities Purchase Agreement are not permitted to be used for satisfaction of our debt. These restrictions may have an adverse impact on our ability to raise additional capital, or to use our cash to make certain payments that we are contractually obligated to make.

New legislation, regulations or court rulings related to enforcing patents could harm our new line of business and operating results, or could cause us to change our business model.

If Congress, the United States Patent and Trademark Office or courts implement new legislation, regulations or rulings that impact the patent enforcement process or the rights of patent holders, these changes could negatively affect our business.  For example, limitations on the ability to bring patent enforcement claims, limitations on potential liability for patent infringement, lower evidentiary standards for invalidating patents, increases in the cost to resolve patent disputes and other similar developments could negatively affect our ability to assert our patent or other intellectual property rights.

On December 5, 2013, the United States House of Representatives passed a patent reform titled the “Innovation Act” by a vote of 325-91.  Representative Bob Goodlatte, with bipartisan support, introduced the Innovation Act on October 23, 2013.  The Innovation Act, as passed by the House, has a number of major changes.  Some of the changes include a heightened pleading requirement for the filing of patent infringement claims.  It requires a particularized statement with detailed specificity regarding how each asserted claim term corresponds to the functionality of each accused instrumentality.  The Innovation Act, as passed by the House, also includes fee-shifting provisions which provide that, unless the non-prevailing party of a patent infringement litigation positions were objectively reasonable, such non-prevailing party would have to pay the attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

The Innovation Act also calls for discovery to be limited until after claim construction.  The patent infringement plaintiff must also disclose anyone with a financial interest in either the asserted patent or the patentee and must disclose the ultimate parent entity.  When a manufacturer and its customers are sued at the same time, the suit against the customer would be stayed as long as the customer agrees to be bound by the results of the case.

Representative Goodlatte reintroduced the Innovation Act as H.R. 9 on February 2, 2015.  The bill has 27 co-sponsors, made up of 12 Democrats and 15 Republicans.  On February 5, 2015, the bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary for further consideration, and on March 17, 2015, the bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. The Committee issued a report on June 11, 2015 recommending that the full House further consider this bill.

On March 3, 2015, S.632 known as the “Support Technology and Research for Our Nations Growth Patents Act of 2015” (“the STRONG Act”) was introduced into the Senate by Senator Christopher Coons. The STRONG Act prescribes a number of changes in current patent law, including how the USPTO and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) handle post-issuance patent proceedings. One change proposed by the Act is that the PTAB construe patent claims under the same “ordinary and customary meaning” standard in inter partes and post grant review proceedings as applied in district court litigation. The Act also provides additional grounds for a patent owner to submit claim amendments during a post-issuance review. The Act directs the Supreme Court to eliminate the model complaint for patent infringement. It also authorizes state attorneys general to act in preventing bad faith demand letters from being sent to accused infringers. The Act would allow such behavior to be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

On April 29, 2015, the Energy and Commerce Committee voted to advance a bill to the full U.S. House of Representatives known as the “Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act” (“the TROL Act”) (H.R. 2045). This bill is aimed at halting misleading demand letters sent by patent “trolls.” The bill would give the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general the authority to impose civil penalties on companies that send misleading and bad faith letters to recipients demanding that they license patents.

Also on April 29, 2015, a group of bipartisan Senators introduced S. 1137, another new patent reform bill titled, the “Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship” (the “PATENT Act”). The bill includes provisions requiring patent plaintiffs to clearly identify each patent and claim allegedly infringed, the products or processes, accused of infringing, and how the infringement occurs. The bill also provides that if end users of a product are sued for infringement, the manufacturer can step-in to litigate and the suit against the users will be stayed. A fee-shifting provision is also included that provides winning parties a chance to show that the losing party’s position and conduct were not “objectively reasonable.”

On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases that relaxed the standard for fee shifting in patent infringement cases and increased the level of deference given to district courts - Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.  Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a prevailing party in a patent infringement case in “exceptional cases.” In Octane Fitness, the Supreme Court held that an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigation position” or “the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” The Court also lowered the standard of proof from “clear and convincing” to a “preponderance of the evidence.” In Highmark, the Court held that a district court’s grant of attorneys’ fees is reviewable on appeal only for “abuse of discretion” instead of the previous de novo standard that gave no deference to the district court.

These two cases will make it much easier for district courts to shift a prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees to a non-prevailing party if the district court believes that the case was weak or conducted in an abusive manner.  Defendants that get sued for patent infringement by non-practicing entities may elect to fight rather than settle the case because these U.S. Supreme Court decisions make it much easier for defendants to get attorneys’ fees.

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International in which the Court addressed the question of whether patents related to software are patent eligible subject matter.  The Supreme Court did not rule that patents related to software were per se invalid or that software-related inventions were unpatentable.  The Supreme Court outlined a test that the courts and the USPTO must apply in determining whether software-related inventions qualify as patent eligible subject matter.  We must now wait and see how the federal district courts and the USPTO will apply this ruling.  The test outlined by the Supreme Court could potentially affect the value of some of the patents we hold.

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided another patent case, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.   In Teva , the Court overturned the long-standing practice that claim construction decision made by district courts were given de novo review on appeal.  Instead, the Supreme Court held that when claim construction is based on extrinsic evidence, a district court’s findings of subsidiary facts are to be reviewed for clear error, while its ultimate claim construction is to be reviewed de novo.  This change in how claim construction decisions are reviewed on appeal may have an impact on how parties handle patent litigation in the district courts.  This could increase our litigation expenses.  The full impact of the Teva decision on patent litigation at the district court level is yet to be determined.

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a good faith belief that a patent is invalid does not provide an accused infringer with a defense against a charge of inducing patent infringement. The Court stated that permitting such a defense would undermine the statutory presumption of validity enjoyed by issued U.S. patents under 35 U.S.C. § 282. The long term effect of this ruling is yet to be seen as it is implemented by the district courts. However, this ruling has eliminated a defense available to parties accused of inducing patent infringement. This result could be beneficial to our patent enforcement efforts.

On December 1, 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to require a heightened pleading standard for a plaintiff when filing a patent infringement complaint. Prior to the amendment, patent complaints could follow the general pleading provided in the model patent complaint provided by Form 18. Form 18 has now been eliminated. Patent infringement complaints must now satisfy the pleading standards established by the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, which require a patent plaintiff to demonstrate that its claims are “plausible.” The effects of this change on patent litigation are yet to be determined. It may likely result in more challenges to the sufficiency of patent complaints, which will increase the cost of litigation. This requirement may also impact the amount of research that is required before a patent infringement complaint can be filed.

On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme court decided Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. In Halo, the Supreme Court relaxed the test for awarding a patent plaintiff enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Section 284 allows courts to increase patent damage awards “up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Prior to the Halo decision, a patent plaintiff needed to show by “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant’s infringement was objectively reckless and that the defendant subjectively knew of the infringement risk. The Supreme Court ruled that this standard was too high and was not required by the statute. Instead, the Court ruled that a plaintiff need only establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently egregious under the circumstances to warrant enhanced damages. This ruling lowers the bar for patent plaintiffs in proving enhanced damages. This rule could be beneficial to our patent enforcement efforts.

It is impossible to determine the extent of the impact of any new laws, regulations or initiatives that may be proposed, or whether any of the proposals will become enacted as laws in their current or modified forms. Compliance with any new or existing laws or regulations could be difficult and expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct our business and negatively impact our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We are exploring and evaluating strategic alternatives and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying, or completing any strategic alternative or that any such strategic alternative will yield additional value for shareholders.

Our management and board of directors has commenced a review of strategic alternatives which could result in, among other things, a sale, a merger, consolidation or business combination, asset divestiture, partnering or other collaboration agreements, or potential acquisitions or recapitalizations, in one or more transactions, or continuing to operate with our current business plan and strategy. There can be no assurance that the exploration of strategic alternatives will result in the identification or consummation of any transaction. In addition, we may incur substantial expenses associated with identifying and evaluating potential strategic alternatives. The process of exploring strategic alternatives may be time consuming and disruptive to our business operations and if we are unable to effectively manage the process, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. We also cannot assure you that any potential transaction or other strategic alternative, if identified, evaluated and consummated, will provide greater value to our shareholders than that reflected in the current stock price. Any potential transaction would be dependent upon a number of factors that may be beyond our control, including, among other factors, market conditions, industry trends, the interest of third parties in our business and the availability of financing to potential buyers on reasonable terms.

Our acquisitions of patent assets may be time consuming, complex and costly, which could adversely affect our operating results.

Acquisitions of patent or other intellectual property assets, which are critical to our business plan, are often time consuming, complex and costly to consummate.  We may elect to not pursue any additional patents while we focus our efforts on monetizing our existing assets.  We may utilize many different transaction structures in our acquisitions and the terms of such acquisition agreements tend to be heavily negotiated.  As a result, we expect to incur significant operating expenses and will likely be required to raise capital during the negotiations even if the acquisition is ultimately not consummated, or if we determine to acquire additional patents or other assets.  Even if we are able to acquire particular patent assets, there is no guarantee that we will generate sufficient revenue related to those patent assets to offset the acquisition costs, and we may be required to pay significant amounts of deferred purchase price if we monetize those patents above certain thresholds.  While we will seek to conduct confirmatory due diligence on the patent assets we are considering for acquisition, we may acquire patent assets from a seller who does not have complete analysis of infringements or claims, have valid or sole title or ownership to those assets, or otherwise provides us with flawed ownership rights, including invalid or unenforceable assets.  In those cases, we may be required to spend significant resources to defend our interest in the patent assets and, if we are not successful, our acquisition may be worthless, in which case we could lose part or all of our investment in the assets.

We may also identify patent or other intellectual property assets that cost more than we are prepared to spend with our own capital resources.  We may incur significant costs to organize and negotiate a structured acquisition that does not ultimately result in an acquisition of any patent assets or, if consummated, proves to be unprofitable for us.  Acquisitions involving issuance of our securities could be dilutive to existing stockholders and could be at prices lower than those prices reflected in the trading markets.  These higher costs could adversely affect our operating results and, if we incur losses, the value of our securities will decline.

In addition, we may acquire patents and technologies that are in the early stages of adoption.  Demand for some of these technologies will likely be untested and may be subject to fluctuation based upon the rate at which our licensees or others adopt our patents and technologies in their products and services.  As a result, there can be no assurance as to whether technologies we acquire or develop will have value that can be realized through licensing or other activities.

If we are unable to successfully monetize our patent assets, or if we cannot obtain sufficient capital to see our legal proceedings to fruition, our business model may be subject to change.

Our current business model of monetizing patent assets primarily through litigation against companies infringing on our intellectual property results in the potential for sporadic income. This makes us dependent on successful outcomes of our litigation claims, as well as obtaining financing from third-party sources to fund these litigations. If we are unable to generate revenue and are unable to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms, or if changes in law make our current business model infeasible, then we may determine to change our business model in a manner that would be anticipated to generate revenue on a more regular basis. If we determine to change our business model, it may be difficult to predict our future prospects. Furthermore, we may incur significant expenses in any such shift in business model, or our management may have to devote significant resources into developing, or may not be well suited for, any such new business model.

We have ongoing financial obligations under the terms of our Patent Purchase Agreements with Rockstar. If triggered, our failure to comply with these obligations could have a material adverse effect on the value of our assets, our financial performance and our ability to sustain operations.

In connection with the terms of the first patent purchase agreement between the Company and Rockstar, Rockstar is entitled to receive a contingent recovery percentage of future profits from licensing, settlements and judgments against defendants with respect to patents purchased by us from Rockstar. In particular, once we recover a certain amount of proceeds pertaining to the patents acquired from Rockstar in June 2013, which amount will not exceed $8.0 million, net of certain expenses, we will be required to make a payment of up to $13.0 million to Rockstar within six months of such recovery. Furthermore, once we recover a certain level of proceeds pertaining to each portfolio of patents we acquired from Rockstar, we will be required to make participation payments to RPX which, depending on how much we recover, could range from 30% of the amount we recover to 70% of the amount we recover in any given quarter, net of certain expenses. Our ability to fund these payments, as well as other payments that may become due in respect of our acquisition of patents from Rockstar in December 2013, will depend on the liquidity of our assets, recoveries, alternative demands for cash resources and access to capital at the time, as well as the successful performance of any third parties with whom we may contract from time to time to assist us in monetizing our patents and executing our business plan.  Furthermore, our obligation to fund these payments could materially adversely impact our liquidity and financial position.

Under the terms of a second patent purchase agreement between us and Rockstar, Rockstar is entitled to receive participation payments from licensing, settlements and judgments against defendants with respect to patents purchased in an amount of at least $120.0 million, net of certain expenses. Once we obtain recoveries in excess of that amount, we are required to pay to Rockstar 50% of our recovery in excess of that amount, no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter in which we make such a recovery.

In certain acquisitions of patent assets, we may seek to defer payment or finance a portion of the acquisition price.  This approach may put us at a competitive disadvantage and could result in harm to our business.

We have limited capital and may seek to negotiate acquisitions of patent or other intellectual property assets where we can defer payments, finance a portion of the acquisition price or have an obligation to make contingent payments upon recovery of value from those assets.  These types of debt financing, deferred payment or contingent arrangements may not be as attractive to sellers of patent assets as receiving the full purchase price for those assets in cash at the closing of the acquisition, and, as a result, we might not compete effectively against other companies in the market for acquiring patent assets, many of whom have greater cash resources than we have.  We may also finance our activities by issuance of debt which could require interest and amortization payments which we may not have the ability to repay, in which case we could be in default under the terms of loan agreements.  We may pledge our assets as collateral and if we are in default under our agreements, we could lose our assets through foreclosure or similar processes or become insolvent or bankrupt in which case investors could lose their entire investment.

Any failure to maintain or protect our patent assets or other intellectual property rights could significantly impair our return on investment from such assets and harm our brand, our business and our operating results.

Our ability to operate our new line of business and compete in the intellectual property market largely depends on the superiority, uniqueness and value of our acquired patent assets and other intellectual property.  To protect our proprietary rights, we will rely on a combination of patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret laws, confidentiality agreements with our employees and third parties, and protective contractual provisions.  No assurances can be given that any of the measures we undertake to protect and maintain our assets will have any measure of success.

We will be required to spend significant time and resources to maintain the effectiveness of our assets by paying maintenance fees and making filings with the USPTO.  We may acquire patent assets, including patent applications, which require us to spend resources to prosecute the applications with the USPTO prior to issuance of patents.  Further, there is a material risk that patent related claims (such as, for example, infringement claims (and/or claims for indemnification resulting therefrom), unenforceability claims, or invalidity claims) will be asserted or prosecuted against us, and such assertions or prosecutions could materially and adversely affect our business.  For instance, in connection with inter partes review in our pending litigations with Uniden, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board has found that certain portions of the claims relating to certain of our patents are invalid. Regardless of whether any such claims are valid or can be successfully asserted, defending such claims could cause us to incur significant costs and could divert resources away from our other activities.

Despite our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights, any of the following or similar occurrences may reduce the value of our intellectual property:

Moreover, we may not be able to effectively protect our intellectual property rights in certain foreign countries where we may do business or enforce our patents against infringers in foreign countries.  If we fail to maintain, defend or prosecute our patent assets properly, the value of those assets would be reduced or eliminated, and our business would be harmed.

Weak global economic conditions may cause infringing parties to delay entering into licensing agreements, which could prolong our litigation and adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

Our business plan depends significantly on worldwide economic conditions, and the United States and world economies have recently experienced weak economic conditions.  Uncertainty about global economic conditions poses a risk as businesses may postpone spending in response to tighter credit, negative financial news and declines in income or asset values.  This response could have a material negative effect on the willingness of parties infringing on our assets to enter into licensing or other revenue generating agreements voluntarily.  Entering into such agreements is critical to our business plan, and our failure to do so could cause material harm to our business.

If we are not able to protect our intellectual property from unauthorized use, it could diminish the value of our products and services, weaken our competitive position and reduce our revenue.

Our success depends in large part on our intellectual property ownership.  In addition, we believe that our trade secrets and non-patented technology may be key to identifying and differentiating our products and services from those of our competitors.  We may be required to spend significant resources to monitor and police our intellectual property rights.  If we fail to successfully enforce our intellectual property rights, the value of our products and services could be diminished and our competitive position may suffer.

We rely on a combination of copyright, trademark and trade secret laws, confidentiality procedures and licensing arrangements to establish and protect our proprietary rights.  Third-parties could copy or otherwise obtain and use our property without authorization or develop similar information and property independently, which may infringe upon our proprietary rights.  We may not be able to detect infringement and may lose competitive position in the market before we do so, including situations which may damage our ability to succeed in licensing negotiations or legal proceedings such as patent infringement cases we may bring.  In addition, competitors may design around our technologies or develop competing technologies.  Intellectual property protection may also be unavailable or limited in some foreign countries.

If we resort to legal proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights, the proceedings could be burdensome and expensive.  In addition, our proprietary rights could be at risk if we are unsuccessful in, or cannot afford to pursue, those proceedings, or that contingent fees could be a significant portion of our recovery.  We will also rely on trade secrets and contract law to protect some of our proprietary technology.  We will enter into confidentiality and invention agreements with inventors, employees and consultants and common interest agreements with parties associated with our litigation efforts.  Nevertheless, these agreements may not be honored and they may not effectively protect our right to our privileged, confidential or proprietary information or our patented or un-patented trade secrets and know-how.  Others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and know-how.

We face evolving regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure that may result in additional expenses and continuing uncertainty.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regulations and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC rules are creating uncertainty for public companies.  We are presently evaluating and monitoring developments with respect to new and proposed rules and cannot predict or estimate the amount of the additional costs we may incur or the timing of these costs.  These new or changed laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies.  This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.  We intend to invest the resources necessary to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities.  If our efforts to comply with new or changed laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us, which could be costly and time-consuming, and our reputation and business may be harmed.

If we make acquisitions, it could divert management’s attention, cause ownership dilution to our stockholders and be difficult to integrate.

Following our acquisition of North South in September 2013, we grew rapidly and we expect to continue to evaluate and consider future acquisitions.  Acquisitions generally involve significant risks, including difficulties in the assimilation of the assets, services and technologies we acquire or industry overlay on which the patent assets read, diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns, overvaluation of the acquired assets, and the acceptance of the acquired assets and/or claims.  Acquisitions may not be successful, which can have a number of adverse effects upon us including adverse financial effects and may seriously disrupt our management’s time.  The integration of acquired assets may place a significant burden on management and our internal resources.  The diversion of management attention and any difficulties encountered in the integration process could harm our business.

If we fail to manage our existing assets and patent inventory and third party relationships (such as attorneys and experts) effectively, our revenue and profits could decline and should we fail to acquire additional revenues from license fees, our growth could be impeded.

Our success depends in part on our ability to manage our existing portfolios of patent assets and manage our third party relationships necessary to monetize our assets effectively.  Our attorneys and experts are not bound by long-term contracts that ensure us a consistent access to expertise necessary to enforce our patents, which is crucial to our ability to generate license revenues and prosecute infringers.  In addition, attorneys and experts can change the cost of the services they provide, such as contingent fees that we are required to pay, and our arrangements often required an increasing percentage of recoveries to be devoted to attorney’s fees depending on the length of time or stage of the case prior to settlement or recovery, reducing the residual amount available to us following conclusion of a case.  If an attorney, seller, inventor or expert decides not to provide needed assistance in connection with a case, or provides assistance to prospective licensees or defendants, we may not be able to timely replace this expertise with that from other sources or prevent such assistance to others from damaging our claims and prospects for recovery or licensing thus resulting in potentially lost cases, opportunities, or revenues and potentially diminishing the value of our patent assets.  The ability to utilize attorneys, sellers’ personnel, inventors or experts will depend on various factors, some of which are beyond our control.

We may be unable to issue securities under our shelf registration statement, which may have an adverse effect on our liquidity.

We have filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the SEC.  The registration statement, which has been declared effective, was filed in reliance on Instruction I.B.6. of Form S-3, which imposes a limitation on the maximum amount of securities that we may sell pursuant to the registration statement during any twelve-month period.  At the time we sell securities pursuant to the registration statement, the amount of securities to be sold plus the amount of any securities we have sold during the prior twelve months in reliance on Instruction I.B.6. may not exceed one-third of the aggregate market value of our outstanding common stock held by non-affiliates as of a day during the 60 days immediately preceding such sale as computed in accordance with Instruction I.B.6. Based on this calculation and as a result of our sale of common stock that closed on August 8, 2016, we are currently ineligible (for the immediately subsequent 12-month period) to sell securities pursuant to our effective registration statement on Form S-3 — other than the 231,349 shares of common stock which are subject to underwriter’s 30-day option. If, or when, our non-affiliate market cap were to rise to a level above the above-referenced 1/3 limit calculation (utilized for the August 2016 offering), we would then be eligible to sell additional securities within this same 12-month period under our effective S-3 registration statement; however, there is no guarantee that this threshold would be reached or whether we would consider any additional offerings in this period. Whether we sell securities under the registration statement will depend on a number of factors, including availability of our existing S-3 under the 1/3 limitation calculations set forth in Instruction I.B.6 of Form S-3, the market conditions at that time, our cash position at that time and the availability and terms of alternative sources of capital.  Furthermore, Instruction I.B.6. of Form S-3 requires that the issuer have at least one class of common equity securities listed and registered on a national securities exchange. If we are not able to maintain compliance with applicable NASDAQ rules, we will no longer be able to rely upon that Instruction. If we cannot sell securities under our shelf registration, we may be required to utilize more costly and time-consuming means of accessing the capital markets, which could materially adversely affect our liquidity and cash position.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Our common stock may be delisted from The NASDAQ Capital Market if we fail to comply with continued listing standards.

Our common stock is currently traded on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “SPEX.”  If we fail to meet any of the continued listing standards of The NASDAQ Capital Market, our common stock could be delisted from The NASDAQ Capital Market.  These continued listing standards include specifically enumerated criteria, such as:

On March 24, 2015, we received a deficiency notice from NASDAQ that the bid price of our common stock no longer met NASDAQ’s continued listing requirements.  According to the notice, in order to regain compliance with the NASDAQ listing rules, our common stock would need to have a closing bid price of at least $1.00 per share for at least 10 consecutive trading days no later than September 21, 2015. On September 22, 2015, we received a letter from NASDAQ granting us an additional 180 days, or until March 21, 2016, to regain compliance. On March 4, 2016, our common stock underwent a 1-for-19 reverse stock split. As of the close of trading on March 17, 2016, the closing bid price of our common stock was at least $1.00 per share for 10 consecutive trading days and, accordingly, we regained compliance with NASDAQ’s continued listing requirements. There can be no assurance that we will be able to remain in compliance in the future. In particular, our share price may continue to decline for a number of reasons, including many that are beyond our control. See “Our share price may be volatile and there may not be an active trading market for our common stock”.

In the future, if we fail to comply with NASDAQ’s continued listing standards, we may be delisted and our common stock will trade, if at all, only on the over-the-counter market, such as the OTC Bulletin Board or OTCQX market, and then only if one or more registered broker-dealer market makers comply with quotation requirements.  In addition, delisting of our common stock could depress our stock price, substantially limit liquidity of our common stock and materially adversely affect our ability to raise capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all. Further, delisting of our common stock would likely result in our common stock becoming a “penny stock” under the Securities Exchange Act.  

Our recently implemented reverse stock split could adversely affect the liquidity of our common stock.

On February 26, 2016, our stockholders approved an amendment to our certificate of incorporation and authorized our Board of Directors, if in their judgment they deemed it necessary, to effect a reverse stock split of our common stock at a ratio in the range of 1-for-12 to 1-for-24. We implemented this reverse stock split on March 4, 2016 with a ratio of 1-for-19. We cannot predict whether the reverse stock split will increase the market price for our common stock on a sustained basis. The history of similar stock split combinations for companies in like circumstances is varied, and we cannot predict whether:

Our share price may be volatile and there may not be an active trading market for our common stock.

There can be no assurance that the market price of our common stock will not decline below its present market price or that there will be an active trading market for our common stock.  The market prices of technology or technology related companies have been and are likely to continue to be highly volatile.  Fluctuations in our operating results and general market conditions for technology or technology related stocks could have a significant impact on the volatility of our common stock price.  We have experienced significant volatility in the price of our common stock.  From January 1, 2014 through May 10, 2016, the share price of our common stock (on a split-adjusted basis) ranged from a high of $197.60 to a low of $1.71. The reason for the volatility in our stock is not well understood and may continue.  Factors that may have contributed to such volatility include, but are not limited to:

We could fail in future financing efforts or be delisted from The NASDAQ Capital Market if we fail to receive stockholder approval when needed.

We are required under the NASDAQ rules to obtain stockholder approval for any issuance of additional equity securities that would comprise more than 20% of the total shares of our common stock outstanding before the issuance of such securities sold at a discount to the greater of book or market value in an offering that is not deemed to be a “public offering” by NASDAQ. Funding of our operations and acquisitions of assets may require issuance of additional equity securities that would comprise more than 20% of the total shares of our common stock outstanding, but we might not be successful in obtaining the required stockholder approval for such an issuance. If we are unable to obtain financing due to stockholder approval difficulties, such failure may have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue operations.

Our shares of common stock are thinly traded and, as a result, stockholders may be unable to sell at or near ask prices, or at all, if they need to sell shares to raise money or otherwise desire to liquidate their shares.

Our common stock has been “thinly-traded” meaning that the number of persons interested in purchasing our common stock at or near ask prices at any given time may be relatively small or non-existent. This situation is attributable to a number of factors, including the fact that we are a small company that is relatively unknown to stock analysts, stock brokers, institutional investors and others in the investment community that generate or influence sales volume, and that even if we came to the attention of such persons, they tend to be risk-averse and would be reluctant to follow an unproven company such as ours or purchase or recommend the purchase of our shares until such time as we become more seasoned and viable. Our trading volumes are further adversely affected by the 1-for-19 reverse stock split that was undertaken on March 4, 2016. In addition, we believe that due to the limited number of shares of our common stock outstanding, an options market has not been established for our common stock, limiting the ability of market participants to hedge or otherwise undertake trading strategies available for larger companies with broader shareholder bases which prevents institutions and others from acquiring or trading in our securities. Consequently, there may be periods of several days or more when trading activity in our shares is minimal or non-existent, as compared to a seasoned issuer which has a large and steady volume of trading activity that will generally support continuous sales without an adverse effect on share price. We cannot give stockholders any assurance that a broader or more active public trading market for our common shares will develop or be sustained, or that current trading levels will be sustained.

Because of the Rights Agreement and “Anti-Takeover” provisions in our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, a third party may be discouraged from making a takeover offer that could be beneficial to our stockholders.

Effective as of January 24, 2013, we adopted a shareholder rights plan. The effect of this rights plan and of certain provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation, By-Laws, and the anti-takeover provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, could delay or prevent a third party from acquiring us or replacing members of our Board of Directors, or make more costly any attempt to acquire control of ourselves, even if the acquisition or the Board designees would be beneficial to our stockholders. These factors could also reduce the price that certain investors might be willing to pay for shares of the common stock and result in the market price being lower than it would be without these provisions.

Additionally, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

In addition, defendants in actions seeking to enforce our patents may seek to influence our Board of Directors and stockholders by acquiring positions in the Company to force consideration of settlement or licensing proposals that may be less desirable than other outcomes such as litigation with respect to our monetization or patent enforcement activities. The effect of such influences on our Company or our corporate governance could reduce the value of our monetization activities and have an adverse effect on the value of our assets. The effect of Anti-Takeover provisions could impact the ability of prospective defendants to obtain influence in the Company or representation on the Board of Directors or acquire a significant ownership position and such result may have an adverse effect on the Company and the value of its securities.

Dividends on our common stock are not likely.

We have not paid cash dividends on our common stock in the recent past, and we do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.  Investors must look solely to the potential for appreciation in the market price of the shares of our common stock to obtain a return on their investment.

It may be difficult to predict our financial performance because our quarterly operating results may fluctuate.

Our revenues, operating results and valuations of certain assets and liabilities may vary significantly from quarter to quarter due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. You should not rely on period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations as an indication of our future performance. Our results of operations may fall below the expectations of market analysts and our own forecasts. If this happens, the market price of our common stock may fall significantly. The factors that may affect our quarterly operating results include the following:

If we fail to retain our key personnel, we may not be able to achieve our anticipated level of growth and our business could suffer.

Our future depends, in part, on our ability to attract and retain key personnel and the continued contributions of our executive officers, each of whom may be difficult to replace. In particular, Anthony Hayes, our Chief Executive Officer, is important to the management of our business and operations and the development of our strategic direction. The loss of the services of any such individual and the process to replace any key personnel would involve significant time and expense and may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives.

Because an increasing amount of our outstanding shares may become freely tradable, sales of these shares could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.

As of August 1, 2016, we had outstanding 3,228,600 shares of common stock (on a split-adjusted basis), of which our directors and executive officers owned 23,503 shares which are subject to the limitations of Rule 144 under the Securities Act.

In general, Rule 144 provides that any non-affiliate of ours, who has held restricted common stock for at least six-months, is entitled to sell their restricted stock freely, provided that we are then current in our filings with the SEC.

An affiliate of the Company may sell after six months with the following restrictions:

Because almost all of our outstanding shares are freely tradable (subject to certain restrictions imposed by lockup agreements executed by the holders thereof) and the shares held by our affiliates may be freely sold (subject to the Rule 144 limitations), sales of these shares could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting that, if not properly remediated, could result in material misstatements in our financial statements in future periods.

The SEC, defines a material weakness as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.

We have identified the following material weakness:

If we are unable to correct deficiencies in internal controls in a timely manner, our ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information accurately and within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC will be adversely affected. This failure could negatively affect the market price and trading liquidity of our common stock, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, subject us to civil and criminal investigations and penalties, and generally materially and adversely impact our business and financial condition.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an emerging growth company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, FINRA rules and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

We are evaluating these rules and regulations, and cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur or the timing of such costs. These rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting. As disclosed under “Item 9A-Controls and Procedures” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting as a result of this process. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. If we continue to identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Item 2.     Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

In December 2015, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with a third party for consulting services. The Company agreed to pay the consultant $50,000 in shares of the Company’s common stock, which were issued in two equal parts. The first $25,000 (8,771 shares) of restricted stock was issued in January 2016 at the closing price on December 22, 2015, which was recorded during the fourth quarter of 2015, and the second $25,000 (or 10,870 shares) of restricted stock was issued in June 2016.

On May 20, 2016, Mr. Hayes was granted an award of restricted stock units totaling 118,512 shares of common stock, which will vest upon the achievement of certain agreed upon certain performance milestones.

On June 22, 2016, the Company granted two consultants 10,870 and 43,479 shares of restricted common stock for consulting services, respectively. The restricted stock award vested immediately. The grant date fair value of restricted stock was $25,000 and $100,000, respectively.

Other than the common stock issued to Messsrs Dotson and Reiner (as described in the first paragraph in Item 2 above), each of these issuances was made in reliance on exemptions under Section 4(a)(2) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and we received no proceeds of these issuances.

Item 6.     Exhibits

Signatures

Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Spherix Incorporated

(Registrant)