DSS, INC. - Annual Report: 2015 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

or

[  ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _________ to __________

Commission file number 001-32146

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

200 Canal View Boulevard

Suite 300

Rochester, New York 14623

(Address of principal executive offices)

(585) 325-3610

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [  ] NO [X]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES [  ] NO [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities 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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

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 definitions 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 (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) [  ] Smaller Reporting Company [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes [  ] No[X]

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the closing price of such common stock as reported on the NYSE MKT LLC exchange on June 30, 2015, was $11,923,377.

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 24, 2016, was 51,881,948.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement relating to the registrant’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2015, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1 - BUSINESS

Overview

Document Security Systems, Inc. (referred to in this report as “Document Security Systems”, “DSS”, “we”, “us”, “our” or “Company”) was formed in New York in 1984 and, in 2002, chose to strategically focus on becoming a developer and marketer of secure technologies. We specialize in fraud and counterfeit protection for all forms of printed documents and digital information. The Company holds numerous patents for optical deterrent technologies that provide protection of printed information from unauthorized scanning and copying. We operate two production facilities, consisting of a combined security printing and packaging facility and a plastic card facility where we produce secure and non-secure documents for our customers. We license our anti-counterfeiting technologies to printers and brand-owners. In addition, we have a digital division which provides cloud computing services for its customers, including disaster recovery, back-up and data security services. In 2013, the Company expanded its business focus by merging with DSS Technology Management, Inc., formerly known as Lexington Technology Group, Inc. (as described in greater detail below), which acquires intellectual property assets and interests in companies owning intellectual property assets for the purpose of monetizing these assets through a variety of value-enhancing initiatives, including, but not limited to, investments in the development and commercialization of patented technologies, licensing, strategic partnerships and litigation.

Prior to 2006, our primary revenue source in our document security division was derived from the licensing of our technology. In 2006, we began a series of acquisitions designed to expand our ability to produce products for end-user customers. In 2006, we acquired Plastic Printing Professionals, Inc. (“P3”), a privately held plastic cards manufacturer located in the San Francisco, California area. P3 is also referred to herein as the “DSS Plastics Group”. In 2008, we acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC, a privately held commercial printer located in Rochester, New York, referred to herein as “Secuprint” or “DSS Printing Group”. In 2010, we acquired Premier Packaging Corporation, a privately held packaging company located in the Rochester, New York area. Premier Packaging Corporation is also referred to herein as “Premier Packaging” or the “DSS Packaging Group.” In May 2011, we acquired all of the capital stock of ExtraDev, Inc. (“ExtraDev”), a privately held information technology and cloud computing company located in the Rochester, New York area. ExtraDev is also referred to herein as the “DSS Digital Group”.

On July 1, 2013, we merged with DSS Technology Management, Inc. (formerly known as Lexington Technology Group, Inc.), a private intellectual property monetization company. DSS Technology Management, Inc. is also referred to herein as “DSS Technology Management” or “DSSTM”. DSS Technology Management is focused on extracting the economic benefits of intellectual property assets through acquiring or internally developing patents or other intellectual property assets (or interests therein) and then monetizing such assets through a variety of value enhancing initiatives.

In January 2014, we moved our printing operation to the same location as our packaging operation in Victor, New York in an effort to make our printing and packaging operations more efficient.

We do business in four operating segments as follows:

DSS Packaging and Printing Group - Produces custom paperboard packaging serving clients in the pharmaceutical, beverage, photo packaging, toy, specialty foods and direct marketing industries, among others. The group also provides secure and commercial printing services for end-user customers along with technical support for our technology licensees. The division produces a wide array of printed materials such as security paper, vital records, prescription paper, birth certificates, receipts, manuals, identification materials, entertainment tickets, secure coupons, parts tracking forms, brochures, direct mailing pieces, catalogs, business cards, etc. The division also provides resources and production equipment resources for our ongoing research and development of security printing and related technologies.

DSS Plastics Group - Manufactures laminated and surface printed cards which can include magnetic stripes, bar codes, holograms, signature panels, invisible ink, micro fine printing, guilloche patterns, biometric, radio frequency identification (RFID) and watermarks for printed plastic documents such as ID cards, event badges, and driver’s licenses.

DSS Digital Group - Provides data center centric solutions to businesses and governments delivered via the “cloud”. This division developed an iPhone based application that integrates some of the our traditional optical deterrent technologies into proprietary digital data security based solutions for brand protection and product diversion prevention.

DSS Technology Management - Acquires or internally develops patented technology or intellectual property assets (or interests therein), with the purpose of monetizing these assets through a variety of value-enhancing initiatives, including, but not limited to, investments in the development and commercialization of patented technologies, licensing, strategic partnerships and commercial litigation.

Our Technology Management Business

In October 2012, Bascom Research, LLC, a subsidiary of Lexington Technology Group, Inc. (“LTG”), now DSS Technology Management, initiated litigation against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”), and three other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging infringement of four social media software patents. The case was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision granting summary judgment to defendants Facebook and LinkedIn, effectively ending the case at the trial court level.

On November 26, 2013, DSS Technology Management filed suit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement. The complaint alleges infringement by Apple of DSS Technology Management’s patents that relate to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. DSS Technology Management is seeking a judgment for infringement and money damages from Apple in connection with the case. On October 28, 2014, the case was stayed by the District Court pending a determination of Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which was filed on March 3, 2014. On November 7, 2014, Apple’s motion to transfer the case was granted. On December 30, 2014, Apple filed two Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions with United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) relating to the patents at issue in the case. The California District Court then stayed the case pending the outcome of those IPR proceedings which were instituted by PTAB on June 25, 2015. Oral arguments of the IPRs took place on March 15, 2016, with a decision expected from PTAB by the end of June 2016.

On May 30, 2014, DSS Technology Management filed suit against Lenovo (United States), Inc. (“Lenovo”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for patent infringement. The complaint alleged infringement by Lenovo of one of DSSTM’s patents that relates to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices. On June 17, 2015, the parties entered in to a confidential non-suit agreement which ended the litigation with Lenovo.

On March 10, 2014, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC North America, TSMC Development, Inc. (referred to collectively as “TSMC”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC (referred to collectively as “Samsung”), and NEC Corporation of America (referred to as “NEC”), for patent infringement involving one of its semiconductor patents. In this case, DSS Technology Management sought a judgment for infringement, injunctive relief, and money damages from each of the named defendants.

On June 24, 2014, TSMC filed an IPR petition with PTAB. Samsung then filed an IPR petition relating to the same patents on September 12, 2014, and filed a corrected IPR petition on October 3, 2014. On December 31, 2014, PTAB instituted review of several of the patent claims at issue in the case. Samsung filed a motion with PTAB to join TSMC’s IPR proceeding. The request was granted by PTAB. On November 30, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision invalidating the patent claims at issue in the case. DSS Technology Management then filed a notice of appeal of the IPR decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) on February 1, 2016, which is pending as of the date of this Report. On March 3, 2015, a Markman hearing was held in the Eastern District of Texas. Based on the District Court’s claim construction order issued on April 9, 2015, DSS Technology Management and TSMC entered in to Joint Stipulation and Proposed Final Judgment of Non-Infringement dated May 4, 2015, subject to DSS Technology Management’s right to appeal the court’s claim construction order to the Federal Circuit, thus preserving the status quo in the event an appeal results in a remand for further proceedings in the District Court. On March 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of TSMC in the appeal. On April 28, 2015, DSS Technology Management reached a confidential settlement with NEC, ending the litigation with NEC.

On February 13, 2014, DSS Technology Management entered into an agreement with certain investors to receive a series of advances up to $4,500,000 from the investors in exchange for promissory notes, fixed return interests and contingent interests collateralized by certain of DSS Technology Management’s intellectual property. On February 13, 2014, we received $2,000,000 under the agreement and on March 27, 2014, we received an additional $1,000,000 under the agreement. On September 5, 2014, we received the remaining $1,500,000 under the agreement. As of February 13, 2016, DSS Technology Management had failed to repay a portion of the $4,500,000 of advances as called for in the agreement, and is currently in default for non-payment under the agreement.

On February 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, against defendants Intel Corporation, Dell, Inc., GameStop Corp., Conn’s Inc., Conn Appliances, Inc., NEC Corporation of America, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, and AT&T, Inc. The complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks a judgment for infringement of two of DSSTM’s patents, injunctive relief and money damages. On December 9, 2015, Intel filed IPR petitions with PTAB for review of the patents at issue in the case. As of the date of this Report, PTAB has not yet made a determination whether the IPRs will be instituted. On March 18, 2016, the District Court issued an Order granting Intel’s motion to stay the case until completion of the IPR proceedings.

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

Our Core Products, Technology and Services

Our core business is counterfeit prevention, brand protection and validation of authentic print media, including government-issued documents, packaging, ID cards and licenses. We believe we are a leader in the research and development of optical deterrent technologies and have commercialized these technologies with a suite of products that offer our customers an array of document security solutions. We provide document security technology to security printers, corporations, consumer product companies, and governments for protection of vital records and documents, certifications, travel documents, consumer products, pharmaceutical packaging and school transcripts.

Optical deterrent features such as ours are utilized mainly by large security printers for the protection of important printed documents, such as vital records, and identification documents. Many of these features such as micro-printing were developed pre-1980 as they were designed to be effective on the imaging devices of the day which were mainly photography mechanisms. With the advent of modern day scanners, digital copiers, digital cameras and easy to use imaging software such as Adobe Photoshop many of the pre-1980 optical deterrents such as micro-printing are no longer used or are much less effective in the prevention of counterfeiting.

Unlike some of our competitors, our technologies are developed to defeat today’s modern imaging systems. Almost all of our products and processes are built to thwart scanners and digital copiers and we believe that our products are the most effective in doing so in the market today. In addition, our technologies do not require expensive hardware or software add-ons to authenticate a document, but instead require simple, inexpensive hand-held readers which can be calibrated to particular hidden design features. Our technologies are literally ink on paper that is printed with a particular method to hide selected things from a scanner’s “eye” or distort what a scanner “sees.” These attributes make our anti-scanning technologies very cost effective versus other current offerings on the market since our technologies are imbedded during the normal printing process, thereby significantly reducing the costs to implement the technologies.

The Company’s primary anti-counterfeiting products and technologies are marketed under its AuthentiGuard® registered trademark.

In October 2012, the Company introduced AuthentiGuard®, an iPhone application for authentication, targeted to major pharmaceutical and other companies worldwide. The application is a cloud-enabled solution that permits efficient and cost effective authentication for packaging, documents and credentials. The solution embeds customizable, covert AuthentiGuard® Prism technology that resists duplication on copiers and scanners in a product’s packaging. Product verification using a smartphone application creates real-time, accurate authentication results for brand owners that can be integrated into existing information systems.

Intellectual Property

Patents

Our ability to compete effectively depends largely upon our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technology, products and manufacturing processes. We principally rely upon patent, trademark, trade secrets and contract law to establish and protect our proprietary rights. During our development, we have expended a significant percentage of our resources on research and development in an effort to become a market leader with the ability to provide our customers effective solutions against an ever changing array of counterfeit risks. Our position in the security print market is based on our technologies and products. We dedicate two staff members to research and development of print technologies, digital graphic files, and printing techniques that allow us to expand our ability to combat a wide variety of counterfeiting and brand protection issues. In 2015 and 2014, we spent approximately $470,000 and $462,000 respectively, on research and development which is comprised mainly of compensation costs, materials and consultants, including stock-based payments to consultants.

We currently own several patents that cover technologies ranging from semiconductor to wireless peripherals. We also have a portfolio of issued anti-counterfeiting and authentication patents, and several patent applications in process, including provisional and Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) patent applications in various countries including the United States, Canada, and Europe. These applications cover our anti-counterfeiting technologies, including our AuthentiGuard® On-Demand and ADX, AuthentiGuard® Prism™, AuthentiGuard® Phantom™, AuthentiGuard® Survivor 21™, AuthentiGuard® VeriGlow™ products, and several other anti-counterfeiting and authentication technologies in development. Our issued patents have remaining durations ranging from 1 to 17 years.

Trademarks

We have registered our “AuthentiGuard®” mark, as well as our “Survivor 21®” electronic check icon and “VeriGlow®” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A trademark application is pending in Canada for “AuthentiGuard.” AuthentiGuard® is registered in several European countries including the United Kingdom. We have also applied to register AuthentiSite TM, AuthentiShare TM, and AuthentiSuite TM in the U.S.

Websites

The primary website we maintain is www.dsssecure.com, which describes our company, our company history, our patented document security solutions, our major product offerings, and our targeted vertical markets. The website provides detailed product offerings of each of our divisions - Printing, Packaging, Plastics and Digital. In addition, we maintain the website www.protectedpaper.com, an e-commerce site that markets and sells our patented security paper, hand-held security verifiers and custom security documents to end users worldwide. In addition to the active websites, the Company owns over 40 domain names for future use or for strategic competitive reasons.

Markets and Competition

The security print market is comprised of a few very large companies and an increasing number of small companies with specific technology niches. The expansion of this market is primarily due to the fact that counterfeiting has expanded significantly as advancing technologies in digital duplication and scanning combined with increasingly sophisticated design software has enabled easier reproduction of original documents, vital records and IDs, packaging, and labels. Our competitors include Standard Register Company, which specializes in printing security technologies for the check and forms and medical industries; and De La Rue Plc, that specializes in printing secure currency, tickets, labels, lottery tickets and vital records for governments and Fortune 500 companies. Large office equipment manufacturers, called OEMs, such as Sharp, Xerox Canon, Ricoh, Hewlett Packard and Eastman Kodak are developing “smart copier” technology that recognizes particular graphical images and produces warning words or distorted copies. Some of the OEMs are also developing user assigned and variable pantograph “hidden word” technologies in which users can assign a particular hidden word in copy, such as “void” that is displayed when a copy of such document is made. In addition, other competing hidden word technologies are being marketed by competitors such as NoCopi Technologies which sells and markets secure paper products, and Graphic Security Systems Corporation, which markets Scrambled Indicia.

Our packaging division competes with a significant number of national, regional and local companies, many of which are independent and privately-held. The largest competitors in this market are primarily focused on the long-run print order market. They include large integrated paper companies such as Rock-Tenn Company, Caraustar Industries, Inc., Graphic Packaging Holding Company and Mead Westvaco. Our printing division competes primarily with locally-based printing companies in the Rochester and Western New York markets. Most of our competitors in these markets are privately-held, single location operations.

Our plastics division competes with several companies including Bristol ID, AbNote (formerly Arthur Blanks), LaserCard Corporation and L-1 Identity Solutions. The plastics division primarily delivers its products through a dealer network, but also provides products to end-user customers. Competition in the plastic card industry is primarily based on production capabilities based on specialized equipment, geographic location, quality and service. In addition, competition is increasingly influenced by proprietary or niche offerings provided by competitors, such as RFID, biometric, read-write, and security features built-into the plastic card.

Our technology division also faces competition in the area of patent acquisitions and enforcement. Entities such as Acacia, RPX, AST, Intellectual Ventures, Wi-LAN, MOSAID, Round Rock Research LLC, IPvalue Management Inc., Vringo Inc. and Pendrell Corporation compete in acquiring rights to patents.

In general, changes in prevailing U.S. economic conditions significantly impact the general commercial printing industry. To the extent weakness in the U.S. economy causes local and national corporations to reduce their spending on advertising and marketing materials, the demand for commercial printing services may be adversely affected.

Customers

During 2015, two customers accounted for 35% of the Company’s consolidated revenue. As of December 31, 2015, these two customers accounted for 27% of the Company’s trade accounts receivable balance. During 2014, these same two customers accounted for 40% of the Company’s consolidated revenue. As of December 31, 2014, these two customers accounted for 25% of the Company’s trade accounts receivable balance.

Raw Materials

The primary raw materials the Company uses in its businesses are paper, corrugated paperboard, plastic sheets, and ink. The Company negotiates with leading suppliers to maximize its purchasing efficiencies and uses a wide variety of paper grades, formats, ink formulations and colors. Paper and paperboard prices continued to increase in 2015, and we believe increases in future years are expected. Except for certain packaging customers where the Company enters into annual contracts, for which changes in paperboard pricing is absorbed by the Company, the Company has historically passed substantially all increases and decreases to its customers, although there can be no assurances that the Company will continue to do so in the future.

Environmental Compliance

It is the Company’s policy to conduct its operations in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and other requirements. While it is not possible to quantify with certainty the potential impact of actions regarding environmental matters, particularly remediation and other compliance efforts that the Company may undertake in the future, in the opinion of management, compliance with the present environmental protection laws, before taking into account estimated recoveries from third parties, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated annual results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Government Regulation

In light of the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent war on terrorism, governments, private entities and individuals have become more aware of, and concerned with, the problems related to counterfeit documents. Homeland security remains a high priority in the United States. For example, in 2007, federal legislation was enacted that required hospitals, physicians and pharmacies to use tamperproof paper to fill all Medicaid prescriptions. The requirement, which was part 7002(b) of the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007”, was effective April 1, 2008.

We play an active role with the Document Security Alliance group, as one of our research and development management members sits on various committees of that group and has been involved in design recommendations for important U.S. documents. This group of security industry specialists was formed by the U.S. Secret Service to evaluate and recommend security solutions to the federal government for the protection of credentials and vital records.

Our patent monetization business is also faced with potential government regulations. If new legislation, regulations or rules are implemented either by Congress, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), or the courts that impact the patent application process, the patent enforcement process or the rights of patent holders, these changes could negatively affect our patent monetization efforts and, in turn, our assets, expenses and revenue. United States patent laws have been amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The America Invents Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. In general, the legislation attempts to address issues surrounding the enforceability of patents and the increase in patent litigation by, among other things, establishing new procedures for patent litigation. For example, the America Invents Act changes the way that parties may be joined in patent infringement actions, increasing the likelihood that such actions will need to be brought against individual parties allegedly infringing by their respective individual actions or activities. In addition, the U.S. Congress is currently considering a bill that would require non-practicing entities that bring patent infringement lawsuits to pay legal costs of the defendants if the lawsuits are unsuccessful. It is not known when, or if, this legislation will be passed. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has conducted reviews of the patent system to evaluate the impact of patent assertion entities, such as our Company, on industries in which those patents relate. It is possible that the findings and recommendations of the DOJ could adversely impact our ability to effectively license and enforce standards-essential patents and could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the enforcement of any such patented technologies.

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Alice Corp. v. CSL Bank International, or Alice. The Alice case was a legal case about patentable subject matter, and pertains to software patents generally. The primary issue in the Alice case was the question of whether claims to computer-implemented inventions, including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Alice opinion provides that an abstract idea coupled with a computer doing what a computer normally does is not something that the U.S. patent system was designed to protect. The Alice court then provided some interpretive guidance to be considered by the federal trial courts when making determinations as to whether certain patent claims constitute merely an abstract idea and, as such, are not patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. As a result of the Alice decision, the defendants in our Bascom case argued that the software patents involved in our infringement case against Facebook and LinkedIn should be invalidated based on the court’s reasoning in Alice. In January 2015, the court agreed, and as a result, the value of our patents was impaired, which resulted in a significant impairment charge in the period of such invalidation.

Moreover, new rules regarding the burden of proof in patent enforcement actions could significantly increase the cost of our enforcement actions, and new standards or limitations on liability for patent infringement could negatively impact our revenue derived from such enforcement actions.

Corporate History

The Company was incorporated in 1984 and changed its name to Document Security Systems, Inc. in 2002. Since then, the Company has acquired a plastics card manufacturer, a printing company, a packaging company, an IT services company, and an intellectual property monetization company.

On July 1, 2013, DSSIP, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Merger Sub”) and a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSS merged with and into Lexington Technology Group, Inc. (the “Merger”). As a result of the Merger, Lexington Technology Group, Inc., which later changed its name to DSS Technology Management, Inc., became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

Employees

As of March 25, 2016, we had a total of 104 full-time employees. It is important that we continue to retain and attract qualified management and technical personnel. Our employees are not covered by any collective bargaining agreement, and we believe that our relations with our employees are generally good.

Available information

Our website address is www.dsssecure.com. Information on our website is not incorporated herein by reference. We make available free of charge through our website our press releases, Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

ITEM 1A – RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves risk. Before deciding whether to invest in our common stock, you should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below. There may be other unknown or unpredictable economic, business, competitive, regulatory or other factors that could have material adverse effects on our future results. If any of these risks actually occurs, our business, business prospects, financial condition or results of operations could be seriously harmed. This could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline, resulting in a loss of all or part of your investment. Please also read carefully the section contained in Part II, Item 7, below, entitled “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

We have identified the following risks and uncertainties that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations in the future. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may also significantly impair our business operations. If any of these risks occur, our business, results of operations or financial condition could suffer, the market price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment in our common stock.

Due to our low cash balance and negative cash flow, unless we raise additional capital we may have to further reduce our costs by curtailing future operations to continue as a business, and substantial doubt may be raised about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have incurred significant net losses in previous years, including the years ended December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had approximately $1,440,000 in unrestricted cash and $293,000 in restricted cash and up to $800,000 available under a revolving credit line at its packaging subsidiary. Our ability to fund our capital requirements out of our available cash and cash generated from our operations in the future will depend on many factors, but largely on our ability to (i) increase sales of the Company’s digital products; (ii) decrease legal and professional expenses for the Company’s intellectual property monetization business; and (iii) continue to generate operating profits from the Company’s packaging and plastic printing operations. The Company has been able to obtain equity and/or debt based financing in the past, including most recently, in December 2014 and the fall of 2015 when the Company raised gross proceeds of approximately $1.7 million and $1.2 million, respectively, from the sale of common stock. However, we may not be able to find financing in the capital markets or from lenders on acceptable terms or at all in the future. If we are not successful in generating needed funds from operations or in equity or debt capital raising transactions, we may need to reduce our costs which measures could include selling or consolidating certain operations or assets, and delaying, canceling or scaling back product development and marketing programs. These measures could materially and adversely affect our ability to operate profitably. In addition, if we are not successful in generating needed funds from operations or from capital raising transactions, substantial doubt may be raised about our status as a going concern.

We have a history of losses.

We have a history of losses. While we had net income in 2013 of $2.6 million due to a one-time deferred tax benefit of approximately $11.0 million, we had losses attributable to common stockholders for the fiscal years 2015 and 2014 of approximately $14.3 million and $41.2 million, respectively. Our results of operations in the future will depend on many factors, but largely on our ability to successfully market our anti-counterfeiting products, technologies and services and successfully monetize our IP assets. Failure to achieve profitability in the future could adversely affect the trading price of our common stock and our ability to raise additional capital and, accordingly, our ability to continue to grow our business. There can be no assurance that we will succeed in addressing any or all of these risks, and the failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

We have a significant amount of indebtedness, some of which is secured by our assets, and one loan agreement on which we are in default, and we may be unable to satisfy our obligations to pay interest and principal thereon when due or negotiate acceptable extensions or settlements.

At December 31, 2015 we had cash of approximately $1.4 million and for the year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we had a net loss of $14.3 million and $41.2 million, respectively. We have outstanding indebtedness (described below), some of which is secured by our assets. Given our history of operating losses and our cash position, we may not be able to repay indebtedness when due. In addition, we are currently in default on a limited recourse debt that can be settled by the transfer of non-monetary assets. If we were to default on any of our other indebtedness that require payments of cash to settle such default and not receive an extension or a waiver from the creditor and the creditor were to foreclose on secured assets, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

As of December 31, 2015, we had the following significant amounts of outstanding indebtedness:

The Citizens Bank obligations are secured by all of the assets of Premier Packaging and are also secured through cross guarantees by us and our other wholly-owned subsidiaries, P3 and Secuprint. Under the Citizens Bank credit facilities, our subsidiary, Premier Packaging Corporation is subject to various covenants including fixed charge coverage ratio, tangible net worth and current ratio covenants. For the quarters ended December 31, 2015, September 30, 2015, June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, Premier Packaging was in compliance with the covenants.

The Fortress agreement defines certain events of default, one of which is the failure by the Company, on or before the second anniversary of the effective date, which was February 13, 2016, to make payments to the investors equal to the outstanding advances. On February 13, 2016, the Company had failed to make these payments. Under the Agreement, upon an event of default, the collateral agent and the investors have a number of remedies, including rights related to foreclosure or direct monetization of the patents that secure the loan (the “Patents”). As a result of the event of default discussed above, the sole and exclusive recourse of the investors and the collateral agent is to form a special purpose entity to take possession of the Patents, subject to a perpetual, non-transferable, non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license back to the Company. The agreement further provides that, in the case of this default, the collateral agent and investors will not, individually or collectively, seek to enforce any monetary judgment with respect to or against any assets of the Company other than the Patents and any payments received in respect of the Patents, including settlement payments, license fees and royalties on the Patents. In the event that the collateral agent or investors foreclose on, and take possession of the Patents, the Company will still be entitled to receive any payments received in respect of the Patents in the event of a recovery by any substituted plaintiff in any related litigation proceedings, subject to payment of amounts owed under the agreement to the investors and the collateral agent. In addition, as a result of the default, the interest rate on the unpaid amounts due increased to 2% per year effective February 13, 2016.

We cannot predict our future capital needs and we may not be able to secure additional financing.

We need to raise additional funds in the future to fund our working capital needs and to continue our business. We also may need additional funds to complete development, testing and marketing of our products and technologies, or to make strategic acquisitions or investments. We expect to seek equity or debt financings, collaborative arrangements with corporate partners or funds from other sources for these purposes. No assurance can be given that necessary funds will be available for us to finance our development on acceptable terms, if at all. Furthermore, such additional financings may involve substantial dilution of our stockholders or may require that we relinquish rights to certain of our technologies or products. In addition, we may experience operational difficulties and delays due to working capital restrictions. If adequate funds are not available from operations or additional sources of financing, we may have to delay or scale back our growth plans.

The value of our intangible assets and investments may not be equal to their carrying values.

As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately $5.5 million of net intangible assets, including goodwill. A significant amount of these intangible assets and investments derive their value from patents or patent rights, many of which are involved in litigation in order to derive license revenues or settlements from users of the patents. If licensing efforts and litigation is not successful, the values of these assets could be reduced. We are required to evaluate the carrying value of such intangibles and goodwill and the fair value of investments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an intangible asset, including goodwill, and investment may not be recoverable. If any of our intangible assets, goodwill or investments are deemed to be impaired then it will result in a significant reduction of the operating results in such period. In 2015 and 2014, we recorded goodwill impairments of $9,600,000 and $3,000,000, respectively, and there can be no guarantee that we will not have to record impairments in the future.

We have pending legal proceedings against numerous companies, including Intel Corporation, SK Hynix, Qualcomm Incorporated, Apple, Inc, and Samsung, among others, and we expect such litigation to continue to be time-consuming and costly, which may adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to operate our business.

To monetize and protect our patent assets, we have commenced legal proceedings against numerous companies, including Intel Corporation, SK Hynix, Qualcomm Incorporated, Apple, Inc., and Samsung, among others, alleging infringement of our patents. Our viability as an operating company is partially 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, which failure could significantly harm our business. In addition, the defendants in this litigation are much larger than us and have substantially more resources than us, which could make our litigation efforts more difficult.

These legal proceedings may continue for several 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. 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. If such defenses or counterclaims are successful, they may have a great impact on the value of the patents and preclude our ability to derive licensing revenue from the patents. Therefore, a negative outcome of any such litigation, or one or more claims contained within any such litigation, could materially and adversely impact our business. The defendants may also seek reimbursement of court costs, legal fees and other expenses, which, if awarded, could be substantial and materially and adversely impact our cash positions. As an example, in our litigation against Facebook, Inc. alleging patent infringement the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, resulting in our recording an impairment charge for the underlying patent assets of the net book value of the patents as of December 31, 2014 of approximately $22,285,000. Similarly, in our litigation against Salesforce.Com, Inc., the PTAB held that claims 1-21 are unpatentable. As a result, we recorded a net impairment charge during the third quarter of 2014 of approximately $7,050,000. In addition, during our annual assessment of goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we assessed that negative trends in patent litigation that have recently reduced the success of patent owners in protecting their patents in the federal court system impaired the goodwill assigned to our DSS Technology Management division, and accordingly, for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recorded goodwill impairment charges of $9,600,000 and $3,000,000, respectively, to the goodwill assigned to our DSS Technology Management division.

In addition, certain of our patents are subject to security agreements with third parties that could cause the ownership of the patents to be transferred from the Company to such third-party, which could result in the loss of value to the Company. As an example, our loan agreement with Fortress is secured by various of our patents and, due to our being in default on that loan, the collateral agent or the investors could foreclose on and take possession of those patents.

While we believe that certain of our patents are being infringed by the defendants named in our various litigation matters, there is a risk that a court will find the patents invalid, not infringed or unenforceable and/or that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, will either invalidate the patents or materially narrow the scope of their claims during the course of a re-examination or Inter Partes Review. In addition, even with a positive trial court verdict, the patents may be invalidated, found not infringed or rendered unenforceable on appeal. This risk may occur either presently in our current litigation or from time to time in connection with future litigation we may bring. If this were to occur, it would have a material adverse effect on our viability and operations.

Patent litigation is inherently risky and the outcome is uncertain. Some of the parties we believe are infringing on our patents are large and well-financed companies with substantially greater resources than ours. We believe that parties will devote a substantial amount of resources in an attempt to avoid or limit a finding that they are liable for infringing our patents or, in the event liability is found, to avoid or limit the amount of associated damages. In addition, there is a risk that these parties may file re-examinations or other proceedings with the USPTO or other government agencies in an attempt to invalidate, narrow the scope or render unenforceable our patents. It is also possible that a court may rule that we have violated statutory authority, regulatory authority, federal rules, local court rules, or governing standards relating to the substantive or procedural aspects of such enforcement actions. In such event, a court may issue monetary sanctions against us or award attorneys’ fees and/or expenses to one or more defendants, which could be material, and if we are required to pay such monetary sanctions, attorneys’ fees and/or expenses, such payment could materially harm our operating results and our financial position.

In addition, it is difficult in general to predict the outcome of patent enforcement litigation at the trial level. There is a higher rate of appeals in patent enforcement litigation than more standard business litigation. Such appeals are expensive and time-consuming, and the outcomes of such appeals are sometimes unpredictable, resulting in increased costs and reduced or delayed revenue. We would expect any defendant in our patient enforcement litigation to appeal a trial court ruling against them, which would add to the expense and duration of the litigation and could result in a reversal of the trial court ruling.

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Alice Corp. v. CSL Bank International, or Alice. The Alice case was a legal case about patentable subject matter, and pertains to software patents generally. The primary issue in the Alice case was the question of whether claims to computer-implemented inventions, including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Alice opinion provides that an abstract idea coupled with a computer doing what a computer normally does is not something that the U.S. patent system was designed to protect. The Alice court then provided some interpretive guidance to be considered by the federal trial courts when making determinations as to whether certain patent claims constitute merely an abstract idea and, as such, are not patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. As a result of the Alice decision, the defendants in our Bascom case argued that the software patents involved in our infringement case against Facebook and LinkedIn should be invalidated based on the court’s reasoning in Alice. The court agreed, and as a result, the value of our patents was impaired, which resulted in a significant impairment charge in the period of such invalidation.

As described above, the Alice case applies to software patents. Our current pending litigation matters against defendants Apple, Inc., Samsung, Intel Corporation, SK Hynix and Qualcomm Inc. do not involve software patents and, as such, are not impacted by the Alice decision.

New legislation, regulations or rules related to obtaining patents or enforcing patents could significantly increase our operating costs and decrease our revenue.

We expect to spend a significant amount of resources to enforce our patent assets. If new legislation, regulations or rules are implemented either by Congress, the USPTO, any state or the courts that impact the patent application process, the patent enforcement process or the rights of patent holders, these changes could negatively affect our expenses and revenue and any reductions in the funding of the USPTO could negatively impact the value of our assets. United States patent laws have been amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The America Invents Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. In general, the legislation attempts to address issues surrounding the enforceability of patents and the increase in patent litigation by, among other things, establishing new procedures for patent litigation. For example, the America Invents Act changes the way that parties may be joined in patent infringement actions, increasing the likelihood that such actions will need to be brought against individual parties allegedly infringing by their respective individual actions or activities. At this time, it is not clear what, if any, impact the America Invents Act will have on the operation of our enforcement business. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the enforcement of our patented technologies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

A number of states have adopted or are considering legislation to make the patent enforcement process more difficult for non-practicing entities, such as allowing such entities to be sued in state court and setting higher standards of proof for infringement claims. We cannot predict what, if any, impact these state initiatives will have on the operation of our enforcement business. However, such legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the enforcement of our patented technologies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, has conducted reviews of the patent system to evaluate the impact of patent assertion entities on industries in which those patents relate. It is possible that the findings and recommendations of the DOJ could impact the ability to effectively license and enforce standards-essential patents and could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the enforcement of any such patented technologies.

Finally, new rules regarding the burden of proof in patent enforcement actions could significantly increase the cost of our enforcement actions, and new standards or limitations on liability for patent infringement could negatively impact our revenue derived from such enforcement actions.

If we are unable to adequately protect our intellectual property, our competitive advantage may disappear.

Our success will be determined in part by our ability to obtain United States and foreign patent protection for our technology and to preserve our trade secrets. Because of the substantial length of time and expense associated with developing new document security technology, we place considerable importance on patent and trade secret protection. We intend to continue to rely primarily on a combination of patent protection, trade secrets, technical measures, copyright protection and nondisclosure agreements with our employees and customers to establish and protect the ideas, concepts and documentation of software and trade secrets developed by us. Our ability to compete and the ability of our business to grow could suffer if these intellectual property rights are not adequately protected. There can be no assurance that our patent applications will result in patents being issued or that current or additional patents will afford protection against competitors. Failure of our patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secret protection, non-disclosure agreements and other measures to provide protection of our technology and our intellectual property rights could enable our competitors to more effectively compete with us and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our trade secrets and proprietary know-how may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by others. No guarantee can be given that others will not independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information or techniques, or otherwise gain access to our proprietary technology.

In addition, we may be required to litigate in the future to enforce our intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Any such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations, and there can be no assurances of the success of any such litigation.

We may face intellectual property infringement or other claims against us, our customers or our intellectual property that could be costly to defend and result in our loss of significant rights.

Although we have received patents with respect to certain of our core business technologies, there can be no assurance that these patents will afford us any meaningful protection. Although we believe that our use of the technology and products we have developed and other trade secrets used in our operations do not infringe upon the rights of others, our use of the technology and trade secrets we developed may infringe upon the patents or intellectual property rights of others. In the event of infringement, we could, under certain circumstances, be required to obtain a license or modify aspects of the technology and trade secrets we developed or refrain from using the same. We may not have the necessary financial resources to defend an infringement claim made against us or be able to successfully terminate any infringement in a timely manner, upon acceptable terms and conditions or at all. Failure to do any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial condition. Moreover, if the patents, technology or trade secrets we developed or use in our business are deemed to infringe upon the rights of others, we could, under certain circumstances, become liable for damages, which could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial condition. As we continue to market our products, we could encounter patent barriers that are not known today. A patent search may not disclose all related applications that are currently pending in the United States Patent Office, and there may be one or more such pending applications that would take precedence over any or all of our applications.

Furthermore, third parties may assert that our intellectual property rights are invalid, which could result in significant expenditures by us to refute such assertions. If we become involved in litigation, we could lose our proprietary rights, be subject to damages and incur substantial unexpected operating expenses. Intellectual property litigation is expensive and time-consuming, even if the claims are subsequently proven unfounded, and could divert management’s attention from our business. If there is a successful claim of infringement, we may not be able to develop non-infringing technology or enter into royalty or license agreements on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unsuccessful in defending claims that our intellectual property rights are invalid, we may not be able to enter into royalty or license agreements on acceptable terms, if at all. Moreover, if we are unsuccessful in our pending patent infringement litigation, we could lose certain patents that have been collateralized by third party funding partners. This could prohibit us from providing our products and services to customers, which could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial condition.

Certain of our recently developed products are not yet commercially accepted and there can be no assurance that those products will be accepted, which would adversely affect our financial results.

Over the past several years, we have spent significant funds and time to create new products by applying its technologies onto media other than paper, including plastic and cardboard packaging, and delivery of our technologies digitally. We have had limited success to date in selling our products that are on cardboard packaging and those that are delivered digitally. Our business plan includes plans to incur significant marketing, intellectual property development and sales costs for these newer products, particularly the digitally delivered products. If we are not able to sell these new products, our financial results will be adversely affected.

The results of our research and development efforts are uncertain and there can be no assurance of the commercial success of our products.

We believe that we will need to continue to incur research and development expenditures to remain competitive. The products we are currently developing or may develop in the future may not be technologically successful. In addition, the length of our product development cycle may be greater than we originally expected and we may experience delays in future product development. If our resulting products are not technologically successful, they may not achieve market acceptance or compete effectively with our competitors’ products.

Changes in document security technology and standards could render our applications and services obsolete.

The market for document security products, applications, and services is fast moving and evolving. Identification and authentication technology is constantly changing as we and our competitors introduce new products, applications, and services, and retire old ones as customer requirements quickly develop and change. In addition, the standards for document security are continuing to evolve. If any segments of our market adopt technologies or standards that are inconsistent with our applications and technology, sales to those market segments could decline, which could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial condition.

The market in which we operate is highly competitive, and we may not be able to compete effectively, especially against established industry competitors with greater market presence and financial resources.

Our market is highly competitive and characterized by rapid technological change and product innovations. Our competitors may have advantages over us because of their longer operating histories, more established products, greater name recognition, larger customer bases, and greater financial, technical and marketing resources. As a result, they may be able to adapt more quickly to new or emerging technologies and changes in customer requirements, and devote greater resources to the promotion and sale of their products. Competition may also force us to decrease the price of our products and services. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in developing and introducing new technology on a timely basis, new products with enhanced features, or that these products, if introduced, will enable us to establish selling prices and gross margins at profitable levels.

If we are unable to respond to regulatory or industry standards effectively, our growth and development could be delayed or limited.

Our future success will depend in part on our ability to enhance and improve the functionality and features of our products and services in accordance with regulatory or industry standards. Our ability to compete effectively will depend in part on our ability to influence and respond to emerging industry governmental standards in a timely and cost-effective manner. If we are unable to influence these or other standards or respond to these or other standards effectively, our growth and development of various products and services could be delayed or limited.

If we do not successfully expand our sales force, we may be unable to increase our revenues.

We must expand the size of our marketing activities and sales force to increase revenues. We continue to evaluate various methods of expanding our marketing activities, including the use of outside marketing consultants and representatives and expanding our in-house marketing capabilities. If we are unable to hire or retain qualified sales personnel or if newly hired personnel fail to develop the necessary skills to be productive, or if they reach productivity more slowly than anticipated, our ability to increase our revenues and grow could be compromised. The challenge of attracting, training and retaining qualified candidates may make it difficult to meet our sales growth targets. Further, we may not generate sufficient sales to offset the increased expense resulting from expanding our sales force or we may be unable to manage a larger sales force.

If we fail to retain certain of our key personnel and attract and retain additional qualified personnel, we might not be able to remain competitive, continue to expand our technology or pursue growth.

Our future success depends upon the continued service of certain of our executive officers and other key sales and research personnel who possess longstanding industry relationships and technical knowledge of our products and operations. Although we believe that our relationship with these individuals is positive, there can be no assurance that the services of these individuals will continue to be available to us in the future. There can be no assurance that these persons will agree to continue to be employed by us after the expiration dates of their current contracts.

We may be unable to retain experts and legal counsel on a favorable basis to represent us in our patent infringement litigation.

The success of our pending legal proceedings and future legal proceedings depends in part upon our ability to retain experts and legal counsel on a favorable basis to represent us in such litigation. The retention of such experts and legal counsel is likely to be expensive and we may not be able to retain such experts and legal counsel on favorable economic terms. Therefore, an inability to retain experts and legal counsel to represent us in our litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Future growth in our business could make it difficult to manage our resources.

Future business expansion could place a significant strain on our management, administrative and financial resources. Significant growth in our business may require us to implement additional operating, product development and financial controls, improve coordination among marketing, product development and finance functions, increase capital expenditures and hire additional personnel. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully manage any substantial expansion of our business, including attracting and retaining qualified personnel. Any failure to properly manage our future growth could negatively impact our business and operating results.

We have identified weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting structure; any material weaknesses may cause errors in our financial statements that could require restatements of our financial statements and investors may lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could lead to a decline in our stock price.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to evaluate the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each year, and to include a management report assessing the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in each Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have and had previously identified weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting following management’s annual assessment of internal controls over financial reporting and, as a result of that assessment, management has concluded that we did not maintain a sufficient complement of qualified accounting personnel and controls associated with segregation of duties, and that the foregoing represented material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. If our internal control over financial reporting or disclosure controls and procedures are not effective in the future, there may be errors in our financial statements and in our disclosure that could require restatements. Investors may lose confidence in our reported financial information and in our disclosure, which could lead to a decline in our stock price.

We have a large number of authorized but unissued shares of common stock, which our management may issue without further stockholder approval, thereby causing dilution of your holdings of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately 148 million authorized but unissued shares of our common stock. Our management continues to have broad discretion to issue shares of our common stock in a range of transactions, including capital-raising transactions, mergers, acquisitions, for anti-takeover purposes, and in other transactions, without obtaining stockholder approval, unless stockholder approval is required for a particular transaction under the rules of the NYSE MKT, state and federal law, or other applicable laws. If our board of directors determines to issue additional shares of our common stock from the large pool of authorized but unissued shares for any purpose in the future without obtaining stockholder approval, your ownership position would be diluted without your ability to vote on such transaction.

The exercise of our outstanding options and warrants, vesting of restricted stock awards and conversion of debt securities may depress our stock price.

As of December 31, 2015, there were 11,874,620 of common stock share equivalents potentially issuable under convertible debt agreements, employment agreements, options, warrants, and restricted stock agreements that could potentially dilute basic earnings per share in the future. Sales of these securities in the public market, or the perception that future sales of these securities could occur, could have the effect of lowering the market price of our common stock below current levels and make it more difficult for us and our stockholders to sell our equity securities in the future. Sales or the availability for sale of shares of common stock by stockholders could cause the market price of our common stock to decline and could impair our ability to raise capital through an offering of additional equity securities.

We do not intend to pay cash dividends.

We do not intend to declare or pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We anticipate that we will retain any earnings and other cash resources for investment in our business. The payment of dividends on our common stock is subject to the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our operations, financial position, financial requirements, general business conditions, restrictions imposed by financing arrangements, if any, legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and other factors that our board of directors deems relevant.

We may seek to internally develop additional new inventions and intellectual property, which would take time and would 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.

Members of our management team have significant experience as inventors. As such, part of our business may include the internal development of new inventions and intellectual property that we would 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 our present business initiatives, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business. There is also the risk that these initiatives would not yield any viable new inventions or technology, which would lead to a loss 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 on, 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 it 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 of our investments in such activities, which would have a material and adverse effect on 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.

Changes in the laws and regulations to which we are subject may increase our costs.

We are subject to numerous laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, environmental and health and welfare benefit regulations, as well as those associated with being a public company. These rules and regulations may be changed by local, state, provincial, national or foreign governments or agencies. Such changes may result in significant increases in our compliance costs. Compliance with changes in rules and regulations could require increases to our workforce, and could result in increased costs for services, compensation and benefits, and investment in new or upgraded equipment.

Declines in general economic conditions or acts of war and terrorism may adversely impact our business.

Demand for printing services is typically correlated with general economic conditions. The prolonged decline in United States economic conditions adversely impacted our business and results of operations, and may continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The overall business climate of our industry may also be impacted by domestic and foreign wars or acts of terrorism, which events may have sudden and unpredictable adverse impacts on demand for our products and services.

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 may continue to be part of our business plan, are often time consuming, complex and costly to consummate. 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 would expect to incur significant operating expenses and would likely be required to raise capital during the negotiations even if the acquisition were ultimately not consummated. Even if we were able to acquire particular patent assets, there is no guarantee that we would generate sufficient revenue related to those patent assets to offset the acquisition costs. While we would seek to conduct confirmatory due diligence on any patent assets we consider for acquisition, we may acquire patent assets from a seller who does not have proper title to those assets. In those cases, we could be required to spend significant resources to defend our interest in the patent assets and, if we were not successful, our acquisition may be invalid, in which case we could lose part or all of our investment in the assets.

In addition, we may acquire patents and technologies that are in the early stages of adoption in the commercial, industrial and consumer markets. Demand for some of these technologies will likely be untested and may be subject to fluctuation based upon the rate at which licensees will adopt these 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 we can monetize.

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 or finance a portion of the acquisition price. These types of debt financing or deferred payment 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. Moreover, funding by third parties for patent acquisitions may not be available to us in the future. 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.

As of February 13, 2016, we are in default of our Investment Agreement with Fortress Credit Co LLC which could result in the loss of certain semiconductor patents which serve as collateral for the agreement.

As of February 13, 2016, we defaulted of the Fortress Investment Agreement by failing to pay the balance owed on a total of $4,500,000 of advances made by Fortress to us under the agreement. The remaining balance owed on the date of default is $4,350,000. As a result of this particular event of default, the collateral agent and investors can instruct us to form a special purpose entity to take possession of the patents which serve as collateral for the agreement, but they are not entitled to seek a monetary judgment with respect to this particular event of default. In the event that the investors or collateral agent elect to foreclose on the patents securing the agreement, we will continue to be entitled to receive any payments received in respect of the patents in the event of a future recovery by any substituted plaintiff in any related litigation proceedings, subject to payment of amounts owed under the agreement to the investors and collateral agent. As of the date of this report, neither the collateral agent nor the investors has elected to foreclose on the patents underlying the agreement, and we have been in discussions with the investors to amend the agreement or otherwise remedy the default. However, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate success of these discussions, which could result in future costly litigation between the parties.

This default has also resulted in a temporary suspension of our ability to utilize an SEC Form 3 filing to raise capital.

We may not be able to capitalize on potential market opportunities related to our licensing strategy or patent portfolio for our core business.

In order to capitalize on our core business patent portfolio, we intend to enter into licensing relationships. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to capitalize on our patent portfolio or any potential market opportunity in the foreseeable future. Our inability to generate licensing revenues associated with potential market opportunities could result from a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

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 may be affected by worldwide economic conditions, and the United States and world economies have experienced prolonged 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 failure to do so could cause material harm to our business.

We rely on two significant customers, the loss of which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

During 2015, two customers accounted for 35% of our consolidated revenue. As of December 31, 2015, these two customers accounted for 27% of our trade accounts receivable balance. During 2014, these same two customers accounted for 40% of our consolidated revenue. As of December 31, 2014, these two customers accounted for 25% of our trade accounts receivable balance. The loss of either of these customers could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

If we fail to comply with the continued listing standards of the NYSE MKT, it may result in a delisting of our common stock from the exchange.

Our common stock is currently listed for trading on the NYSE MKT, and the continued listing of our common stock on the NYSE MKT is subject to our compliance with a number of listing standards. On March 15, 2016, we were notified by the NYSE MKT that we are not in compliance with the continued listing standards set forth in Section 1003(f)(v) of the NYSE MKT Company Guide (the “Company Guide”), which addresses Low Selling Price Issues. The NYSE MKT stated in its notice that our most recent 30-day average selling price per share of $0.16 falls below the acceptable minimum required average share price for continued listing under Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide, and that our stock has been closing at or below $0.20 per share since December 11, 2015. The NYSE MKT does not provide a specific minimum average price per share in its rules for purposes of compliance with Section 1002(f)(v) of the Company Guide, but instead makes those determinations in its discretion, on a case by case basis. Under NYSE MKT rules, we have six months following receipt of notification to regain compliance with the minimum share price requirement. We intend to actively monitor the closing bid price for our common stock and will consider all available options to resolve the deficiency and regain compliance with rule 1003(f)(v) within the allotted six month timeframe. However, there can be no assurance that we will meet the continued listing standards of the NYSE MKT.

If our common stock were no longer listed on the NYSE MKT, investors might only be able to trade our shares on the OTC Bulletin Board ® or in the Pink Sheets ® (a quotation medium operated by Pink Sheets LLC). This would impair the liquidity of our common stock not only in the number of shares that could be bought and sold at a given price, which might be depressed by the relative illiquidity, but also through delays in the timing of transactions and reduction in media coverage.

If we are delisted from the NYSE MKT, your ability to sell your shares of our common stock may be limited by the penny stock restrictions, which could further limit the marketability of your shares.

If our common stock is delisted from the NYSE MKT, it could come within the definition of “penny stock” as defined in the Exchange Act and could be covered by Rule 15g-9 of the Exchange Act. That rule imposes additional sales practice requirements on broker dealers who sell securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors. For transactions covered by Rule 15g-9, the broker-dealer must make a special suitability determination for the purchaser and receive the purchaser’s written agreement to the transaction prior to the sale. Consequently, Rule 15g-9, if it were to become applicable, would affect the ability or willingness of broker-dealers to sell our securities, and accordingly would affect the ability of stockholders to sell their securities in the public market. These additional procedures could also limit our ability to raise additional capital in the future.

If our common stock is not listed on a national securities exchange, compliance with applicable state securities laws may be required for certain offers, transfers and sales of the shares of our common stock.

Because our common stock is listed on the NYSE MKT, we are not required to register or qualify in any state the offer, transfer or sale of the common stock. If our common stock is delisted from the NYSE MKT and is not eligible to be listed on another national securities exchange, sales of stock pusraun to the exercise of warrants and transfers of the shares of our common stock sold by us in private placements to U.S. holders may not be exempt from state securities laws. In such event, it will be the responsibility of us in the case of warrant exercises or the holder of privately placed shares to register or qualify the shares for any offer, transfer or sale in the United States or to determine that any such offer, transfer or sale is exempt under applicable state securities laws.

There is no public market for the warrants we issued in the fall of 2015.

There is no established public trading market for the warrants we issued in the fall of 2015, and we do not expect a market to develop. In addition, we do not intend to apply for listing of those warrants on any national securities exchange or other nationally recognized trading system. Without an active market, the liquidity of those warrants will be limited.

ITEM 2 - PROPERTIES

Our corporate group and digital division together occupy approximately 5,700 square feet of commercial office space located at 200 Canal View Boulevard, located in Rochester, New York under a lease that expires in December 2020, at a rental rate of approximately $6,100 per month. Prior to occupying the Canal View premises in December 2015, we paid $133,000 during the 2015 fiscal year for our combined corporate and digital office space located at 28 East Main Street, Rochester, New York. This previous lease terminated in December 2015. Our Plastics division leases approximately 15,000 square feet under a lease that expires December 31, 2018 for approximately $13,000 per month. In addition, the Company owns a 40,000 square foot packaging and printing plant in Victor, New York, a suburb of Rochester, New York. The Company’s Technology Management division leases executive office space in Reston, Virginia under a 12 month lease that expires in December 2016 for approximately $600 per month, and also leases a sales and research and development facility in Plano, Texas under a 12 month lease that expires in December 2016 for $1,100 per month. The Company believes that it can negotiate renewals or similar lease arrangements on acceptable terms when our current leases expire. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current operations.

ITEM 3 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On November 26, 2013, DSS Technology Management filed suit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for patent infringement (the “Apple Litigation”). The complaint alleges infringement by Apple of DSS Technology Management’s patents that relate to systems and methods of using low power wireless peripheral devices DSS Technology Management is seeking a judgment for infringement, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages from Apple. On October 28, 2014, the case was stayed by the District Court pending a determination of Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. On November 7, 2014, Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California was granted. On December 30, 2014, Apple filed two IPR petitions with PTAB for review of the patents at issue in the case. The PTAB instituted the IPRs on June 25, 2015. Oral arguments of the IPRs took place on March 15, 2016, with a decision expected from PTAB by the end of June 2016.

On March 10, 2014, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC North America, TSMC Development, Inc. (referred to collectively as “TSMC”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC (referred to collectively as “Samsung”), and NEC Corporation of America (referred to as “NEC”), for patent infringement involving certain of its semiconductor patents. DSS Technology Management sought a judgment for infringement, injunctive relief, and money damages from each of the named defendants. In June, 2014, TSMC filed an IPR petition with PTAB for review of the patents at issue. Samsung then filed an IPR petition relating to the same patents on September 12, 2014, and filed a corrected IPR petition on October 3, 2014. On December 31, 2014, the PTAB instituted review of several of the patent claims at issue in the case. Samsung then filed a motion with PTAB to join TSMC’s IPR proceeding. The request was granted by PTAB. On November 30, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision invalidating the patent claims at issue in the case. DSS Technology Management then filed a notice of appeal of the IPR decision with the Federal Circuit on February 1, 2016, which is pending as of the date of this Report. On March 3, 2015, a Markman hearing was held in the Eastern District of Texas. Based on the District Court’s claim construction order issued on April 9, 2015, DSS Technology Management and TSMC entered in to a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Final Judgment of Non-Infringement dated May 4, 2015, subject to DSS Technology Management’s right to appeal the court’s claim construction order to the Federal Circuit, thus preserving the status quo in the event an appeal results in a remand for further proceedings in the District Court. On March 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of TSMC in the appeal. On April 28, 2015, DSS Technology Management reached a confidential settlement with NEC, ending the litigation with NEC.

On February 16, 2015, DSS Technology Management filed suit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, against defendants Intel Corporation, Dell, Inc., GameStop Corp., Conn’s Inc., Conn Appliances, Inc., NEC Corporation of America, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, and AT&T, Inc. The complaint alleges patent infringement and seeks judgment for infringement of two of DSSTM’s patents, injunctive relief and money damages. On December 9, 2015, Intel filed IPR petitions with PTAB for review of the patents at issue in the case. PTAB has not yet made a determination whether the IPRs will be instituted. On March 18, 2016, the District Court issued an Order granting Intel’s motion to stay the case until completion of the IPR proceedings.

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

In addition to the foregoing, we are or may become subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management, none of the legal proceedings to which we are a party, whether discussed herein or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition. The Company accrues for potential litigation losses when a loss is probable and estimable.

ITEM 4 - MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

Part II

ITEM 5 - MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock is listed on the NYSE MKT, where it trades under the symbol “DSS.”

The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices for the shares of our Common Stock, for the periods indicated.

The quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission, and may not represent actual transactions.

The last reported sales price of our common stock on the NYSE MKT on March 24, 2016 was $0.20_

Issued and Outstanding

Our certificate of incorporation authorizes 200,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.02. As of March 24, 2016, we had 51,881,948 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.

As of December 31, 2015, securities issued and securities available for future issuance under our 2013 Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan (the “2013 Plan”) is as follows:

The warrants listed in the table above were issued to third party service providers in partial or full payment for services rendered.

Recent Issuances of Unregistered Securities

There were no issuances of unregistered securities sold by the Company that have not been previously reported in the Company’s Current Reports on Form 8-K.

Stockholders

As of March 24, 2016, we had 773 record holders of our common stock. This number does not include the number of persons whose shares are in nominee or in “street name” accounts through brokers.

Dividends

We did not pay dividends during 2015 or 2014. We anticipate that we will retain any earnings and other cash resources for investment in our business. The payment of dividends on our common stock is subject to the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our operations, financial position, financial requirements, general business conditions, restrictions imposed by financing arrangements, if any, legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and other factors that our board of directors deems relevant.

Shares Repurchased by the Registrant

We did not purchase or repurchase any of our securities in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, including the fourth quarter.

ITEM 6 - SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Not applicable.

ITEM 7 - MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

The SEC encourages companies to disclose forward-looking information so that investors can better understand a company’s future prospects and make informed investment decisions.

Forward-looking statements that may appear in this Annual Report, including without limitation, statements related to the Company’s plans, strategies, objectives, expectations, intentions and adequacy of resources, are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and contain the words “believes,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends” and similar words and phrases. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results projected in any forward-looking statement. In addition to the factors specifically noted in the forward-looking statements, other important factors, risks and uncertainties that could result in those differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed under Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. The forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this Annual Report, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Investors should consult all of the information set forth in this Annual Report and the other information set forth from time to time in our reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including our reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K.

The following discussion and analysis provides information that our management believes is relevant to an assessment and understanding of our results of operations and financial condition. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and footnotes included in Item 8 of this Annual Report.

Overview

Document Security Systems, Inc. (referred to in this report as “Document Security Systems”, “DSS”, “we”, “us”, “our” or “Company”) was formed in New York in 1984. We specialize in fraud and counterfeit protection for all forms of printed documents and digital information. The Company holds numerous patents for optical deterrent technologies that provide protection of printed information from unauthorized scanning and copying. We operate two production facilities, consisting of a combined packaging and security printing facility, and a plastic card facility where we produce secure and non-secure documents for our customers. We license our anti-counterfeiting technologies to printers and brand-owners. In addition, we have a digital division which provides cloud computing services for its customers, including disaster recovery, back-up and data security services.

Prior to 2006, our primary revenue source in our document security division was derived from the licensing of our technology. In 2006, we began a series of acquisitions designed to expand our ability to produce products for end-user customers. In 2006, we acquired Plastic Printing Professionals, Inc. (“P3”), a privately held plastic cards manufacturer located in the San Francisco, California area. P3 is also referred to herein as the “DSS Plastics Group”. In 2008, we acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC, a privately held commercial printer located in Rochester, New York, referred to herein as “Secuprint” or “DSS Printing Group”. In 2010, we acquired Premier Packaging Corporation, a privately held packaging company located in the Rochester, New York area. Premier Packaging Corporation is also referred to herein as “Premier Packaging” or the “DSS Packaging Group.” In May 2011, we acquired all of the capital stock of ExtraDev, Inc. (“ExtraDev”), a privately held information technology and cloud computing company located in the Rochester, New York area. ExtraDev is also referred to herein as the “DSS Digital Group”.

On July 1, 2013, we merged with DSS Technology Management, Inc. (formerly known as Lexington Technology Group, Inc.), a private intellectual property monetization company. DSS Technology Management, Inc. is also referred to in this report as “DSS Technology Management” or “DSSTM”. DSS Technology Management is focused on extracting the economic benefits of intellectual property assets through acquiring or internally developing patents or other intellectual property assets (or interests therein) and then monetizing such assets through a variety of value enhancing initiatives. In July 2013, we completed the merger with Lexington Technology Group which was accounted for as a business combination in accordance with FASB ASC 805 Business Combinations.

We do business in four operating segments packaging and printing; plastics; digital and technology management, which includes our IP monetization business.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 AND 2014

Revenue

Revenue - For the year ended December 31, 2015, revenue was approximately $17.5 million, a decrease of 4% from the year ended December 31, 2014. Printed products sales, which include sales of packaging, printing and plastic products, decreased 5% in 2015 as compared to 2014, which primarily reflects decreases in sales of commercial printing and packaging products, which declined 9%, but was partially offset by an increase in sales of security printing related products by 8%, and an increase in sales of plastic card products by 10%, including a 27% increase in the sale of plastic cards that incorporate technology. The Company’s technology sales, services and licensing revenues were flat in 2015, as compared to 2014, which reflected an 8% decrease in technology sales and services offset by an increase in licensing revenues of 12%.

Costs and Expenses

Costs of revenue sold, exclusive of depreciation and amortization includes all direct cost of the Company’s printed products, including its packaging, printing and plastic ID card sales, materials, direct labor, transportation and manufacturing facility costs. In addition, this category includes all direct costs associated with the Company’s technology sales, services and licensing including hardware and software that are resold, third-party fees, and fees paid to inventors or others as a result of technology licenses or settlements, if any. Costs of revenue decreased 9% in 2015 as compared to 2014 which outpaced the 4% decrease in the Company’s revenue over the same period. The decrease in costs of revenue generally reflected the increase in sales of products that have a higher margin, such as security sales and technology card sales such that material costs, outside service costs and delivery costs decreased as a percentage of revenue during the 2015 period.

Sales, general and administrative compensation costs, excluding stock based compensation, decreased 15% in 2015 as compared to 2014, primarily due to a reduction of employee headcount, a reduction in bonus compensation and a reduction in executive management compensation.

Depreciation and amortization includes the depreciation of machinery and equipment used for production, depreciation of office equipment and building and leasehold improvements, amortization of software, and amortization of acquired intangible assets such as customer lists, trademarks, non-competition agreements and patents, and internally developed patent assets. Depreciation and amortization expense decreases during 2015, as compared to 2014, were due to the significant decrease in the carrying value of the Company’s patent assets as a result of impairments recognized by the Company in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Professional fees increased 8% in 2015 as compared to 2014, primarily due to an increase in legal and professional fees associated with the Company’s intellectual property and derivative litigation matters, which were partially offset by decreases in accounting, consulting and investor relations costs in 2015.

Stock based compensation includes expense charges for all stock-based awards to employees, directors and consultants. Such awards include option grants, warrant grants, and restricted stock awards. Stock-based compensation costs in 2015 decreased 28% in 2015 as compared to 2014 due to a general decrease in the number and value of equity compensation awards granted by the Company since 2014.

Sales and marketing costs, which includes internet and trade publication advertising, travel and entertainment costs, sales-broker commissions, and trade show participation expenses, decreased 38% during 2015 as compared to 2014, primarily due to decreases in travel costs.

Rent and utilities decreased 17% during 2015 as compared to the same period in 2014, due to decreases in rented space costs utilized by the Company’s Technology Management division.

Other operating expenses consist primarily of equipment maintenance and repairs, office supplies, IT support, bad debt expense and insurance costs. Other operating expenses decreased 21% in 2015 compared to 2014 which reflected a general decrease in office, delivery, equipment repair and software costs in 2015.

Research and development costs consist primarily of compensation costs for research personnel, third-party research costs, and consulting costs. Research and development costs were virtually flat during 2015 as compared to 2014 as the Company made no changes to the number or compensation of research personnel involved in the research and development of the Company’s AuthentiGuard product line.

Impairment of goodwill During the Company’s annual assessment of goodwill in 2015, the Company assessed that, based on the negative trends in patent litigation that have reduced the success of patent owners in protecting their patents in the federal court system, the Company’s goodwill assigned to its DSS Technology Management division had been impaired and accordingly, the Company recorded an impairment loss of approximately $9,600,000 to the goodwill assigned to its DSS Technology Management division. During the Company’s annual assessment of goodwill in 2014, the Company assessed that, based on the negative trends in patent litigation that have reduced the success of patent owners in protecting their patents in the federal court system, the Company’s goodwill assigned to its DSS Technology Management division had been impaired and accordingly, the Company recorded a $3,000,000 impairment charge to the goodwill assigned to its DSS Technology Management division.

Impairment of intangible assets and investments On January 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision granting summary judgment to defendant Facebook, Inc. in connection with a lawsuit filed on October 3, 2012 by plaintiff Bascom Research, LLC (a subsidiary of the Company) alleging patent infringement. As a result of the Court’s decision, the Company evaluated the valuation of the patents that were the basis of the case for impairment as of December 31, 2014. The Company determined that since the patents had been invalidated the probability of future cash flows derived from the patents that would support the value of the assets had decreased so that the assets had been impaired. As a result, the Company recorded an impairment charge for the underlying patent assets of the net book value of the patents as of December 31, 2014 of approximately $22,285,000. In September 2014, the Company recorded an impairment of one of its investments in the gross amount of approximately $11,750,000 of which 40%, or $4,700,000 of such investment was attributable to a noncontrolling interest, which equated to a net impairment charge attributable to DSS during the third quarter of 2014 of approximately $7,050,000. In January and February 2014, DSS Technology Management made investments of $100,000 and $400,000, respectively, to purchase an aggregate of 594,530 shares of common stock of Express Mobile which represented approximately 6% of the outstanding common stock of Express Mobile at the time of investment. Express Mobile is a developer of custom mobile applications and websites. The investments were recorded using the cost method. In accordance with paragraphs 16 through 19 of FASB ASC 825-10-50 the Company determined that it was not practicable to estimate the fair value of these investments since Express Mobile is a privately-held company that is not subject to the same disclosure regulations as U.S. public companies, and as such, the basis for an estimated fair value is subject to the completeness, quality, timing and accuracy of data received from Express Mobile. In December 2015, the Company determined that the investment had been impaired and recognized an impairment loss of $500,000.

Other Income and Expenses

During the second quarter of 2015, approximately $46,000 was received by the Company’s subsidiary Premier Packaging for the sale of a printing press that had a zero book value, and $100,000 was received by the Company’s subsidiary DSS Technology Management as a distribution from its investment in VirtualAgility Technology Investment LLC that the Company had previously written down to zero.

Income Taxes

Deferred Tax Benefit - During 2014, the Company recognized a $989,000 net deferred tax benefit primarily as a result of the impairment expense recognized during the period.

Net Loss and Loss Per Share

During 2015, the Company had a net loss of $14.3 million as compared to a net loss of $41.2 million in 2014, representing a 65% decrease. The net loss in 2015 included a $9.6 million goodwill impairment charge as described above. Absent this charge, the remaining $4.7 million loss primarily reflects the impact of significant professional fees, intangible asset amortization, and stock based compensation costs that are not offset by profits generated by the Company’s operating divisions. In particular, losses at the Company’s technology division are due to a lack of meaningful revenue from the Company’s IP monetization efforts, and the lack of significant sales of the Company’s AuthentiGuard product line. Losses in these areas, along with general corporate costs were greater than the profits generated by the Company’s printed products divisions.

During 2014, the Company had a net loss of $41.2 million. The net loss in 2014 was primarily caused by significant asset impairments incurred by the Company’s DSS Technology Management subsidiary as a result of losses in certain of its IP litigation cases and due to recent negative trends in patent litigation. These adverse litigation events significantly reduced the estimated fair values of the underlying IP related assets and investments which caused the Company to record aggregate impairment charges of approximately $37.0 milion of which $4.7 million was attributable to a non-controlling interest.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Company has historically met its liquidity and capital requirements primarily through the sale of its equity securities and debt financings. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had unrestricted cash of approximately $1.4 million. In addition, the Company had $800,000 available to its packaging division under a revolving credit line. As of December 31, 2015, the Company believes that it has sufficient cash to meet its cash requirements for at least the next 12 months. In addition, the Company believes that it will have access to sources of capital from the sale of its equity securities and debt financings.

Operating Cash Flow – During 2015, the Company used approximately $977,000 of cash for operations, which was a 59% reduction from the Company’s use of cash for operations during 2014. The decrease in the cash used for operations primarily reflected the large amount of non-cash based expenses incurred by the Company in 2015 and the significant increase in accounts payable primarily due to reduced periodic payments made on the Company’s professional services vendors.

Investing Cash Flow - During 2015, we used a net of approximately $116,000 for capital improvements, which resulted in a significant reduction of investing cash outflows as compared to 2014. In addition, the Company did not make significant investments in intangible assets during 2015 other than minimal expenditures associated with internally developed pending patents.

Financing Cash Flows - During 2015, the Company paid an aggregate of approximately $939,000 in long-term and short-term debt payments. In addition, during 2015, the Company sold approximately 5.5 million shares of its common stock for net proceeds of approximately $1.1million.

Future Capital Needs -As of December 31, 2015, the Company had approximately $1.4 million in unrestricted cash and $293,000 in restricted cash and up to $800,000 available under a revolving credit line at its packaging subsidiary, which may not be sufficient to cover the Company’s future working capital requirements. The Company believes that its current cash resources and credit line resources provide it with sufficient resources to fund its operations and meet its obligations for at least the next twelve months, provided that the Company achieves or substantially achieves the key factors of its business plan over the next twelve months, including but not limited to (i) increasing sales of the Company’s digital products; (ii) decreasing legal and professional expenses for the Company’s intellectual property monetization business; and (iii) continuing to generate operating profits from the Company’s packaging and plastic printing operations. Furthermore, the Company believes that it will be able to raise additional equity and/or debt funding if necessary, to fund working capital requirements not met by its current cash and credit resources. The Company has been able to obtain equity and/or debt based financing in the past, including most recently when the Company raised gross proceeds of $950,000 in September 2015 and an additional $250,000 in October 2015 from the sale of its equity. However, there is no assurance the Company will be able to raise any funds in the future if necessary.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, an effect on our financial condition, financial statements, revenues or expenses.

Inflation

Although our operations are influenced by general economic conditions, we do not believe that inflation had a material effect on our results of operations during 2015 or 2014 as we are generally able to pass the increase in our material and labor costs to our customers, or absorb them as we improve the efficiency of our operations.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP”) requires management to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. The Company’s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 describe the significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires the Company to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported and disclosed in the financial statements and the accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to the accounts receivable, fair values of intangible assets and goodwill, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, fair values of options and warrants to purchase the Company’s common stock, deferred revenue and income taxes, among others. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities.

Goodwill

Goodwill is the excess of cost of an acquired entity over the fair value of amounts assigned to assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination. Goodwill is subject to impairment testing at least annually and will be tested for impairment between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would indicate the carrying amount may be impaired. FASB ASC Topic 350 provides an entity with the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. If the two-step impairment test is necessary, a fair-value-based test is applied at the reporting unit level, which is generally one level below the operating segment level. The test compares the fair value of an entity’s reporting units to the carrying value of those reporting units. This test requires various judgments and estimates. The Company estimates the fair value of the reporting unit using a market approach in combination with a discounted operating cash flow approach. Impairment of goodwill is measured as the excess of the carrying amount of goodwill over the fair values of recognized and unrecognized assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. An adjustment to goodwill will be recorded for any goodwill that is determined to be impaired. The Company tests goodwill for impairment at least annually in conjunction with preparation of its annual business plan, or more frequently if events or circumstances indicate it might be impaired. FASB ASU 2010-28 modifies Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist.

Other Intangible Assets and Patent Application Costs

Other intangible assets consists of costs associated with the application for patents, acquisition of patents and contractual rights to patents and trade secrets associated with the Company’s technologies. The Company’s patents and trade secrets are generally for document anti-counterfeiting and anti-scanning technologies and processes that form the basis of the Company’s document security business. Patent application costs are capitalized and amortized over the estimated useful life of the patent, which generally approximates its legal life. In addition, intangible assets include customer lists and non-compete agreements obtained as a result of acquisitions. Intangible asset amortization expense is classified as an operating expense. The Company believes that the decision to incur patent costs is discretionary as the associated products or services can be sold prior to or during the application process. The Company accounts for other intangible amortization as an operating expense, unless the underlying asset is directly associated with the production or delivery of a product. Subsequent to acquisition of patents and trade secrets, legal and associated costs incurred in prosecuting alleged infringements of the patents will be recognized as expense when incurred. Costs incurred to renew or extend the term of recognized intangible assets, including patent annuities and fees, and patent defense costs are expensed as incurred. To date, the amount of related amortization expense for other intangible assets directly attributable to revenue recognized is not material.

Contingent Legal Expenses

Contingent legal fees are expensed in the consolidated statements of operations in the period that the related revenues are recognized. In instances where there are no recoveries from potential infringers, no contingent legal fees are paid; however, the Company may be liable for certain out of pocket legal costs incurred pursuant to the underlying legal services agreement that will be paid out from the proceeds from settlements or licenses that arise pursuant to an enforcement action, which will be expensed as legal fees in the period in which the payment of such fees is probable. Any unamortized patent acquisition costs will be expensed in the period in which a conclusion is reached in an enforcement action that does not yield future royalties potential.

Share-Based Payments

We measure compensation cost for stock awards at fair value and recognize compensation expense over the service period for which awards are expected to vest. The Company uses the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model for determining the estimated fair value for stock-based awards. The Black-Scholes-Merton model requires the use of subjective assumptions which determine the fair value of stock-based awards, including the option’s expected term and the price volatility of the underlying stock. For equity instruments issued to consultants and vendors in exchange for goods and services, the Company determines the measurement date for the fair value of the equity instruments issued at the earlier of (i) the date at which a commitment for performance by the consultant or vendor is reached or (ii) the date at which the consultant or vendor’s performance is complete. In the case of equity instruments issued to consultants, the fair value of the equity instrument is recognized over the term of the consulting agreement

Income Taxes

The Company recognizes estimated income taxes payable or refundable on income tax returns for the current year and for the estimated future tax effect attributable to temporary differences and carry-forwards. Measurement of deferred income items is based on enacted tax laws including tax rates, with the measurement of deferred income tax assets being reduced by available tax benefits not expected to be realized. We recognize penalties and accrued interest related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued new accounting guidance on revenue from contracts with customers. The new guidance requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. The updated guidance will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective and permits the use of either a retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company has not yet selected a transition method and its currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, “Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern.” The guidance requires an entity to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued and to provide related footnote disclosures in certain circumstances. The guidance is effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual and interim periods thereafter. Early application is permitted. The Company does not believe the adoption of this ASU will have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, “Interest - Imputation of Interest”, which requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability. The new standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The Company does not believe the adoption of this ASU will have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, “Inventory (Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory.” The guidance requires that certain inventory, including inventory measured using the first-in-first-out method, be measured at the lower of cost or net realizable value. Net realizable value is the estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal, and transportation. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on its consolidatedfinancial statements and related disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB issued an accounting standard update ASU 2016-02, “Leases”, which requires that lease arrangements longer than 12 months result in an entity recognizing an asset and liability. ASU 2016-02 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and early adoption is permitted. The Company has not yet evaluated nor has it determined the effect of the standard on its ongoing financial reporting.

ITEM 7A - QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Not applicable.

ITEM 8 - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Financial Statements

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders

Document Security Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Document Security Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor have we been engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Document Security Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ FREED MAXICK CPAs, P.C.

Buffalo, New York

March 30, 2016

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of December 31,

See accompanying notes.

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss

For the Years Ended December 31,

See accompanying notes.

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the Years Ended December 31,

See accompanying notes.

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity

For the Years Ended December 31, 2015 and 2014

See accompanying notes.

DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1 - DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

Document Security Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), through two of its subsidiaries, Premier Packaging Corporation, which operates under the assumed name of DSS Packaging Group, and Plastic Printing Professionals, Inc., which operates under the assumed name of DSS Plastics Group, operates in the security and commercial printing, packaging and plastic ID markets. The Company develops, markets, manufactures and sells paper and plastic products designed to protect valuable information from unauthorized scanning, copying, and digital imaging. The Company’s subsidiary, Extradev, Inc., which operates under the assumed name of DSS Digital Group, develops, markets and sells digital information services, including data hosting, disaster recovery and data back-up and security services. The Company’s subsidiary, DSS Technology Management, Inc., manages, licenses and acquires intellectual property (“IP”) assets for the purpose of monetizing these assets through a variety of value-enhancing initiatives, including, but not limited to, investments in the development and commercialization of patented technologies, licensing, strategic partnerships and commercial litigation.

NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Principles of Consolidation - The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Document Security System and its subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates - The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires the Company to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported and disclosed in the financial statements and the accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to the accounts receivable, fair values of intangible assets and goodwill, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, fair values of options and warrants to purchase the Company’s common stock, deferred revenue and income taxes, among others. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities.

Reclassifications - Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

Restricted Cash –As of December 31, 2015, cash of $293,043 ($355,793 – December 31, 2014) is restricted for payments of costs and expenses associated with one of the Company’s IP monetization programs.

Accounts Receivable - The Company carries its trade accounts receivable at invoice amount less an allowance for doubtful accounts. On a periodic basis, the Company evaluates its accounts receivable and establishes an allowance for doubtful accounts based upon management’s estimates that include a review of the history of past write-offs and collections and an analysis of current credit conditions. At December 31, 2015, the Company established a reserve for doubtful accounts of approximately $59,000 ($59,000 – 2014). The Company does not accrue interest on past due accounts receivable.

Inventory - Inventories consist primarily of paper, plastic materials and cards, pre-printed security paper, paperboard and fully-prepared packaging which and are stated at the lower of cost or market on the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) method. Packaging work-in-process and finished goods included the cost of materials, direct labor and overhead.

Property, Plant and Equipment - Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives or lease period of the assets whichever is shorter. Expenditures for renewals and betterments are capitalized. Expenditures for minor items, repairs and maintenance are charged to operations as incurred. Any gain or loss upon sale or retirement due to obsolescence is reflected in the operating results in the period the event takes place. Depreciation expense in 2015 was approximately $663,000 ($622,000 - 2014).

Investments –In January and February 2014, DSS Technology Management made investments of $100,000 and $400,000, respectively, to purchase an aggregate of 594,530 shares of common stock of Express Mobile, Inc. (“Express Mobile”), which represented approximately 6% of the outstanding common stock of Express Mobile at the time of investment. Express Mobile is a developer of custom mobile applications and websites. The investments were recorded using the cost method. In December 2015, the Company determined that the investment had been impaired and recognized an impairment loss of $500,000 (See Note 5).

Goodwill -Goodwill is the excess of cost of an acquired entity over the fair value of amounts assigned to assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination. Goodwill is subject to impairment testing at least annually and will be tested for impairment between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would indicate the carrying amount may be impaired. FASB ASC Topic 350 provides an entity with the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. If the two-step impairment test is necessary, a fair-value-based test is applied at the reporting unit level, which is generally one level below the operating segment level. The test compares the fair value of an entity’s reporting units to the carrying value of those reporting units. This test requires various judgments and estimates. The Company estimates the fair value of the reporting unit using a market approach in combination with a discounted operating cash flow approach. Impairment of goodwill is measured as the excess of the carrying amount of goodwill over the fair values of recognized and unrecognized assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. An adjustment to goodwill will be recorded for any goodwill that is determined to be impaired. The Company tests goodwill for impairment at least annually in conjunction with preparation of its annual business plan, or more frequently if events or circumstances indicate it might be impaired. FASB ASU 2010-28 modifies Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist (See Note 6).

Other Intangible Assets and Patent Application Costs - Other intangible assets consist of costs associated with the application for patents, acquisition of patents and contractual rights to patents and trade secrets associated with the Company’s technologies. The Company’s patents and trade secrets are generally for document anti-counterfeiting and anti-scanning technologies and processes that form the basis of the Company’s document security business. Patent application costs are capitalized and amortized over the estimated useful life of the patent, which generally approximates its legal life. In addition, intangible assets include customer lists and non-compete agreements obtained as a result of acquisitions. Intangible asset amortization expense is classified as an operating expense. The Company believes that the decision to incur patent costs is discretionary as the associated products or services can be sold prior to or during the application process. The Company accounts for other intangible amortization as an operating expense, unless the underlying asset is directly associated with the production or delivery of a product. Subsequent to acquisition of patents and trade secrets, legal and associated costs incurred in prosecuting alleged infringements of the patents will be recognized as expense when incurred. Costs incurred to renew or extend the term of recognized intangible assets, including patent annuities and fees, and patent defense costs are expensed as incurred. To date, the amount of related amortization expense for other intangible assets directly attributable to revenue recognized is not material.

Impairment of Long Lived 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 (See Note 6).

Fair Value of Financial Instruments - Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The Fair Value Measurement Topic of the FASB ASC establishes a three-tier fair value hierarchy which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). These tiers include:

The carrying amounts reported in the balance sheet of cash, accounts receivable, prepaids, notes receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate fair value because of the immediate or short-term maturity of these financial instruments. The fair value of revolving credit lines, notes payable and long-term debt approximates their carrying value as the stated or discounted rates of the debt reflect recent market conditions. Derivative instruments, as discussed below, are recorded as assets and liabilities at estimated fair value based on available market information. At December 31, 2014, the Company’s convertible note payable was recorded at its face amount, net of an unamortized premium for a beneficial conversion feature and had an estimated fair value of approximately $117,000 based on the underlying shares the note could be converted into at the trading price on December 31, 2014. Since the underlying shares were trading in an active, observable market, the fair value measurement qualified as a Level 1 input. As included in Note 7, the conversion feature associated with this note was removed during 2015.

Derivative Instruments - The Company maintains an overall interest rate risk management strategy that incorporates the use of interest rate swap contracts to minimize significant fluctuations in earnings that are caused by interest rate volatility. The Company has two interest rate swaps that change variable rates into fixed rates on two term loans. These swaps qualify as Level 2 fair value financial instruments. These swap agreements are not held for trading purposes and the Company does not intend to sell the derivative swap financial instruments. The Company records the interest swap agreements on the balance sheet at fair value because the agreements qualify as a cash flow hedges under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Gains and losses on these instruments are recorded in other comprehensive loss until the underlying transaction is recorded in earnings. When the hedged item is realized, gains or losses are reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss (“AOCI”) to the consolidated statement of operations on the same line item as the underlying transaction. The valuations of the interest rate swaps have been derived from proprietary models of Citizens based upon recognized financial principles and reasonable estimates about relevant future market conditions and may reflect certain other financial factors such as anticipated profit or hedging, transactional, and other costs. The notional amounts of the swaps decrease over the life of the agreements. The Company is exposed to a credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counter parties to the interest rate swap agreements. However, the Company does not anticipate non-performance by the counter parties. The cumulative net loss attributable to this cash flow hedge recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss and other liabilities as of December 31, 2015 were approximately $64,000 ($61,000 - December 31, 2014).

The Company has an interest rate swap with Citizens that changes the variable rate on a term loan to a fixed rate as follows:

Conventional Convertible Debt - When the convertible feature of a conventional convertible debt provides for a rate of conversion that is below market value, this feature is characterized as a beneficial conversion feature (“BCF”). Prior to the determination of the BCF, the proceeds from the debt instrument are first allocated between the convertible debt and any detachable free standing instruments that are included, such as common stock warrants. The Company records a BCF as a debt discount pursuant to FASB ASC Topic 470-20. In those circumstances, the convertible debt will be recorded net of the discount related to the BCF. The Company amortizes the discount to interest expense over the life of the debt using the effective interest method.

Share-Based Payments - Compensation cost for stock awards are measured at fair value and the Company recognizes compensation expense over the service period for which awards are expected to vest. The Company uses the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model for determining the estimated fair value for stock-based awards. The Black-Scholes-Merton model requires the use of subjective assumptions which determine the fair value of stock-based awards, including the option’s expected term and the price volatility of the underlying stock. For equity instruments issued to consultants and vendors in exchange for goods and services the Company determines the measurement date for the fair value of the equity instruments issued at the earlier of (i) the date at which a commitment for performance by the consultant or vendor is reached or (ii) the date at which the consultant or vendor’s performance is complete. In the case of equity instruments issued to consultants, the fair value of the equity instrument is recognized over the term of the consulting agreement.

Revenue Recognition - Sales of printed products including commercial and security printing, packaging, and plastic cards are recognized when a product or service is delivered, shipped or provided to the customer and all material conditions relating to the sale have been substantially performed.

For technology sales and services, revenue is recognized in accordance with FASB ASC 985-605. Accordingly, revenue is recognized when all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement; (2) the service or product has been provided to the customer; (3) the amount of fees to be paid by the customer is fixed or determinable; and (4) the collection of our fees is reasonably assured. We recognize cloud computing revenue, including data backup, recovery and security services, on a monthly basis, beginning on the date the customer commences use of our services. Professional services are recognized in the period services are provided.

For printing technology licenses, revenue is recognized once all the following criteria for revenue recognition have been met: (1) persuasive evidence of an agreement exists; (2) the right and ability to use the product or technology has been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed and determinable and not subject to refund or adjustment; and (4) collection of the amounts due is reasonably assured.

For other technology licenses, revenue arrangements generally provide for the payment of contractually determined fees in consideration for the grant of certain intellectual property rights for patented technologies owned or controlled by the Company. These rights typically include some combination of the following: (i) the grant of a non-exclusive, retroactive and future license to manufacture and/or sell products covered by patented technologies owned or controlled the Company, (ii) a covenant-not-to-sue, (iii) the release of the licensee from certain claims, and (iv) the dismissal of any pending litigation. The intellectual property rights granted may be perpetual in nature, extending until the expiration of the related patents, or can be granted for a defined, relatively short period of time, with the licensee possessing the right to renew the agreement at the end of each contractual term for an additional minimum upfront payment. Pursuant to the terms of these agreements, the Company has no further obligation with respect to the grant of the non-exclusive retroactive and future licenses, covenants-not-to-sue, releases, and other deliverables, including no express or implied obligation on the Company’s part to maintain or upgrade the technology, or provide future support or services. Generally, the agreements provide for the grant of the licenses, covenants-not-to-sue, releases, and other significant deliverables upon execution of the agreement, or upon receipt of the minimum upfront payment for term agreement renewals. As such, the earnings process is complete and revenue is recognized upon the execution of the agreement, when collectability is reasonably assured, or upon receipt of the minimum upfront fee for term agreement renewals, and when all other revenue recognition criteria have been met.

Certain of the Company’s revenue arrangements provide for future royalties or additional required payments based on future licensee activities. Additional royalties are recognized in revenue upon resolution of the related contingency provided that all revenue recognition criteria, as described above, have been met. Amounts of additional royalties due under these license agreements, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated by management.

Costs of revenue - Costs of revenue includes all direct cost of the Company’s packaging, commercial and security printing and plastic ID card sales, primarily, paper, plastic, inks, dies, and other consumables, and direct labor, transportation and manufacturing facility costs. In addition, this category includes all direct costs associated with the Company’s technology sales, services and licensing including hardware and software that is resold, third-party fees, and fees paid to inventors or others as a result of technology licenses or settlements, if any. Costs of revenue recorded in the DSS Technology Management group include contingent legal fees, inventor royalties, legal, consulting and other professional fees directly related to the Company’s patent monetization, litigation and licensing activities. Amortization of patent costs and acquired technology are included in depreciation and amortization on the consolidated statement of operations. Costs of revenue do not include expenses related to product development, integration, and support. These costs are included in research and development, which is a component of selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statement of operations. Legal costs are included in selling, general and administrative.

Contingent Legal Expenses - Contingent legal fees are expensed in the consolidated statements of operations in the period that the related revenues are recognized. In instances where there are no recoveries from potential infringers, no contingent legal fees are paid; however, the Company may be liable for certain out of pocket legal costs incurred pursuant to the underlying legal services agreement that will be paid out from the proceeds from settlements or licenses that arise pursuant to an enforcement action, which will be expensed as legal fees in the period in which the payment of such fees is probable. Any unamortized patent acquisition costs will be expensed in the period a conclusion is reached in an enforcement action that does not yield future royalties potential.

Advertising Costs – Generally consist of online, keyword advertising with Google with additional amounts spent on certain print media in targeted industry publications. Advertising costs were approximately $25,000 in 2015 ($39,000– 2014).

Research and Development - Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development costs consist primarily of compensation costs for research personnel, third-party research costs, and consulting costs. The Company spent approximately $470,000 and $462,000 on research and development during 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Income Taxes - The Company recognizes estimated income taxes payable or refundable on income tax returns for the current year and for the estimated future tax effect attributable to temporary differences and carry-forwards. Measurement of deferred income items is based on enacted tax laws including tax rates, with the measurement of deferred income tax assets being reduced by available tax benefits not expected to be realized. We recognize penalties and accrued interest related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.

Earnings Per Common Share - The Company presents basic and diluted earnings per share. Basic earnings per share reflect the actual weighted average of shares issued and outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share are computed including the number of additional shares that would have been outstanding if dilutive potential shares had been issued. In a loss year, the calculation for basic and diluted earnings per share is considered to be the same, as the impact of potential common shares is anti-dilutive.

As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, there were 11,874,620 and 12,019,194, respectively, of common stock share equivalents potentially issuable under convertible debt agreements, employment agreements, options, warrants, and restricted stock agreements that could potentially dilute basic earnings per share in the future. Common stock equivalents were excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share for 2015 and 2014 in which the Company had a net loss, since their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.

Comprehensive Loss - Comprehensive loss is defined as the change in equity of the Company during a period from transactions and other events and circumstances from non-owner sources. It consists of net income (loss) and other income and losses affecting stockholders’ equity that, under U.S. GAAP, are excluded from net income (loss). The change in fair value of interest rate swaps was the only item impacting accumulated other comprehensive loss for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Concentration of Credit Risk - The Company maintains its cash in bank deposit accounts, which at times may exceed federally insured limits. The Company believes it is not exposed to any significant credit risk as a result of any non-performance by the financial institutions.

During 2015, two customers accounted for 35% of the Company’s consolidated revenue. As of December 31, 2015, these two customers accounted for 27% of the Company’s trade accounts receivable balance. During 2014, these same two customers accounted for 40% of the Company’s consolidated revenue. As of December 31, 2014, these two customers accounted for 25% of the Company’s trade accounts receivable balance.

Continuing Operations - The Company has incurred significant net losses in previous years and in 2015. The Company’s ability to fund its current and future commitments out of its available cash and cash generated from its operations depends on a number of factors. Some of these factors include the Company’s ability to (i) increase sales of the Company’s digital products; (ii) decrease legal and professional expenses for the Company’s intellectual property monetization business; and (iii) continue to generate operating profits from the Company’s packaging and plastic printing operations. During 2015, the Company raised gross proceeds $1.1 million from the sale of its equity. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had approximately $1,440,000 in unrestricted cash and $293,000 in restricted cash and up to $800,000 available under a revolving credit line at its packaging subsidiary, which may not be sufficient to cover the Company’s future working capital requirements if these and other factors are not met. If the Company cannot generate sufficient cash from its operations, the Company may need to raise additional funds in the future in order to fund its working capital needs and pursue its growth strategy, although there can be no assurances, management believes that sources for these additional funds will be available through either current or future investors.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements - In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-9, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers”. The guidance requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. The updated guidance will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective and permits the use of either a retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company has not yet selected a transition method and its currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, “Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern.” The guidance requires an entity to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued and to provide related footnote disclosures in certain circumstances. The guidance is effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual and interim periods thereafter. Early application is permitted. The Company does not believe the adoption of this ASU will have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, “Interest - Imputation of Interest”, which requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability. The new standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The Company does not believe the adoption of this ASU will have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, “Inventory (Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory.” The guidance requires that certain inventory, including inventory measured using the first-in-first-out method, be measured at the lower of cost or net realizable value. Net realizable value is the estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal, and transportation. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, “Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes”, which simplifies the presentation of deferred income taxes by requiring deferred tax assets and liabilities be classified as noncurrent on the balance sheet. The guidance becomes effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted. The Company applied this guidance to its current fiscal years ending December 31, 2015 and 2014. The adoption of this guidance had no material impact on the results of operations or financial position. Certain prior year deferred tax assets or liabilities have been reclassified to conform with the current year presentation.

In February 2016, the FASB issued an accounting standard update ASU 2016-02, “Leases”, which requires that lease arrangements longer than 12 months result in an entity recognizing an asset and liability. ASU 2016-02 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and early adoption is permitted. The Company has not yet evaluated nor has it determined the effect of the standard on its ongoing financial reporting.

NOTE 3 – INVENTORY

Inventory consisted of the following at December 31:

NOTE 4 - PROPERTY PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

Property, plant and equipment consisted of the following at December 31:

⁽¹⁾ Expected lease term between 3 and 10 years.

NOTE 5 — INVESTMENTS

During 2014 and 2013 DSS Technology Management made a series of investments in VirtualAgility, Inc. (“VirtualAgility”), a developer of programming platforms that facilitate the creation of business applications without programming or coding. The initial investment consisted of a $200,000 non-recourse note plus an equity stake of 1/8 of 7% of the outstanding common stock of VirtualAgility, for a total cash investment of $250,000. The non-recourse note is eligible for a preferred return of $1,250,000, plus a variable return of 1.875% based on gross proceeds, if any, derived from VirtualAgility’s patent portfolio. In addition, VirtualAgility granted DSS Technology Management a total of seven additional options to make additional quarterly investments of $250,000 apiece, under the same terms as the first investment. If all of such options are exercised, DSS Technology Management will have invested an aggregate of $2,000,000, consisting of $1,600,000 in non-recourse notes that would be eligible for an aggregate preferred return of $10,000,000 plus up to 15% of variable returns and, based on the current capitalization of VirtualAgility, DSS Technology Management would also own approximately 7% of the outstanding common stock of VirtualAgility. In May 2013, DSS Technology Management created a subsidiary called VirtualAgility Technology Investment, LLC (“VATI”) and transferred its ownership of the VirtualAgility investment and future investment options to VATI. Also in May 2013, a third-party investor became a 40% member of VATI. In exchange, the investor contributed $250,000 into VATI which was used to exercise one of the investment options in VirtualAgility per the terms described above. As of July 1, 2013, DSS Technology Management owned 60% of VATI. In conjunction with its acquisition accounting, the Company assessed the fair value of the VirtualAgility investment, including the expected exercise of future investment options as of the acquisition date, at approximately $10,750,000, which became the cost basis of the investment as of July 1, 2013. In August 2013, the Company contributed $250,000 into VATI which used the funds to make an additional investment in VirtualAgility per the terms described above. In November 2013, the other member of VATI contributed $250,000 into VATI which used the funds to make an additional investment in VirtualAgility per the terms described above. On February 14, 2014, DSS Technology Management contributed $250,000 into VATI which used the funds to make an additional investment in VirtualAgility per the terms described above. In May 2014, the other member of VATI contributed $250,000 into VATI which used the funds to make an additional investment in VirtualAgility per the terms described above. As of June 30, 2014, VATI owned 657,119 shares of common stock of VirtualAgility. As of June 30, 2014, investment in VATI was approximately $11,750,000 and DSS Technology Management owned 60% of VATI.

VirtualAgility was the plaintiff in a patent infringement lawsuit against Salesforce.com, Inc. et al. In May of 2014, Salesforce.Com, Inc. filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) requesting covered business method patent review of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,413 B1, which was the patent being asserted by VirtualAgility in the lawsuit (the “413 Patent”), alleging that claims 1-21 of the 413 Patent are unpatentable. On September 16, 2014, the PTAB issued a written decision holding that challenged claims 1-21 of the 413 Patent are unpatentable, and also denied VirtualAgility’s contingent motion to amend the challenged claims. As a result of the PTAB’s decision, the Company estimated that its investment in VATI was impaired and as a result, the Company recorded an impairment of its investment in the gross amount of approximately $11,750,000 of which 40%, or $4,700,000 of such investment was attributable to a noncontrolling interest, which equated to a net impairment charge during the third quarter of 2014 of approximately $7,050,000. In June 2015, pursuant to a confidential Stock Redemption and Settlement Agreement, VATI sold its entire ownership interest in VirtualAgility to VirtualAgility for $200,000.

In January and February 2014, DSS Technology Management made investments of $100,000 and $400,000, respectively, to purchase an aggregate of 594,530 shares of common stock of Express Mobile, Inc. (“Express Mobile”), which represented approximately 6% of the outstanding common stock of Express Mobile at the time of investment. Express Mobile is a developer of custom mobile applications and websites. The investments were recorded using the cost method. In accordance with paragraphs 16 through 19 of FASB ASC 825-10-50 the Company determined that it is not practicable to estimate the fair value of these investments since Express Mobile is a privately-held company that is not subject to the same disclosure regulations as U.S. public companies, and as such, the basis for an estimated fair value is subject to the completeness, quality, timing and accuracy of data received from Express Mobile. In December 2015, based on discussions with Express Mobile management and the Company’s understanding of the status of Express Mobile’s business, the Company determined that the investment was impaired and recognized an impairment loss of $500,000.

NOTE 6 - INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND GOODWILL

During 2015 and 2014, the Company spent approximately $5,000 and $94,000, respectively, on patent application costs. In 2014, the Company spent $1,150,000 on patent acquisitions.

On July 8, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, DSS Technology Management, purchased two patents for $500,000 covering certain methods and processes related to Bluetooth devices. In conjunction with the patent purchases, DSS Technology Management entered into a Proceed Right Agreement with certain investors pursuant to which DSS Technology Management initially received $250,000 of a total of $750,000 which it will ultimately receive thereunder, subject to certain payment milestones, in exchange for 40% of the proceeds which it receives, if any, from the use, sale or licensing of the two patents. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had received an aggregate of $650,000 ($650,000 in 2014) from the investors pursuant to the agreement of which approximately $551,000 was in accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet ($603,000 as December 31, 2014).

On May 23, 2014, the Company’s subsidiary, DSS Technology Management, purchased 115 patents covering certain methods and processes in the semiconductor industry for $1,150,000.

On January 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision granting summary judgment to defendant Facebook, Inc. in connection with a lawsuit filed on October 3, 2012 by plaintiff Bascom Research, LLC (a subsidiary of the Company) alleging patent infringement. As a result of the Court’s decision, the Company evaluated the valuation of the patents that were the basis of the case for impairment as of December 31, 2014. The Company determined that since the patents had been invalidated the probability of future cash flows derived from the patents that would support the value of the assets had decreased so that the assets had been impaired. As a result, the Company recorded an impairment charge for the underlying patent assets of the net book value of the patents as of December 31, 2014 of approximately $22,285,000.

Intangible assets are comprised of the following:

Amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2015 amounted to approximately $896,000 ($4,653,000 –2014).

Approximate expected amortization for each of the five succeeding fiscal years is as follows:

Goodwill

The Company performed its annual goodwill impairment test as of December 31, 2015. The Company performed the first step of the goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of each of its reporting units with their carrying amounts including goodwill. In performing this step, the Company determined estimates of fair value using a discounted cash flow model for each of its reporting units. The Company determined that its Packaging and Plastic reporting units each had fair values in excess of their carrying value and therefore, did not have an indication of goodwill impairment. The Company determined that its DSS Technology Management reporting unit had a negative carrying value as a result of the liabilities exceeding the assets and as a result was required to perform a Step 2 goodwill test. In performing step two of the goodwill impairment test, the Company compared the carrying value of its Technology Management goodwill to its implied fair value. For the Company’s technology reporting unit for which a significant amount of future value is based on the value of patents and patent rights, the Company uses a valuation methodology that assesses the potential value of claims against parties the Company believes have infringed on the patents and therefore, the Company has the right to receive royalties from those infringers. The Company uses its best estimates to determine the amount and timing of royalties that would be due from each potential infringing party based on the estimated scope of usage of the patented technology by each potential infringing party. Furthermore, the Company uses discount factors to take into account the potential of settlements at various stages of a typical patent infringement court case depending on the stage of each of the Company’s infringement proceedings. During the Company’s annual assessment of goodwill in 2015, the Company considered the negative trends in patent litigation which have reduced the success of patent owners in protecting their patents in the federal court system, among other factors. In performing Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test, the Company determined the carrying amount of the goodwill exceeded the implied fair value of the goodwill by $9,600,000, and accordingly recorded approximately $9,600,000 of a goodwill impairment charge to the goodwill assigned to its DSS Technology Management division.

During the Company’s annual assessment of goodwill in 2014, the Company assessed that the negative trends in patent litigation that have reduced the success of patent owners in protecting their patents in the federal court system had impairment the Company’s goodwill assigned to its DSS Technology Management division and accordingly, the Company recorded a $3,000,000 goodwill impairment charge to the goodwill assigned to its DSS Technology Management division.

There are inherent assumptions and estimates used in developing future cash flows requiring management’s judgment in applying these assumptions and estimates to the analysis of identifiable intangibles and asset impairment including projecting revenues, timing and amount of claim or settlements related to patent infringement cases, royalty rates, interest rates, and the cost of capital. Many of the factors used in assessing fair value are outside the Company’s control and it is reasonably likely that assumptions and estimates will change in future periods. These changes can result in future impairments.

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 are as follows:

NOTE 7 – SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM DEBT

Revolving Credit Lines - The Company’s subsidiary Premier Packaging Corporation (“Premier Packaging”) has a revolving credit line with Citizens Bank of up to $800,000 that bears interest at 1 Month LIBOR plus 3.75% (3.99% as of December 31, 2015) and matures on May 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the revolving line had a balance of $0.

Long-Term Debt - On December 30, 2011, the Company issued a $575,000 convertible note that was initially due on December 29, 2013, and carries an interest rate of 10% per annum. Interest is payable quarterly, in arrears. In conjunction with the issuance of the convertible note, the Company determined a beneficial conversion feature existed amounting to approximately $88,000, which was recorded as a debt discount to be amortized over the term of the note. On May 24, 2013, the Company amended the convertible note to extend the maturity date of the note from December 29, 2013 to December 29, 2015. The change in the fair value of the embedded conversion option exceeded 10% of the carrying value of the original debt and, therefore, the Company accounted for this restructuring as an extinguishment in accordance with FASB ASC 470-50 “Debt Modifications and Extinguishments”. The note was written up to its fair value on the date of modification of approximately $650,000 and the premium recorded in excess of its face value was amortized over the remaining life of the note. On February 23, 2015, the Company entered into Convertible Promissory Note Amendment No. 2 to extend the maturity date to December 30, 2016, eliminate the conversion feature, and to institute principal payments in the amount of $15,000 per month plus interest through the extended maturity date, and a balloon payment of $230,000 due on the extended maturity date. As of December 31, 2015, the balance of the term loan was $410,000 ($604,000 at December 31, 2014).

On May 24, 2013, the Company entered into a promissory note in the principal sum of $850,000 to purchase three printing presses that were previously leased by the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Secuprint Inc., and carries an interest rate of 9% per annum. Interest is payable quarterly, in arrears. The Company also issued the lender as additional consideration a five-year warrant to purchase up to 60,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share. The warrant was valued at approximately $69,000 using the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model with a volatility of 60.0%, a risk free rate of return of 0.89% and zero dividend and forfeiture estimates. In conjunction with the issuance of the warrants, the Company recorded a discount on debt of approximately $69,000 that was amortized over the original term of the note. The note was set to mature on May 24, 2014, but its maturity date was extended on May 2, 2014 to May 24, 2015 by the lender. In exchange for the extension, the Company also issued the lender as additional consideration a five-year warrant to purchase up to 40,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share. The warrant was valued at approximately $29,000 using the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model with a volatility of 70.0%, a risk free rate of return of 1.53% and zero dividend and forfeiture estimates. In conjunction with the issuance of the warrants, the Company recorded expense for modification of debt of approximately $29,000. On February 23, 2015, the Company entered into Promissory Note Amendment No. 2 to extend the maturity date to May 31, 2016 and to institute principal payments in the amount of $15,000 per month plus interest through the extended maturity date, and a balloon payment of $610,000 due on the extended maturity date. As of December 31, 2015, the balance of the term loan was $685,000 ($850,000 at December 31, 2014).

Term Loan Debt - On February 12, 2010, in conjunction with the credit facility agreement with Citizens Bank, Premier Packaging entered into a term loan with Citizens Bank for $1,500,000. As amended on July 26, 2011, the term loan requires monthly principal payments of $25,000 plus interest through maturity in February 2015. Interest accrues at 1 Month LIBOR plus 3.75% (3.99% at December 31, 2014). The Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement to lock into a 5.7% effective interest rate over the remaining life of the amended term loan. As of December 31, 2015, the balance of the term loan was $0 ($50,000 at December 31, 2014).

On October 8, 2010, Premier Packaging amended its credit facility agreement with Citizens Bank to add a standby term loan note pursuant to which Citizens Bank was to provide Premier Packaging with up to $450,000 towards the funding of eligible equipment purchases for up to one year. In October 2011, the Company had borrowed $42,594 under the facility which amount was converted into a term note payable in 60 monthly installments of $887 plus interest at 1 Month LIBOR plus 3% (3.24% at December 31, 2015). As of December 31, 2015, the balance under this term note was $8,874 ($19,522 at December 31, 2014).

On July 19, 2013, Premier Packaging entered into an equipment loan with People’s Capital and Leasing Corp. (“Peoples Capital”) for a printing press. The loan was for $1,303,900, repayable over a 60-month period which commenced when the equipment was placed in service in January 2014. The loan bears interest at 4.84% and is payable in equal monthly installments of $24,511. As of December 31, 2015, the loan had a balance of $819,681 ($1,067,586 at December 31, 2014).

On April 28, 2015, Premier Packaging entered into a term note with Citizens for $525,000, repayable over a 60-month period. The loan bears interest at 3.61% and is payable in equal monthly installments of $9,591. Premier Packaging used the proceeds of the term note to acquire a HP Indigo 7800 Digital press. As of December 31, 2015, the loan had a balance of $460,448.

Promissory Notes - On August 30, 2011, Premier Packaging purchased the packaging plant it occupies in Victor, New York, for $1,500,000, which was partially financed with a $1,200,000 promissory note obtained from Citizens Bank (“Promissory Note”). The Promissory Note calls for monthly payments of principal and interest in the amount of $7,658, with interest calculated as 1 Month LIBOR plus 3.15% (3.39% at December 31, 2015). Concurrently with the transaction, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement to lock into a 5.87% effective interest rate for the life of the loan. The Promissory Note matures in August 2021 at which time a balloon payment of the remaining principal balance will be due. As of December 31, 2015, the Promissory Note had a balance of $1,021,926 ($1,078,220 at December 31, 2014).

On December 6, 2013, Premier Packaging entered into a Construction to Permanent Loan with Citizens Bank for up to $450,000 that was converted into a promissory note upon the completion and acceptance of building improvements to the Company’s packaging plant in Victor, New York. In May 2014, the Company converted the loan into a $450,000 note payable in monthly installments over a 5 year period of $2,500 plus interest calculated at a variable rate of 1 Month Libor plus 3.15% (3.39% at December 31, 2015), which payments commenced on July 1, 2014. The note matures in July 2019 at which time a balloon payment of the remaining principal balance of $300,000 is due. As of December 31, 2015, the note had a balance of $405,247 ($435,000 –December 31, 2014).

Under the Citizens Bank credit facilities, the Company’s subsidiary, Premier Packaging, is subject to various covenants including fixed charge coverage ratio, tangible net worth and current ratio covenants. For the quarters ended March 31, 2015, June 30, 2015, September 30, 2015, and December 31, 2015, Premier Packaging was in compliance with the covenants. The Citizens Bank obligations are secured by all of the assets of Premier Packaging and are also secured through cross guarantees by the Company and its other wholly-owned subsidiaries, Plastic Printing Professionals and Secuprint.

A summary of scheduled principal payments of long-term debt, not including revolving lines of credit and other debt which can be settled with non-monetary assets, subsequent to December 31, 2015 are as follows:

Other Debt -On February 13, 2014, the Company’s subsidiary, DSS Technology Management, Inc. (the “Company”), entered into an Investment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated February 13, 2014 (the “Effective Date”) with Fortress Credit Co LLC, as collateral agent (the “Collateral Agent”), and certain investors (the “Investors”), pursuant to which the Company contracted to receive a series of advances up to $4,500,000 (collectively, the “Advances”). Under the terms of the Agreement, on the Effective Date, the Company issued and sold a promissory note in the amount of $1,791,000, fixed return equity interests in the amount of $199,000, and contingent equity interests in the amount of $10,000, to each of the Investors, and in return received $2,000,000 in proceeds. To secure the Advances, the Company placed a lien in favor of the Investors on ten semi-conductor patents (the “Patents”) and assigned to the Investors certain funds recoverable from successful patent litigation involving these Patents, including settlement payments, license fees and royalties on the Patents. The Company is a plaintiff in various ongoing patent infringement lawsuits involving certain of the Patents.

On March 27, 2014, the Company received an additional $1,000,000 under the Agreement comprised of a promissory note of $900,000 was promissory note and fixed return interests on $100,000. On September 5, 2014, the Company received the remaining $1,500,000 under the Agreement comprised of a promissory note of $900,000 was promissory note and fixed return interests on $100,000. In September 2015, the Company made a payment of $150,000 on the note. As of December 31, 2015, total Advances equaled $4,350,000, which consisted of $3,891,000 under the Agreement and an aggregate of $459,000 under the fixed return equity interest and contingent equity interests. Aggregate accrued interest totaled $132,000 as of December 31, 2015 ($48,000 as of December 31, 2014).

The Agreement defines certain Events of Default, one of which is the failure by the Company, on or before the second anniversary of the Effective Date, which was February 13, 2016, to make payments to the Investors equal to the outstanding Advances. On February 13, 2016, the Company failed to make these payments.

Under the Agreement, upon an Event of Default, the Collateral Agent and the Investors have a number of remedies, including rights related to foreclosure or direct monetization of the Patents. As a result of the Event of Default discussed above, the sole and exclusive recourse of the Investors and the Collateral Agent is to form a special purpose entity to take possession of the Patents, subject to a perpetual, non-transferable, non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license back to the Company. The Agreement further provides that, in the case of this default, the Collateral Agent and Investors will not, individually or collectively, seek to enforce any monetary judgment with respect to or against any assets of the Company other than the Patents and any payments received in respect of the Patents, including settlement payments, license fees and royalties on the Patents. In the event that the Collateral Agent or Investors foreclose on, and take possession of the Patents, the Company will still be entitled to receive any payments received in respect of the Patents in the event of a recovery by any substituted plaintiff in any related litigation proceedings, subject to payment of amounts owed under the Agreement to the Investors and the Collateral Agent. In addition, as a result of the default, the interest rate on the unpaid amounts due increased to 2% per year effective February 13, 2016.

As a result of the event of default, the Company has classified the remainder of the amounts due on the notes of approximately $4,023,000 as short-term debt as of December 31, 2015. The Company has been in discussions with the investors to amend the Agreement or otherwise to remedy the event of default; however, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate success of these discussions.

NOTE 8 - STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Sales of Equity - Between September 15, 2015 and September 24, 2015, the Company entered into securities purchase agreements with certain accredited investors for the sale of an aggregate of 4,318,181 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.22 per share, for a total purchase price of $950,000. In addition to the common stock, the purchasers received four-year warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 863,638 additional shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share and for a term of four years after the first six months from the warrant’s issuance date. The warrants had an estimated aggregate fair value of approximately $105,000 which was determined by utilizing the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model with a volatility of 81.4%, a risk free rate of return between of 1.45% and 1.60%, and zero dividend and forfeiture estimates. Between October 5, 2015 and October 21, 2015, the Company entered into securities purchase agreements with certain accredited investors for the sale of an aggregate of 1,136,363 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.22 per share, for a total purchase price of $250,000. In addition to the common stock, the purchasers received four-year warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 227,273 additional shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share and for a term of four years after the first six months from the warrant’s issuance date. The warrants had an estimated aggregate fair value of approximately $28,000 which was determined by utilizing the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model with a volatility of 81.4%, a risk free rate of return between of 1.35% and 1.36%, and zero dividend and forfeiture estimates.

The securities offered were made pursuant to prospectus supplements to the prospectus dated November 1, 2013, pursuant to the Company’s shelf registration statement on Form S-3 that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2013 and became effective on November 1, 2013. The offering closed on December 31, 2015. No placement agent or underwriter was involved in the offering.

On February 23, 2015, the Company amended two of its debt obligations that, among other things, extended the maturity dates of the notes, instituted principal payments for the notes, and eliminated a conversion feature on one of the notes. In conjunction with these agreements, the Company issued an aggregate of 100,000 shares of its common stock with a grant date fair value of $41,000.

Stock Warrants – The Company issued warrants to purchase 1,090,911 shares of the Company’s common stock as part of its offering to accredited investors from September 15, 2015 through October 21, 2015, at an exercise price of $0.40 per share.

The following is a summary with respect to warrants outstanding and exercisable at December 31, 2015 and 2014 and activity during the years then ended:

Stock Options - On June 20, 2013 the Company’s shareholders adopted the 2013 Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan (the “2013 Plan”). The 2013 Plan provides for the issuance of up to a total of 6,000,000 shares of common stock authorized to be issued for grants of options, restricted stock and other forms of equity to employees, directors and consultants. Under the terms of the 2013 Plan, options granted thereunder may be designated as options which qualify for incentive stock option treatment (“ISOs”) under Section 422A of the Internal Revenue Code, or options which do not qualify (“NQSOs”).

The following is a summary with respect to options outstanding at December 31, 2015 and 2014 and activity during the years then ended:

Included in these amounts are earn-out options issued to the previous owners of ExtraDev with a contractual term of 5 years, to purchase an aggregate of 450,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $4.50 per share that will be vested if the Company’s Digital division achieves certain annual revenue targets by the end of fiscal year 2016. The fair value of the earn-out options amounted to $594,000. If the annual revenue targets are met or are deemed probable to occur, then the Company will record stock based compensation expense. As of December 31, 2015, vesting is considered remote. All options granted to the owners of ExtraDev were classified as compensation for post combination services since the vesting of each grant is based on length of employment, with all unvested options forfeiting upon termination of employment, therefore, the fair value of these equity instruments was not considered a component of the purchase price of the ExtraDev acquisition.

The weighted-average grant date fair value of options granted during the year ended December 31, 2015 was $0.12 ($0.71 -2014). The aggregate grant date fair value of options that vested during the year was approximately $988,000 ($1,145,000 -2014). There were no options exercised during 2015 or 2014.

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant utilizing the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model. The Company estimated the expected volatility of the Company’s common stock at the grant date using the historical volatility of the Company’s common stock over the most recent period equal to the expected stock option term. In January 2015, the Company issued an aggregate of 53,550 options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock with an exercise price of $0.60 per share to certain members of the Company’s board in exchange for agreements by the board members to reduce their cash compensation for the fiscal year of 2015. The options vested on August 15, 2015 and had an aggregate grant date fair value of approximately $6,000. The aggregate fair value of these options was determined by utilizing the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model with a volatility of 72.6%, a risk free rate of return of 1.66% and zero dividend and forfeiture estimates.

On March 5, 2014, the Company issued an aggregate of 1,138,697 options to purchase the Company’s common stock at $2.00 per share with a term of 5 years to its employees covered under the 2013 Plan. The options vest pro-ratably as follows: 1/3 on the grant date, 1/3 on the first anniversary of the grant date and 1/3 on the second anniversary of the grant date as long as the employee is employed on such dates. The options were valued at approximately $833,000 using the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model with a volatility of 67.0%, a risk free rate of return of 0.92% and zero dividend and forfeiture estimates. On March 13, 2014, the Company issued an aggregate of 84,025 shares of common stock to three of its directors to pay approximately $134,000 of accrued director’s fees. In December 2014, the Company issued 33,500 options to purchase the Company’s common stock at $0.60 per share with a term of 5 years to members of the Company’s executive management in exchange for an agreement by each employee to reduce his cash compensation for the fiscal year of 2015. The options vested on August 15, 2015 and had a grant date fair value of $6,643. The options were valued using the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model with a volatility of 72.6%, a risk free rate of return of 1.66% and zero dividend and forfeiture estimates.

The following table shows our weighted average assumptions used to compute the share-based compensation expense for stock options and warrants granted during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Restricted Stock - Restricted common stock may be issued under the Company’s 2013 Plan for services to be rendered which may not be sold, transferred or pledged for such period as determined by our Compensation Committee and Management Resources. Restricted stock compensation cost is measured as the stock’s fair value based on the quoted market price at the date of grant. The restricted shares issued reduce the amount available under the employee stock option plans. Compensation cost is recognized only on restricted shares that will ultimately vest. The Company estimates the number of shares that will ultimately vest at each grant date based on historical experience and adjust compensation cost and the carrying amount of unearned compensation based on changes in those estimates over time. Restricted stock compensation cost is recognized ratably over the requisite service period which approximates the vesting period. An employee may not sell or otherwise transfer unvested shares and, in the event that employment is terminated prior to the end of the vesting period, any unvested shares are surrendered to us. The Company has no obligation to repurchase any restricted stock.

In January 2015, the Company issued an aggregate of 30,000 shares of restricted common stock to certain members of the Company’s board in exchange for agreements by the board members to reduce their cash compensation for the fiscal year of 2015. The restricted shares vested on August 15, 2015 and had an aggregate grant date fair value of approximately $11,000. In November 2015, the Company issued 125,000 restricted shares to a consultant in exchange for media advertising services agreement. The restricted shares vested over a 90 period and had a grant date fair value of $27,500. In December 2014, the Company issued an aggregate of 243,750 shares of restricted common stock to certain members of the Company’s executive and senior management in exchange for agreements by the employees to reduce their cash compensation for the fiscal year of 2015. The restricted shares vested on August 15, 2015 and had an aggregate grant date fair value of $117,000.

The following is a summary of activity of restricted stock during the years ended at December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Stock-Based Compensation - The Company records stock-based payment expense related to these options based on the grant date fair value in accordance with FASB ASC 718. Stock-based compensation includes expense charges for all stock-based awards to employees, directors and consultants. Such awards include option grants, warrant grants, and restricted stock awards. During 2015, the Company had stock compensation expense of approximately $974,000 or $0.02 basic earnings per share ($1,355,000; $0.03 basic earnings per share - 2014). As of December 31, 2015, there was approximately $147,000 of total unrecognized compensation costs related to options and restricted stock granted under the Company’s stock option plans, which the Company expects to recognize over the weighted average period of six months. This amount excludes $536,000 of potential stock based compensation for stock options that vest upon the occurrence of certain events which the Company does not believe are likely.

NOTE 9 - INCOME TAXES

Following is a summary of the components giving rise to the income tax provision (benefit) for the years ended December 31: