QUEST PATENT RESEARCH CORP - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒ Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2022

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 33-18099-NY

QUEST PATENT RESEARCH CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(888) 743-7577

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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 ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. ☐

Note - Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act from their obligations under those Sections.

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 ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendments to this Form 10-K. ☒

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

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

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $4,266,678 as of June 30, 2022.

As of March 30, 2023, the registrant had 5,331,973 shares of common stock outstanding.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

As used in this annual report, the terms “we,” “us,” “our,” and words of like import, and the “Company” refers to Quest Patent Research Corporation and its subsidiaries, unless the context indicates otherwise.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contain “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all of which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “expects,” “plans,” “will,” “forecasts,” “projects,” “intends,” “estimates,” and other words of similar meaning. One can identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These statements are likely to address our growth strategy, financial results and product and development programs. One must carefully consider any such statement and should understand that many factors could cause actual results to differ from our forward-looking statements. These factors may include inaccurate assumptions and a broad variety of other risks and uncertainties, including some that are known and some that are not. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

These risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, include, and are not limited to:

In addition, factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and in particular, the risks discussed under the caption “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” as well as those discussed in other documents we file with the SEC. We undertake no obligation to revise or publicly release the results of any revision to these forward-looking statements, except as required by law. Given these risks and uncertainties, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements.

Information regarding market and industry statistics contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is included based on information available to us that we believe is accurate. It is generally based on industry and other publications that are not produced for purposes of securities offerings or economic analysis. We have not reviewed or included data from all sources. Forecasts and other forward-looking information obtained from these sources are subject to the same qualifications and the additional uncertainties accompanying any estimates of future market size, revenue and market acceptance of products and services. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statement. As a result, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are an intellectual property asset management company. Our principal operations include the acquisition, licensing and enforcement of intellectual property rights that are either owned or controlled by us or one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. We currently own, control or manage fifteen intellectual property portfolios, which principally consist of patent rights. As part of our intellectual property asset management activities and in the ordinary course of our business, it has been necessary for us or the intellectual property owner who we represent to initiate, and it is likely to continue to be necessary to initiate, patent infringement lawsuits and engage in patent infringement litigation. We anticipate that our primary source of revenue will come from the grant of licenses to use our intellectual property, including primarily licenses granted as part of the settlement of patent infringement lawsuits.

Intellectual property monetization includes the generation of revenue and proceeds from the licensing of patents, patented technologies and other intellectual property rights. Patent litigation is often, and for us has been, a necessary element of intellectual property monetization where a patent owner, or a representative of the patent owner, seeks to protect its patent rights against the unlicensed manufacture, sale, and use of the owner’s patent rights or products which incorporate the owner’s patent rights. In general, we seek to monetize the bundle of rights granted by the patents through structured licensing and when necessary, enforcement of those rights through litigation, although to date all of our patent license revenues have resulted from litigation. To date all of our revenue from the licensing of our patents has resulted from litigation commenced by us.

We intend to develop our business by acquiring intellectual property rights, either in the form of ownership of or an exclusive license to the underlying intellectual property. Our goal is to enter into agreements with inventors of innovative technologies for which there may be a significant market for products which use or incorporate the intellectual property. We seek to purchase all of, or interests in, intellectual property in exchange for cash, securities of our company, the formation or a joint venture or separate subsidiary in which the owner has an equity interest, and/or interests in the monetization of those assets. Our revenue from this aspect of our business can be generated through licensing and, when necessary, which is typically the case, litigation. We engage in due diligence and a principled risk underwriting process to evaluate the merits and potential value of any acquisition, partnership or joint venture. We seek to structure the terms of our acquisitions in a manner that will achieve the highest risk-adjusted returns possible, in the context of our financial condition. In connection with the acquisition of intellectual property portfolios, we have granted the party providing the financing an interest in any recovery we have with respect to the intellectual property purchased with the financing, and we expect that we will have to continue to grant such interests until and unless we have generated sufficient cash from licensing our intellectual property to enable us to acquire additional intellectual property portfolios without outside financing. However, we cannot assure you that we will ever generate sufficient revenues to enable us to purchase additional intellectual property without third-party financing.

We employ a due diligence process before completing the acquisition of an intellectual property interest. We begin with an investment thesis supporting the potential transaction and then proceed to test the thesis through an examination of the critical drivers of the value of the underlying intellectual property asset. Such an examination focuses on areas such as title and inventorship issues, the quality of the drafting and prosecution of the intellectual property assets, legal risks inherent in licensing programs generally, the applicability of the invention to the relevant marketplace and other issues such as the effects of venue and other procedural issues. If we require financing to acquire intellectual property, we will have to satisfy our financing sources, which may be QFL or QF3, that we have the ability to monetize the intellectual property. However, our financial position may affect our ability to conduct adequate due diligence with respect to intellectual property rights or to acquire valuable intellectual property. This due diligence effort is conducted by our chief executive officer, who is our only full-time employee.

It has been necessary to commence litigation in order to obtain a recovery for past infringement of, or to license the use of, our intellectual property rights. Intellectual property litigation is very expensive, with no certainty of any recovery. To the extent possible we seek to engage counsel on a contingent fee or partial contingent fee basis, which significantly reduces our litigation cost, but which also reduces the value of the recovery to us. We do not have the resources to enable us to fund the cost of litigation. To the extent that we cannot secure counsel on a contingent basis and cannot fund litigation ourselves, which, considering our financial position, is likely to be the case, we may enter into an agreement with a third-party, which may be an independent third-party, such as QFL or QF3, to finance the cost of litigation. In view of our limited cash and our working capital deficiency, we are not able to institute any monetization program that may require litigation unless we engage counsel on a fully contingent basis, or we obtain funding from third-party funding sources. In these cases, counsel may be afforded a greater participation in the recovery and the third-party that funds the litigation would be entitled to participate in any recovery.

Reverse Split, Change in Authorized Common Stock

On July 27, 2022, we amended our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to (i) decrease the number of authorized shares of common stock from 10,000,000,000 shares to 30,000,000 shares and (ii) effect a one-for-100 reverse split whereby each share of common stock became and was converted into 0.01 share of such common stock, with fractional shares being rounded up to the next higher whole number of shares. All share and per share information in this Form 10-K has been retroactively restated to reflect the reverse split and change in authorized common stock.

Recent Development

Agreements with QPRC Finance III LLC (“QF3”)

On March 12, 2023, we and our newly formed wholly-owned subsidiary, Harbor Island Dynamic LLC (“Harbor”), entered into a series of agreements, all dated March 12, 2023, with QF3, a non-affiliated party, including a prepaid forward purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), a security agreement (the “Security Agreement”), a patent security agreement (the “Patent Security Agreement” together with the Security Agreement, the Patent Security Agreement, and the Purchase Agreement, the “Investment Documents”). The descriptions below and elsewhere in this Form 10-K relating to our agreements with QF3 are summaries only and are qualified in their entirety by reference to those agreements which are filed as exhibits to this Form 10-K.

QF3 Purchase Agreement

Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, QF3 agreed to make available to us a financing facility of: (a) up to $4,000,000 for operating expenses; (b) $3,300,000 to fund the cash payment portion of the purchase of a patent portfolio from Tower and (c) up to an additional $25,000,000 for the acquisition of mutually agreed patent rights that we would intend to monetize. In return we transferred to QF3 the right to receive a portion of net proceeds generated from the monetization of those patents. After QF3 has a negotiated rate of return, we and QF3 shall share net proceeds equally until QF3 shall have achieved its Investment Return (as defined therein). Thereafter, we shall retain 100% of all net proceeds. Except in an Event of Default, as defined therein, all payments by us to QF3 pursuant to the Purchase Agreement are non-recourse and shall be paid only if and after net proceeds from monetization of the patent rights owned or acquire by us are received or are to be received.

Events of Default include any breach of the Investment Documents, including non-payment, material misrepresentation, security interest compromise, criminal indictment or felony conviction of one or our officers or directors, our current chief executive no longer serving as our chief executive or as a director, the occurrence of any Event of Default under the Restructure Agreement with Intelligent Partners, as defined therein, and our insolvency. In addition to all rights and remedies available under law and the Investment Documents, upon and Event of Default, QF3 may: (i) declare the Investment Return immediately due and payable, (ii) except in the event of our insolvency, declare an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the capital provided pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, plus a late charge, immediately due and payable, or (iii) cease making capital available to us.

Under the agreement, QF3 may terminate capital advances other than in an Event of Default by giving written notice to us in which case QF3’s interest in Net Proceeds shall be an amount equal to the greater of (i) the capital advanced to us plus interest at the prime rate, on the one hand, and (ii) Net Proceeds received by QF3 prior to the date of such termination.

Grant of Security Interests

Pursuant to the Security Agreement and Patent Security Agreement, payment of our obligations under the Purchase Agreement with QF3 are secured by (a) the value of anything received from the monetization of the intellectual property rights covered by the Security Agreement; (b) the patents (as defined in the Security Agreement); (c) all general intangibles now or hereafter arising from or related to the foregoing (a) and (b); and (d) proceeds (including, without limitation, cash proceeds and insurance proceeds) and products of the foregoing (a)-(c).

Intercreditor Agreement

In connection with the agreements with QF3, we, Harbor, Quest Licensing Corporation (“QLC”), Quest NetTech Corporation (“NetTech”), Mariner IC Inc. (“Mariner”), Semcon IP Inc. (“Semcon”), IC Kinetics Inc. (“IC”), CXT Systems Inc. (“CXT”), M-Red Inc. (“MRED”), and Audio Messaging Inc. (“AMI”), collectively, the “Subsidiary Guarantors”) entered into an intercreditor agreement with QF3 and Intelligent Partners which provides for the priority of QF3 in the collateral under the Investment Documents.

Agreements with QFL and Intelligent Partners

Set forth below is a discussion of agreements which we entered into in February 2021with QFL to provide us with a financing facility, funds to make a payment due to Intelligent Partners and for working capital and an agreement with Intelligent Partners to restructure our loan agreement and related agreements. The agreement with Intelligent Partners restated our agreements with United Wireless Holdings, Inc. (“United Wireless”) which had been assigned to Intelligent Partners, an affiliate of United Wireless. QF3 and QFK are related to each other. The descriptions below and elsewhere in this Form 10-K relating to our agreements with QFL and Intelligent Partners are summaries only and are qualified in their entirety by reference to those agreements which were filed as exhibits to this Form 10-K.

Agreements with QFL

On February 22, 2021, we entered into a series of agreements which we entered into in February 2021 with QFL, including a prepaid forward purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), a security agreement (the “Security Agreement”), a subsidiary security agreement (the “Subsidiary Security Agreement”), a subsidiary guaranty (the “Subsidiary Guarantee”), a warrant issue agreement (the “Warrant Issue Agreement”), a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) and a board observation rights agreement (the “Board Observation Rights Agreement” together with the Security Agreement, the Subsidiary Guaranty, the Subsidiary Security Agreement, Warrant Issuance Agreement, Registration Rights Agreement and the Purchase Agreement, the “Investment Documents”) pursuant to which, at the closing held contemporaneously with the execution of the agreements:

Purchase Agreement

Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, QFL agreed to make available to us a financing facility of: (i) up to $25,000,000 for the acquisition of mutually agreed patent rights that we intend to monetize; (ii) up to $2,000,000 for operating expenses from which we may, at our discretion, draw up to $200,000 per calendar quarter; and (iii) $1,750,000 to fund the cash payment portion of the restructure of our obligations to Intelligent Partners. In return we transferred to QFL the right to receive a portion of net proceeds generated from the monetization of those patents. After QFL has a negotiated rate of return, we and QFL shall share net proceeds equally until QFL shall have achieved its Investment Return (as defined therein). Thereafter, we shall retain 100% of all net proceeds. Except in an Event of Default, as defined therein, all payments by the Company to QFL pursuant to the Purchase Agreement are non-recourse and shall be paid only if and after net proceeds from monetization of the patent rights owned or acquire by the Company are received, or to be received.

Events of Default include any breach of the Investment Documents, including non-payment, material misrepresentation, security interest compromise, criminal indictment or felony conviction of one or our officers or directors, our current chief executive no longer serving as our chief executive or as a director, the occurrence of any Event of Default under the Restructure Agreement with Intelligent Partners, as defined therein, and our insolvency. In addition to all rights and remedies available under law and the Investment Documents, upon and Event of Default, QFL may: (i) declare the Investment Return immediately due and payable, (ii) except in the event of our insolvency, declare an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the capital provided pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, plus a late charge, immediately due and payable, or (iii) cease making capital available to us.

Under the agreement, QFL may terminate capital advances other than in an Event of Default by giving written notice to us in which case QFL’s interest in Net Proceeds shall be an amount equal to the greater of (i) the capital advanced to the Company plus interest at the prime rate, on the one hand, and (ii) Net Proceeds received by the QFL prior to the date of such termination.

Grant of Security Interests

Pursuant to the Security Agreement and Subsidiary Security Agreement, payment of the obligations of the Company under the Purchase Agreement with QFL are secured by (i) the Proceeds (as defined in the Purchase Agreement); (ii) the Patents; (iii) all General Intangibles now or hereafter arising from or related to the foregoing; (iv) Proceeds (including, without limitation, Cash Proceeds and insurance proceeds) and products of the foregoing and (v) the proceeds realized by the relative patent portfolios of the Subsidiary Guarantors. The security interest in proceeds from the CXT and M-RED patents granted to QFL is junior to the security interest held by the affiliates of Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC (collectively “Intellectual Ventures”) granted to secure the obligations of CXT and MRED pursuant to their patent purchase agreements relating to the purchase of intellectual property from Intellectual Ventures.

Registration Rights Agreement

Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, we filed a registration statement with the SEC covering 500,000 of the 962,463 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the Warrant. We are also required to file additional Registration Statements (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) on the date 60 days after the date that we receive written notice from any Investor (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) that 60% of the Registrable Securities held by all Investors registered under the immediately preceding registration statement have been sold. The Registration Rights Agreement provides for us to pay damages in the event that we do not meet the required deadlines.

Intercreditor Agreement

In connection with the agreements with QFL and the agreements with Intelligent Partners described below, we and our Subsidiaries entered into an intercreditor agreement with QFL and Intelligent Partners which sets forth the priority of QFL in the collateral under the Investment Documents.

Agreements with Intelligent Partners

Securities Purchase Agreement and Related Agreements with United Wireless

We, together with certain of our subsidiaries, and United Wireless, entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement dated October 22, 2015 (the “SPA”) and related Transaction Documents, as defined therein, pursuant to which the Company sold 500,000 shares (the “Shares”) of our common stock, par value $0.00003 per share (the “Common Stock”) at $5.00 per share, or an aggregate of $250,000; we issued our 10% secured convertible promissory notes due September 30, 2020 to United, and granted United an option (the “2015 Purchase Option”) to purchase up to an additional 500,000 shares of Common Stock in three tranches at the prices as set forth therein. The 2015 Purchase Option expired unexercised on September 30, 2020. The Shares are currently owned by Andrew C. Fitton (“Fitton”) and Michael Carper (“Carper”) and United Wireless subsequently transferred its note and assigned all of its remaining rights under the agreements to Intelligent Partners, which is an affiliate of United Wireless and is owned by Fitton and Carper. Our agreements with United Wireless, also included various monetization proceeds agreements, which we refer to as MPAs, pursuant to which we granted to Intelligent Partners, as the assignee of United Wireless, rights to the monetization proceeds from revenue generated from certain of our intellectual property, a security agreement and a registration rights agreement.

At September 30, 2020, promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $4,672,810 were outstanding. The notes became due by their terms on September 30, 2020, and we did not make any payment on account of principal of and interest on the notes. As a result, Intelligent Partners had the right to declare a default under the Notes, and, if Intelligent Partners had taken such action, it would have been necessary for us to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Act. Subsequent to September 30, 2020, we engaged in negotiations with Intelligent Partners in parallel with our negotiations with QFL, with a view to restructuring our obligations under the United Wireless agreements, including the Notes, so that we no longer had any obligations under the Notes or the SPA. These negotiations resulted in the Restructure Agreement, described below, which provided for the payment to Intelligent Partners of $1,750,000 from the proceeds from our agreements with QFL. We also made interest payments totaling $117,780 between September 30, 2020 and February 22, 2021, the date we signed the Restructure Agreement with Intelligent Partners. One of QFL’s requirements to provide us with a funding facility was the restructure of our obligations to Intelligent Partners so that we no longer had any debt obligations to Intelligent Partners. Neither QFL nor any other financing source, would provide us with funding while Intelligent Partners had a right to call a default under our notes to Intelligent Partners. As part of the restructure of our agreements with Intelligent Partners, we amended the existing MPAs and granted Intelligent Partners certain rights in the monetization proceeds from any new intellectual property we acquire, as describe below. Under these MPAs, Intelligent Partners participates in the monetization proceeds we receive with respect to new patents after QFL has received its negotiated rate of return.

On or prior to the date of the Restructure Agreement, Intelligent Partners transferred to Fitton and Carper $250,000 of the Notes (the “Transferred Note”), thereby reducing the principal amount of the Notes held by Intelligent Partners to $4,422,810.

On February 22, 2021, we and Intelligent Partners agreed to extinguish the Note and Transferred Note, and terminate or amend and restate the SPA and Transaction Documents, pursuant to a series of agreements including: a Restructure Agreement (the “Restructure Agreement”), a Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), an Option Grant (the “Option Grant”), an Amended and Restated Pledge Agreement (the “Pledge Agreement”), an Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”), a Board Observation Agreement (the “Board Observation Agreement”), a MPA-NA Security Interest Agreement (the “MPA-NA Security Interest Agreement”), an Amended and Restated Patent Proceeds Security Agreement (the “Patent Proceeds Security Agreement”, an Amended and Restated MPA-CP (the “MPA-CP”), an Amended and Restated MPA-CXT (the “MPA-CXT”), a MPA-MR (the “MPA-MR”), a MPA-AMI (the “MPA-AMI,” and together with the MPA-CP, MPA-CXT and MPA-MR, each a Restructure MPA and together the Restructure MPAs) and a MPA-NA (the “MPA-NA”).

Events of Default include (i) a Change of Control of the Company (ii) any uncured default on payment due to Intelligent Partners in an amount totaling in excess of $275,000, which is not the subject of a Dispute or other formal dispute resolution proceeding initiated in good faith pursuant to this Agreement or other Restructure Documents (iii) the filing of a voluntary petition for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code by Company or any of its material subsidiaries, (iv) the filing of an involuntary petition for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code against the Company, which is not stayed or dismissed within sixty (60) days of such filing, except for an involuntary petition for relief filed solely by Intelligent Partners, or any Affiliate or member of Intelligent Partners, or (v) acceleration of an obligation in excess of $1 million dollars to another provider of financing following a final determination by arbitration or other judicial proceeding that such obligation is due and owing.

Registration Rights Agreement

Pursuant to a registration rights agreement, we granted Intelligent Partners, Andrew Fitton and Michael Carper certain registration rights with respect to (i) the 500,000 Shares currently owned by Fitton and Carper; (ii) the 462,963 Conversion Shares issued to Fitton and Carper, and (iii) the 500,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the Restructure Option. We filed the registration statement with the SEC covering the 500,000 Shares owned by Fitton and Carper, and the registration statement was declared effective by the SEC.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on our Business

Although we do not manufacture or sell products, the COVID-19 pandemic and the work shutdown imposed in the United States and other countries to limit the spread of the virus had a negative impact on our business. Our revenue is generated almost exclusively from license fees generated from litigation seeking damages for infringement of our intellectual property rights. The work shutdown affected the court system, and during much of 2020 and part of 2021 courts operated on a reduced schedule, and some courts may still have a backlog as a result of the pandemic. As a result, deadlines are likely to be postponed which may give defendants an incentive to delay negotiations or offer a lower amount than they might otherwise accept. In addition, the effect of the COVID-19 and the public response may have adversely affected the financial condition and prospects of defendants and potential defendants, which made it less likely that they would be willing to settle our claim.

Purchase of Intellectual Property from Intellectual Ventures Entities

On October 22, 2015, pursuant to an agreement with an effective date of July 8, 2015, as amended, between us and Intellectual Ventures Assets 16, LLC (“IV16”), we purchased three groups of patents from IV16 for a purchase price of $3,000,000, which was paid in three annual installments of $1,000,000 from the proceeds of our loans from United Wireless. The patent portfolios which we acquired from IV16 are the anchor structure portfolio, the power management/bus control portfolio and the diode on chip portfolio, which are described under “Business – Our Intellectual Property Portfolios.”

On January 26, 2018, Photonic Imaging Solutions Inc. (“PIS”), a wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into an agreement with Intellectual Ventures Assets 64 LLC (“IV 64”) pursuant to which PIS advanced $10,000 to IV 64 at closing and IV 64 assigned to PIS all right, title, and interest in a portfolio of eleven United States patents and sixteen foreign patents (the “CMOS Portfolio”). Under the agreement, PIS will distribute 70% of the first $1,500,000 of revenue, as defined in the agreement, 30% of the next $1,500,000 of revenue and 50% of revenue over $3,000,000 to IV 64; with the $10,000 advance being treated as an advance against the first distributions of net proceeds payable to IV 64. PIS’ obligations under the monetization proceeds agreement are secured by a security interest in the proceeds (from litigation or otherwise) from the portfolio. The patent portfolio which we acquired from IV 64 is the CMOS portfolio which is described under “Business – Our Intellectual Property Portfolios.”

On July 28, 2017, CXT, a wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into an agreement with Intellectual Ventures Assets 34 LLC and Intellectual Ventures Assets 37 LLC (“IV 34/37”) pursuant to which CTX paid IV 34/37 $25,000 and IV34/37 transferred to CXT all right, title and interest in a portfolio of thirteen United States patents (the “CXT Portfolio”). Under the agreement, CXT will distribute 50% of net proceeds, as defined, to IV 34/37, as long as we generate revenue from the CXT Portfolio. The $25,000 payment to IV 34/37 was made from a loan from United Wireless and was paid by United Wireless directly to IV 34/37. The agreement with IV 34/37, as amended on January 26, 2018, provides that if, on December 31, 2018, December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2020, cumulative distributions to IV 34/37 total less than $100,000, $375,000 and $975,000, respectively, CXT shall pay the difference between such cumulative amounts and the amount paid to IV 34/37 within ten days after the applicable date. The $25,000 advance is treated as an advance against distributions of net proceeds payable to IV 34/37. The useful lives of the patents, at the date of acquisition, was 5-6 years. Neither we nor any affiliate of CXT has guaranteed the minimum payments. On December 31, 2021 the parties amended the agreement to provide that CXT will distribute 65% of net proceeds, as defined, to IV 34/37, as long as we generate revenue from the CXT Portfolio and that if, on December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2019, cumulative distributions to IV 34/37 total less than $100,000 and $375,000, respectively, CXT shall pay the difference between such cumulative amounts and the amount paid to IV 34/37 within ten days after the applicable date. As of December 31, 2021 cumulative distributions to IV 34/37 totaled $375,000. CXT’s obligations under the agreement with IV 34/37 are secured by a security interest in the proceeds (from litigation or otherwise) from the CXT Portfolio. The patent portfolio which we acquired from IV 34/37 is the CXT portfolio which is described under “Business – Our Intellectual Property Portfolios.”

On January 26, 2018, CXT entered into an agreement with Intellectual Ventures Assets 62 LLC and Intellectual Ventures Assets 71 LLC “(IV 62/71”) pursuant to which CXT advanced IV 62/71 $10,000 at closing and IV 62/71 assigned to CXT all right, title, and interest in a portfolio of sixteen United States patents and three pending applications. Under the agreement, as amended on December 31, 2021, CXT will distribute 65% of net proceeds, as defined, to IV 62/71, as long as we generate net proceeds from this portfolio. The initial $10,000 advance is treated as an advance toward our future distributions of net proceeds payable to IV 62/71. CXT’s obligations under the agreement are secured by a security interest in the proceeds (from litigation or otherwise) from the CXT Portfolio. In March 2021, we made a payment to IV 62/71 in the amount of $64,238. We agreed to modify the monetization proceeds agreement between CXT and United Wireless to include the patents acquired from IV 62/71. The monetization proceeds amendment was further amended by the MPA-CXT Agreement in connection with the restructure of our agreements with Intelligent Partners.

On March 15, 2019, M-RED Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into an agreement with Intellectual Ventures Assets 113 LLC and Intellectual Ventures Assets 108 LLC (“IV 113/108”) pursuant to which M-RED paid IV 113/108 $75,000 and IV 113/108 transferred to M-RED all right, title and interest in a portfolio of sixty United States patents and eight foreign patents (the “M-RED Portfolio”). Under the agreement, M-RED will distribute 50% of net proceeds, as defined, to IV 113/108, as long as we generate revenue from the M-RED Portfolio. The agreement with IV 113/108 provides that if, on September 30, 2020, September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, cumulative distributions to IV 113/108 total less than $450,000, $975,000 and $1,575,000, respectively, M-RED shall pay the difference between such cumulative amounts and the amount paid to IV 113/108 within ten days after the applicable date. The $75,000 advance is treated as an advance against the first distributions of net proceeds payable to IV 113/108. On September 30, 2020 cumulative distributions to IV 113/108 totaled less than $450,000 and M-RED did not pay the difference to IV 113/108 within ten days. On December 31, 2021 the parties amended the agreement to provide that M-RED will distribute 100% of undistributed net proceeds, as defined, resulting from agreements signed prior to December 31, 2021 and 65% of net proceeds thereafter to IV 113/108, as long as we generate revenue from the M-RED Portfolio and that if, on December 31, 2021 cumulative distributions to IV 113/108 total less than $302,114, M-RED shall pay the difference between such cumulative amounts and the amount paid to IV 113/108 within ten days after the applicable date. As of December 31, 2021 cumulative distributions to IV 113/108 totaled $302,114. The useful lives of the patents, at the date of acquisition, was approximately nine years. Neither we nor any affiliate of M-RED has guaranteed the minimum payments. M-RED’s obligations under the agreement with IV 113/108 are secured by a security interest in the proceeds (from litigation or otherwise) from the M-RED Portfolio. The patent portfolio which we acquired from IV 113/108 is the M-RED portfolio which is described under “Business – Our Intellectual Property Portfolios.” Pursuant to the MPA-MR, Intelligent Partners is entitled to receive 60% of the net proceeds as defined in the agreement.

On January 27, 2022, we acquired, via assignment from Intellectual Ventures Assets 181 LLC and Intellectual Ventures Assets 174 LLC, all right title and interest to four patent portfolios consisting of fifteen United States patents and three foreign patents for a purchase price of $1,060,000. The Company requested and received a capital advance in the amount of the $1,060,000 purchase price from the facility with QFL. The patents were assigned to our wholly owned subsidiaries Tyche Licensing LLC (“Tyche”) and Deepwell IP LLC (“DIP”).

A default under the agreements with the Intellectual Ventures affiliates could result in a default under our agreements with QFL and QF3, and, even if QFL or QF3 does not declare a default, QFL or QF3 may be reluctant to finance our intellectual property acquisition if we are in default under any of our patent acquisition agreements with Intellectual Venture affiliates. Further, it may be necessary for any defaulting subsidiary to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Act if we are not able to enter into modification agreements with the Intellectual Ventures affiliates.

Our Organization

We were incorporated in Delaware on July 17, 1987 under the name Phase Out of America. On September 21, 1997, we changed our name to Quest Products Corporation, and, on June 6, 2007, we changed our name to Quest Patent Research Corporation. We have been engaged in the intellectual property monetization business since 2008. Our executive principal office is located at 411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite 206S, Rye, New York 10580-1411, telephone (888) 743-7577. Our website is www.qprc.com. Information contained on or derived from our website, or any other website does not constitute a part of this annual report.

Our Intellectual Property Portfolios

Mobile Data

The real-time mobile data portfolio relates to the automatic update of information delivered to a mobile device without the need for a manual refreshing. The portfolio is comprised of U.S. Patent No. 7,194,468 “Apparatus and Method for Supplying Information” and all related patents, patent applications, and all continuations, continuations-in-part, divisions, extensions, renewals, reissues and re-examinations relating to all inventions thereof (the “Mobile Data Portfolio”).

Through December 31, 2022, we had not generated any revenue from the Mobile Data Portfolio and we do not anticipate allocating further resources to monetization of the Mobile Data Portfolio.

Flexible Packaging – Turtle PakTM

In March 2008, we entered into an agreement with Emerging Technologies Trust whereby our majority-owned subsidiary, Quest Packaging Solutions Corporation, acquired the exclusive license to make, use, sell, offer for sale or sublicense the intellectual property of Emerging Technologies Trust (the “Turtle Pak™ Portfolio”). The Turtle Pak portfolio relates to a cost effective, high-protection packaging system recommended for fragile items weighing less than ten pounds. The intellectual property consists of two U.S. patents, U.S. Patent No. RE36,412 and U.S. Patent No. 6,490,844, and the Turtle Pak trademark. Turtle Pak™ brand packaging is suited for such uses as electrical and electronic components, medical, dental, and diagnostic equipment, instrumentation products, and control components. Turtle Pak™ brand packaging materials are 100% curbside recyclable.

As the exclusive licensee and manager of the manufacture and sale of licensed product, we coordinate the manufacture and sale of licensed products to end users; we contract for the manufacture and assembly of the product components, and we coordinate order receipt, fulfillment and invoicing. We did not generate revenues from the TurtlePak™ product for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021.

Universal Financial Data System

The invention describes a universal financial data system which allows its holder to use the device to access one or more accounts stored in the memory of the device as a cash payment substitute as well as to keep track of financial and transaction records and data, such as transaction receipts, in a highly portable package, such as a cellular device (the “Financial Data Portfolio”). The inventive universal data system is capable of supporting multiple accounts of various types, including but not limited to credit card accounts, checking/debit accounts, and loyalty accounts. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Wynn Technologies Inc., acquired US Patent No. 5,859,419, from the owner, Sol Wynn. In January 2001, we filed a reissue application for the patent, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued patent RE38,137. This reissued patent, which contains 35 separate claims, replaces the original patent, which had seven claims. In February 2011, we entered into a new agreement with Sol Li (formerly Sol Wynn), pursuant to which we issued to Mr. Li a 35% interest in Wynn Technologies and warrants to purchase up to 50,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.1 per share. These warrants expired unexercised. We also agreed that Mr. Li would receive 40% of the net licensing revenues generated by Wynn Technologies with respect to this patent, which is the only patent owned by Wynn Technologies. On December 17, 2018, Wynn Technologies, Inc. granted an exclusive license to the Financial Data Portfolio, including the right to enforce, to our wholly owned subsidiary, Quest NetTech. Under the agreement, Quest NetTech receives 100% of the net proceeds, as defined by the agreement. On April 11, 2019 Quest NetTech Corporation merged with Wynn Technologies, Inc. with Quest NetTech Corporation being the surviving entity with Mr. Li having a 35% interest. On April 12, 2019, Quest NetTech brought a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Apple, Inc. The case was dismissed in May 2020.

We did not generate revenue from the Financial Data Portfolio in 2022 and 2021, and we do not anticipate allocating further resources to monetization of the Financial Data Portfolio.

Rich Media

The rich media portfolio is directed to methods, systems, and processes that permit typical Internet users to design rich-media production content (i.e., rich-media applications), such as websites. The portfolio consists of U.S. Patent No. 7,000,180, “Methods, Systems, and Processes for the Design and Creation of Rich Media Applications via the Internet” and all related patents, patent applications, corresponding foreign patents and foreign patent applications and foreign counterparts, and all continuations, continuations-in-part, divisions, extensions, renewals, reissues and re-examinations relating to all inventions thereof (the “Rich Media Portfolio”). In July 2008, we entered into a consulting and licensing program management agreement with Balthaser Online, Inc., the patent owner, pursuant to which we performed services related to the establishment and management of a licensing program to evaluate and analyze the relevant market and to obtain licenses for the Rich Media Portfolio in exchange for management fees as well as an irrevocable entitlement to a distribution of 15% of all proceeds generated by the Rich Media Portfolio for the remaining life of the portfolio regardless of whether those proceeds are derived from litigation, settlement, licensing or otherwise. Our 15% distribution right is subject to reduction to 7.5% in the event that we refuse or are unable to perform the services detailed in the agreement.

Through December 31, 2022, we had not generated any revenue from the rich media patents.

Anchor Structure Portfolio

This portfolio, which we acquired from IV16 in October 2015 and transferred to our subsidiary, Mariner IC Inc., consists of two United States patents which relate to technology for incorporating metal structures in the corners and edges of semiconductor dies to prevent cracking from stresses.

In March 2016, we entered into a funding agreement whereby a third-party agreed to provide funds to us to enable us to implement a structured licensing program, including litigation, if necessary, for the Anchor Structure Portfolio and engaged counsel on a partial contingency basis in connection with a proposed patent infringement action relating to the Anchor Structure Portfolio. Under the funding agreement, the third-party received an interest in the proceeds from the settlements relating to this portfolio in 2019. The funding agreement was terminated in 2021.

We did not generate license fees from the Anchor Structure Portfolio in 2022 or 2021, and we do not anticipate allocating further resources to monetization of the Anchor Structure Portfolio.

Power Management/Bus Control Portfolio

This portfolio, which is the second portfolio which we acquired from IV16 and transferred to a newly-formed subsidiary, Semcon IP Inc., consists of four United States patents that cover fundamental technology for adjusting the processor clock and voltage to save power based on the operating characteristics of the processor and one United States patent that relates to coordinating direct bus communications between subsystems in an assigned channel.

We did not generate revenue from the Power Management/Bus Control Portfolio in 2022 or 2021, and we do not anticipate allocating further resources to its monetization.

Diode on Chip Portfolio

This portfolio, which is the third portfolio which we acquired from IV16 and transferred to a newly-formed subsidiary, IC Kinetics Inc., consists of three United States patents and one pending continuation application which cover technology relating to on-chip temperature measurement for semiconductors. As of December 31, 2022, we had not generated any revenue from the Diode on Chip portfolio.

CXT Portfolio

This portfolio consists of thirty United States patents which cover technology relating to systems and methods of operating an accessible information database which provides for inventory evaluation, filtering according to preferences, alternative product recommendations, and access to a database of consumer feedback/evaluation.

In April 2018 CXT brought a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Academy Ltd., In May 2018 CXT brought patent infringement suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Conn’s, Inc., Fossil Group, Inc., JC Penney Company, Inc., and Tailored Brands, Inc. In May 2019, CXT brought patent infringement actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Hallmark.com, LLC, Retail Concepts, Inc. and CC Filson Co. In August 2019, CXT brought patent infringement suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Neiman Marcus Group Ltd., General Nutrition Corporation and Steve Madden, Ltd.

In March 2021 CXT brought patent infringement suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The Sherwin-Williams Company, V.F. Corporation and IKEA North America Services, LLC. In July 2021, HCL Technologies Limited (“HCL”), as the world’ supplier of WebSphere Commerce products and citing CXT’s patent infringement suits against users of HCL’s WebSphere Commerce products, brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment that HCL’s WebSphere Commerce products do not infringe CXT’s patents and that CXT’s patents are invalid.

The actions against Conn’s, Inc., Academy Ltd., Fossil Group, Inc., JC Penney Company, Inc., Tailored Brands, Inc., Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Hallmark, Retail Concepts, CC Filson, General Nutrition, Steve Madden, Ltd. and Neiman Marcus Group Ltd. were resolved in 2020.

In 2021, the HCL matter was settled and dismissed by mutual agreement pursuant to which HCL took a license to the CXT Portfolio and the actions against Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The Sherwin-Williams Company, V.F. Corporation and IKEA North America Services, LLC were resolved. Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2021 includes revenue from the resolution of these matters. We did not generate revenue from the CXT Portfolio in 2022, and we do not anticipate allocating further resources to monetization of the CXT Portfolio.

CMOS Portfolio

This portfolio consists of eleven United States patents and sixteen foreign patents which cover technology relating to digital image sensor technology systems and methods which PIS acquired on January 26, 2018.

We did not generate revenue from the CMOS Portfolio in 2022 or 2021, and we do not anticipate allocating further resources to its monetization.

M-RED Portfolio

This portfolio consists of sixty United States patents and eight foreign patents which cover technology relating to processor and power management which M-RED acquired on March 15, 2019.

On April 29, 2019, M-RED brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against MediaTek Inc. and Acer Inc. On July 16, 2019, M-Red Inc. brought a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Panasonic Corporation. As of December 31, 2020, all actions were settled and dismissed and revenue for the year ended December 31, 2020 incudes revenue from settlements.

In March 2021, M-RED brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Nintendo Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and Xiaomi Corporation et. al. In April 2021, the case against Nintendo Co., Ltd. was dismissed without prejudice. In August 2021, M-Red Inc. brought a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. In September 2021, M-RED Inc. brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against ASRock Inc., Biostar Microtech International Corp., Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd. and Micro-Star International Co. Ltd.

The actions against Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, ASRock Inc., and Micro-Star International Co. Ltd. were resolved in 2021 and our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2021 includes revenue from any related settlements. The actions against Xiaomi Corporation et. al., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Biostar Microtech International Corp., and Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd. were resolved in 2022 and our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2022 includes revenue from any related settlements. We do not anticipate allocating further resources to monetization of the M-RED Portfolio.

Audio Messaging Portfolio

This portfolio consists of five issued United States patents and one pending application which generally relate to systems and methods for associating an audio clip with an object which our wholly-owned subsidiary, Audio Messaging Inc. (“AMI”), acquired in May of 2020. Pursuant to an unsecured non-recourse funding agreement, a third-party agreed to provide acquisition funding in the amount of $95,000 for the acquisition. Under the funding agreement, the third-party funder is entitled to a priority return of funds advanced from net proceeds, as defined, recovered until the funder has received $190,000. The Company has no other obligation to the third-party and has no liability to the funder in the event that the Company does not generate net proceeds.

On October 8, 2021, AMI brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against ZTE Corporation, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. and Beijing Xiaomi Software Co., Ltd. Those actions were resolved in 2022, and our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2022 includes revenue from related settlements.

Peregrin Portfolio

Acquired in February 2021 by our wholly owned subsidiary, Peregrin Licensing LLC (“PLL”), this portfolio consists of eight issued United States patents which generally relate to systems and methods for processing inbound and outbound communications, such as, for example, determining the location of a caller and routing the inbound communication to an entity in the caller’s location (the “Peregrin Portfolio”). PLL acquired the portfolio pursuant to an agreement with Peter K. Trzyna (“PKT”) whereby PKT assigned us all right, title, and interest in a portfolio of eight United States patents, we paid PKT $350,000 at closing and agreed that upon the realization of gross proceeds from the Peregrin Portfolio we shall make subsequent installment payment or payments in the aggregate amount of $93,900. Thereafter, PKT is entitled to a percentage of any gross proceeds realized.

In July 2021, PLL brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Bank of America Corporation, Discover Financial Services, U.S. Bank N.A. and Wells Fargo & Co. All actions were resolved in 2021 and our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2021 includes revenue from any related settlements. We did not generate revenue from the Peregrin Portfolio in 2022.

Taasera Portfolio

Acquired by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Taasera Licensing LLC (“TLL”), this portfolio consists of 29 United States patents and 2 foreign patents which generally relate to the field of network security (the “Taasera Portfolio”). In June 2021 seven patents were acquired via assignment from Taasera, Inc. for the purchase price of $250,000. In August 2021 acquired a portfolio of network security patents from Daedalus Blue LLC (“DBL”) consisting of 22 United States patents and 2 foreign patents. Original assignees of the patents acquired from DBL include International Business Machines Corporation, Internet Security Systems, Inc. and Fiberlink Communications Corporation (“Fiberlink”). ISS and Fiberlink were acquired by IBM in 2006 and 2013, respectively. In September 2019, IBM divested over 500 United States patent assets, as well as a number of foreign counterparts in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere, to Daedalus Group, and affiliate of DBL. Pursuant to the acquisition agreement, DBL is entitled to a portion of the net proceeds from monetization of the TLL portfolio.

In November 2021, TLL brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Trend Micro Incorporated. In March 2022, Trend Micro, Inc. filed a complaint against TLL in the U.S. District for the Western District of Texas seeking declaratory judgement of non-infringement of the patents in suit. In February 2022, TLL brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Checkpoint Software Technologies Ltd. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. In March 2022, TLL voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, the action against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. In March 2022, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. filed a complaint against TLL and the Company in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory judgement of non-infringement of the patents in suit. In May 2022, Trend Micro Inc. filed a motion with the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to have the pending actions consolidated into a centralized multidistrict litigation for pretrial proceedings. In August 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all actions in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas. In October 2022, TLL brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Fortinet, inc., Crowdstrike, Inc. et.al., and Musarubra US, LLC.

Soundstreak Portfolio

Acquired through our acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding equity interests of Soundstreak Texas LLC (“STX”) in August 2021 for a purchase price consisting of 50% of the net proceeds resulting from monetization of the patent portfolio, this patent portfolio consists of three United States patents and one pending patent application which generally relate to streaming data (including audio or video) while also storing higher quality versions of the same data locally. The patented technology has applications in the professional recording industry, digital audio/video industries, the drone/remote capture industry, the teleconferencing industry, and more.

In August 2021, STX brought a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Yamaha Corporation and Steinberg Media Technologies GMBH. In September 2021, STX brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Sony Group Corporation, Panasonic Corporation, Olympus Corporation and Nikon Corporation. In March 2022, STX brought a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Parrot SA, Delair SAS, Drone Volt, SA, EHang Holdings Limited and Flyability SA.

The actions against Sony Group Corporation, Panasonic Corporation, Olympus Corporation and Nikon Corporation were resolved in 2021 and our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2021 includes revenue from any related settlements. The matters against Yamaha Corporation, Steinberg Media Technologies GMBH, Parrot SA, Drone Volt, SA, Flyability SA and Delair SAS were resolved in 2022 and revenue for the year ended December 31, 2022 includes revenue from any related settlements.

Multimodal Media Portfolio

Acquired by our wholly owned subsidiary, Multimodal Media LLC (“MML”), the Multimodal Media portfolio consists of fifteen United States patents and one pending application which generally relate to systems and methods of recording and sending interactive messages and voice messages using mobile devices, as well as completing a communication after an incomplete call (the “Multimodal Media Portfolio”). MML advanced $642,000 at closing pursuant to an agreement, as amended, with Aawaaz Inc. (“AI”). Under the agreement, MML retains an amount equal to the purchase price plus any fees incurred out of net proceeds, as defined in the agreement, after which AI is entitled to a percentage of further net proceeds realized, if any.

The Multimodal Media Portfolio was originally developed by Kirusa, Inc., a communications software development company founded in 2001 by Inderpal Mumick together with other technocrats with a dream of connecting people through the power of voice. Heralded by the invention of Voice SMS, Kirusa, Inc. was born with a vision to revolutionize the experiences users derived from their mobile phones.

In November 2021, MML brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against ZTE Corporation and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. In November 2022, MML brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al and TCL Technology Group Corporation et al.

LS Cloud Storage Portfolio

Acquired through our acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding equity interests of LS Cloud Storage Technologies LLC (“LSC”) in November 2021, the LS Cloud Portfolio consists of four United States patents which generally relate to data sharing using distributed cache.

In March 2022, LSC brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against Microsoft Corporation, Google LLC, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. et.al. In November 2022, Google LLC filed a petition before the patent trial and appeal board for inter partes review of US Patent No. 10,154,092.

Tyche Portfolio

Acquired in January 2022, the Tyche portfolio consists of two United States patents and related assets relating generally to symmetric inducting devices incorporated in integrated circuits and in particular to an integrated circuit having symmetric inducting device with a ground shield.

In May 2022, Tyche brought patent infringement suits in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas against MediaTek Inc., Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Infineon Technologies AG and STMicroelectronics NV et. al. In May 2022, Tyche voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, the action against STMicroelectronics NV et .al. In May 2022, STMicroelectronics, Inc. filed an action for declaratory judgement of non-infringement in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Texas, the action was dismissed without prejudice in July 2022. In September 2022, the action against Texas Instruments Incorporated was dismissed with prejudice. As of December 31, 2022 the actions against MediaTek Inc. and Infineon Technologies AG were stayed pending settlement.

Deepwell Portfolio

Acquired in January 2022, the Deepwell portfolio consists of 12 United States patents and related assets (“Deepwell Portfolio”). Certain of the patents relate generally to the manufacture and operation of integrated circuits. More particularly, embodiments of the present invention relate to: 1) selectively coupling Voltage feeds to body bias Voltage in an integrated circuit device; 2) routing body-bias voltage to the MOSFETS (metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors). Certain other patents in the portfolio relate generally to method and system for conservatively managing store capacity available to a processor issuing stores including but not limited to the utilization of a counter mechanism, whereas the counter mechanism is incremented or decremented based on the occurrence of particular events

EDI Portfolio

In July 2022, EDI acquired, via assignment from Edward D. Ioli Trust, all right title and interest to a portfolio of five United States patents and related applications relating to a system and method for controlling vehicles and for providing assistance to operated vehicles (“EDI Portfolio”) for a purchase price consisting of 50% of the net proceeds resulting from monetization of the EDI Portfolio.

HPE Portfolio

Acquired in July 2022 pursuant to an agreement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, the HPE portfolio consists of eight United States Patents across five patent families which relate generally to systems and methods around hardware, software and system security and capabilities (“HPE Portfolio”). We requested and received a capital advance from QFL in the amount of $350,000, which was used to make payment of the purchase price pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement.

Competition

We encounter and expect to continue to encounter competition in the areas of intellectual property acquisitions for the sake of licensure from both private and publicly traded companies that engage in intellectual property monetization activities. Such competitors and potential competitors include companies seeking to acquire the same intellectual property assets and intellectual property rights that we may seek to acquire. Entities such as Acacia Research Corporation, Document Security Systems, Inc., Intellectual Ventures, Quarterhill Inc., MOSAID Technologies Inc., VirnetX Holding Corporation, Network-1 Security Solutions, Interdigital, Inc., IPValue Management Inc., Pendrell Corporation, Inventergy Global, Inc., Netlist Inc., Parkervision Inc., Walker Innovation, Inc., Daedalus Group LLC, Netlist Inc. and others derive all or a substantial portion of their revenue from intellectual property monetization activities, and we expect more entities to enter the market. Most of our competitors have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial resources and personnel than we have.

We also compete with venture capital firms, strategic corporate buyers and various industry leaders for intellectual property and technology acquisitions and licensing opportunities. Many of these competitors have more financial and human resources than our company. In seeking to obtain intellectual property assets or intellectual property rights, we seek to both demonstrate our understanding of the intellectual property that we are seeking to acquire or license and our ability to monetize their intellectual property rights. Our weak cash position and history of losses, together with our low stock price, may impair our ability to negotiate successfully with the intellectual property owners.

Other companies may develop competing technologies that offer better or less expensive alternatives to intellectual property rights that we may acquire and/or license. Many potential competitors may have significantly greater resources than we do. The development of technological advances or entirely different approaches could render certain of the technologies owned or controlled by our operating subsidiaries obsolete and/or uneconomical.

Intellectual Property Rights

We have fifteen intellectual property portfolios: financial data, mobile data, Turtle Pak, anchor structure, power management/bus control, diode on chip, rich media, CXT, CMOS, M-RED, Audio Messaging, Peregrin, Taasera, Soundstreak, Multmodal Media, LS Cloud, Tyyche, Deepwell, EDI and HPE. The following table sets forth information concerning our patents and other intellectual property. Each patent or other intellectual property right listed in the table below that has been granted is publicly accessible on the Internet website of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at www.uspto.gov. In the table below, the anchor structure portfolio is referred to as Mariner, the power management/bus control portfolio is referred to as Semcom, the diode on chip portfolio is referred to as IC, the Audio Messaging portfolio is referred to as AMI, the Peregrin portfolio is referred to as PLL, the Taasera portfolio is referred to as TLL, the Soundstreak portfolio is referred to as STX, the Multimodal Media portfolio is referred to as MML, the LS Cloud portfolio is referred to as LSC, the Tyche portfolio is referred to as Tyche, the Deepwell portfolio is referred to as DIP, the EDI portfolio is referred to as EDI, and the HPE portfolio is referred to as HPE.

Research and Development

We did not incur research and development expenses during 2022 or 2021, since research and development are not part of our business.

Consulting Contracts

On February 22, 2021, we entered into advisory service agreement with three consultants pursuant to which they will provide services to us in connection with the development of our business. The agreements have a term of ten years and may be terminated by us for cause or upon the death or disability of the consultants.

Pursuant to the agreements with two of the consultants, the compensation payable to each of them consists of a restricted stock grant of 100,000 shares of Common Stock which vested in full immediately upon issuance and a ten-year option to purchase a total of 300,000 shares of Common Stock, which become exercisable cumulatively as follows:

Pursuant to the agreement with the third consultant, the compensation payable to him consists of a restricted stock grant of 100,000 shares of Common Stock which immediately vests in full and a ten-year option to purchase 300,000 shares of Common Stock, which becomes exercisable cumulatively as follows:

Employees

As of March 31, 2023, we have no employees other than our chief executive officer, Mr. Jon Scahill. Our employee is not represented by a labor union, and we consider our employee relations to be good.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below together with all of the other information included in this annual report before making an investment decision with regard to our securities. The statements contained in this annual report include forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in or implied by forward-looking statements. The risks set forth below are not the only risks facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties may exist that could also adversely affect our business, prospects or operations. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be harmed. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or a significant part of your investment.

Risks Relating to our Financial Conditions and Operations

We have a history of losses and are continuing to incur losses. During the period from 2008, when we changed our business to become an intellectual property management company, through December 31, 2022, we generated a cumulative loss of approximately $26.2 million on cumulative revenues of approximately $23.8 million, and our losses are continuing. Our total assets were approximately $1,227,000 at December 31, 2022, of which approximately $1,131,000 represented the book value of patents we acquired from AI in October of 2021. At December 31, 2022, we had a working capital deficiency of approximately $9,490,000. During 2021 and 2022 our business was impacted by our default under our loans to Intelligent Partners (as successor to United Wireless), with Intelligent Partners having the ability to declare a default on our notes in the principal amount of $4,672,810, with the possibility of our seeking protection under the Bankruptcy Act. As a result, we ceased our monetization activities, since no counsel would represent us on a contingent basis in view of the default and possible bankruptcy, and we devoted our efforts to negotiating the agreements with QFL and Intelligent Partners. We resumed our monetization activities following in February 2021 after we entered into our agreements with QFL and Intelligent Partners. However, the intellectual property monetization cycle is lengthy and may be unsuccessful. Monetization activities initiated may take several quarters, if not years, to generate revenues if ever. Most of the revenue for 2021 was generated pursuant to litigation which was commenced prior to 2021.

Our independent auditors have included a substantial doubt going concern explanatory paragraph in their report on our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2022. Because of our history of losses, deficiency in stockholders’ equity, working capital deficiency and the uncertainty of generating revenues in the future, our independent auditors have included a substantial doubt going concern explanatory paragraph in their report on our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2022.

We require significant funding in order to develop our business. Our business requires substantial funding to evaluate and acquire intellectual property rights and to develop and implement programs to monetize our intellectual property rights, including the prosecution of any litigation necessary to enable us to monetize our intellectual property rights. Our failure to develop and implement these programs could both jeopardize our relationships under our existing agreements and could inhibit our ability to generate new business, either through the acquisition of intellectual property rights or through exclusive management agreements. We cannot be profitable unless we are able to obtain the funding necessary to develop our business, including litigation to monetize our intellectual property. Although we have agreements with QFL and QF3 which provide a funding to acquire intellectual property rights, QFL or QF3 must approve any intellectual property we acquire and, if QFL or QF3 does not fund an intellectual property acquisition, we may not be able to acquire and monetize the intellectual property. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain necessary funding or to develop our business.

The terms of our agreements with QF3, QFL and Intelligent Partners may make it difficult for us to generate cash flow from our operations. We have an agreement with QFL pursuant to which QFL agreed to make available to us a financing facility of (i) up to $25,000,000 for the acquisition of mutually agreed patent rights that the Company intends to monetize, of which we have received $2,653,000 as of March 15, 2023; (ii) up to $2,000,000 for operating expenses from which the Company may, at its discretion, draw up to $200,000 per calendar quarter, of which we have drawn down $2,000,000 as of March 15, 2023, and (iii) $1,750,000 which was used to fund the cash payment portion of the restructure of our obligations to Intelligent Partners. We also have an agreement with QF3 pursuant to which QF3 agreed to make available to us a financing facility of (i) up to $25,000,000 for the acquisition of mutually agreed patent rights that the Company intends to monetize: (ii) up to $4,000,000 for operating expenses from which the Company may, at its discretion, draw up to $500,000 per calendar quarter, of which we have drawn down $500,000 as of March 15, 2023, and (iii) $3,300,000 which was used to fund purchase of a patent portfolio from Tower Semiconductor Ltd. Pursuant to the QFL and QF3 agreements, QFL and QF3 receive all proceeds payable to us from the monetization of those patents which have been financed by QFL and QF3, respectively, until QFL and QF3 has received its negotiated rate of return, respectively, then we and QFL and QF3, respectively, share equally in the proceeds from monetization until QFL and QF3, respectively has received its investment return and thereafter we receive all of the net proceeds. Pursuant to our restructure agreement with Intelligent Partners, we have an obligation to pay TMPO totaling $2,805,000. Under our amended monetization proceeds agreements with Intelligent Partners, we pay Intelligent Partners 60% of the net monetization proceeds from associated intellectual property portfolios. Further, until we have paid Intelligent Partners a total of $2,805,000 under all of the monetization proceeds agreements, for net proceeds between $0 and $1,000,000 we are to pay Intelligent Partners 10% of the net proceeds realized from new assets acquired by us, provided, that, if, in any calendar quarter, our net proceeds realized exceed $1,000,000, Intelligent Partner’s entitlement for that quarter shall increase to 30% on the portion of net proceeds in excess of $1,000,000 but less than $3,000,000, and if in the same calendar quarter, net proceeds exceed $3,000,000, Intelligent Partners’ entitlement for that quarter shall increase to 50% on the portion of net proceeds in excess of $3,000,000. These payments come from our share of the proceeds after QFL and QF3 have recovered their negotiated rate of return, respectively. In these agreements, the monetization proceeds is determined after payment of contingent legal fees and certain other expenses, including payments due by us to as part of the purchase price for intellectual property rights. We cannot assure you that, as a result of these provisions, that we will generate any meaningful cash flow from the intellectual property we acquire. If we do not generate sufficient cash flow from our monetization activities, we may not be able to fund our operations or continue in business.

Our business may be impaired by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects of the response to the pandemic. Although we do not manufacture or sell products, the COVID-19 pandemic and the work shutdown imposed in the United States and other countries to limit the spread of the virus had a negative impact on our business. Our revenue is generated almost exclusively from license fees generated from litigation seeking damages for infringement of our intellectual property rights. The work shutdown affected the court system and the courts operated on a reduced schedule and some courts may still have a backlog as a result of the pandemic. As a result, deadlines may be postponed which may give defendants an incentive to delay negotiations or offer a lower amount than they might otherwise accept. In addition, the effect of the COVID-19 and new variants and subvariants the public response may adversely affect the financial condition and prospects of defendants and potential defendants, which would make it less likely that they would be willing to settle our claim.

We are dependent upon our chief executive officer. We are dependent upon Jon Scahill, our chief executive officer and president and sole full-time employee, for all aspects of our business including locating, evaluating and negotiating and performing due diligence with respect to intellectual property rights from the owners, managing our intellectual property portfolios, engaging in licensing activities and monetizing the rights through licensing and managing and monitoring any litigation with respect to our intellectual property as well as defending any actions by potential licensees seeking a declaratory judgment that they do not infringe. The loss of Mr. Scahill would materially impair our ability to conduct our business. Although we have an employment agreement with Mr. Scahill, the employment agreement does not ensure that Mr. Scahill will remain with us.

Any equity funding we obtain may result in significant dilution to our stockholders. Because of our financial position, our continuing losses and our negative working capital from operations, we do not expect that we will be able to obtain any debt financing for our operations. Our stock price has generally been trading at a price which is less than $1.00 per share for more than the past two years. As a result, it will be very difficult for us to raise funds in the equity markets. However, in the event that we are able to raise funds in the equity market, the sale of shares would result in significant dilution to the present stockholders, and even a modest equity investment could result in the issuance of a very significant number of shares.

Risks Relating to Monetizing our Intellectual Property Rights

We may not be able to monetize our intellectual property portfolios. Although our business plan is to generate revenue from our intellectual property portfolios, we have not been successful in generating any significant positive cash flow from our portfolios, we have not generated any revenues from several of our intellectual property portfolios and we have ceased allocating resources toward the monetization of several of our portfolios. We cannot assure you that we will be able to generate any significant revenue from our existing portfolios or that we will be able to acquire new intellectual property rights that will generate significant revenue.

If we are not successful in monetizing our portfolios, we may not be able to continue in business. Although we have ownership of some of our intellectual property, we also license the rights pursuant to agreements with the owners of the intellectual property. If we are not successful in generating revenue for those parties who have an interest in the results of our efforts, those parties may seek to renegotiate the terms of our agreements with them, which could both impair our ability to generate revenue from our intellectual property and make it more difficult for us to obtain rights to new intellectual property rights. If we continue to be unable to generate revenue from our existing intellectual property portfolios and any new portfolios we may acquire, we may be unable to continue in business.

If we are not successful in patent litigation, the defendants may seek to have the court award attorneys’ fees to them against us which could result in the bankruptcy of the plaintiff subsidiary and may result in a default under our agreements with QFL and QF3. The United States patent laws provide that “the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” Although the patents are owned by our subsidiaries and any judgment would be awarded against the subsidiaries, the subsidiaries have no assets other than the patent rights. Our funding sources for our patent litigation do not provide for the funding source to pay any judgment against us. Thus, if any defendants obtain a judgment against one of our subsidiaries, they may seek to enforce their judgment against the patents owned by the subsidiary or seek to put the subsidiary into bankruptcy and acquire the patents in the bankruptcy proceeding. As a result, it is possible that an adverse verdict in a petition for legal fees could result in the loss of the patents owned by the subsidiary and a default under our agreements with QFL and QF3.

Our inability to acquire intellectual property portfolios will impair our ability to generate revenue and develop our business. We do not have the personnel to develop patentable technology by ourselves. Thus, we need to depend on acquiring rights to intellectual property and intellectual property portfolios from third parties on an ongoing basis. In acquiring intellectual property rights, there are delays in (i) identifying the intellectual property which we may want to acquire, (ii) negotiating an agreement with the owner or holder of the intellectual property rights, and (iii) generating revenue from those intellectual property rights which we acquire. During these periods, we will continue to incur expenses with no assurance that we will generate revenue. We currently hold intellectual property portfolios from which we have not generated any revenue to date, and we cannot assure you that we will generate revenue from our existing intellectual property portfolios or any additional intellectual properties which we may acquire.

We may be unable to enforce our intellectual property rights unless we obtain third-party funding. Because of the expense of litigation and our lack of working capital, we may be unable to enforce our intellectual property rights unless we obtain the agreement of a third-party to provide funding in support of our litigation. We cannot assure you that QFL, QF3 or any other funding source provide us the any necessary funding, and the failure to obtain such funding may impair our ability to monetize our intellectual property portfolio or continue in business.

Because we need to rely on third-party funding sources to provide us with funds to enforce our intellectual property rights we are dependent upon the perception by potential funding sources of the value of our intellectual property. Because we do not have funds to pursue litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights, we are dependent upon the valuation which potential funding sources, which currently is QFL and QF3, give to our intellectual property or any intellectual property we may acquire. In determining whether to provide funding for intellectual property litigation, the funding sources need to make an evaluation of the strength of our patents, the likelihood of success, the nature of the potential defendants and a determination as to whether there is a sufficient potential recovery to justify a significant investment in intellectual property litigation. Typically, such funding sources receive a percentage of the recovery after litigation expenses, and seek to generate a sufficient return on investment to justify the investment. Under our agreements with QFL and QF3, QFL and QF3 are allocated all of the net proceeds (after allowable expenses), respectively, until it has received a negotiated return. Unless QFL, QF3 or any other funding source believes that it will generate a sufficient return on investment, it will not fund litigation. If QFL or QF3 does not fund our acquisition or monetization of intellectual property we propose to acquire, we cannot assure you that we will be able to negotiate funding agreements with third-party funding sources on terms reasonably acceptable to us, if at all. Because of our financial condition, we may only be able to obtain funding on terms which are less favorable to us than we would otherwise be able to obtain.

Although we have funding agreements with QFL and QF3, there is no assurance that QFL or QF3 will provide funding for portfolios we are looking to acquire or that we will generate revenue from any funded litigation. Although the funding sources makes their evaluation as to the likelihood of success, patent litigation is very uncertain, and we cannot assure you that we will obtain litigation funding or that, if we obtain litigation funding, we will be successful or that any recovery we may obtain will generate any significant positive cash flow from operations for us.

Because QFL, QF3 and Intelligent Partners hold a security interest in almost all of our intellectual property and the proceeds from our intellectual property, we may not be able to raise funds through a debt financing. Pursuant to our agreements with QFL, QF3 and Intelligent Partners, we granted them a security interest in the stock of our subsidiaries that hold the intellectual property acquired from Intellectual Ventures and in the proceeds from the monetization of intellectual property acquired from Intellectual Ventures and our mobile data and financial data portfolios. The inability to grant a security interest in these assets to a new lender is likely to materially impair our ability to obtain debt financing for our operations, and may also impair our ability to obtain financing to acquire additional intellectual property rights.

Because of our financial condition and our having generated a loss from operations in 2022 and 2021 from our existing portfolios, we may not be able to obtain intellectual property rights to the most advanced technologies. In order to generate meaningful revenues from intellectual property rights, we need to be able to identify, negotiate rights to and offer technologies for which there is a developing market. Because of our financial condition and the terms under which we obtain financing for our litigation, we may be unable to negotiate rights to technology for which there which will be a strong developing market, or, if we are able to negotiate agreements for such intellectual property, the terms of our purchase or license may not be favorable to us. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to acquire intellectual property rights to the technology for which there is a strong market demand.

Potential acquisitions may present risks, and we may be unable to achieve the financial or other goals intended at the time of any potential acquisition. Our ability to grow depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire interests in intellectual property, including patented technologies, patent portfolios, or companies holding such patented technologies and patent portfolios. Accordingly, we intend to engage in acquisitions to expand our intellectual property portfolios and we intend to continue to explore such acquisitions. Such acquisitions are subject to numerous risks, including the following:

If we are unable to manage these risks and other risks effectively as part of any acquisition, our business could be adversely affected.

Our acquisition of intellectual property rights may be time consuming, complex and costly, which could adversely affect our operating results. Acquisitions of patent or other intellectual property assets, which are and will be critical to the development of our business, 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 expect to incur significant operating expenses and may be required to raise capital during the negotiations even if the acquisition is ultimately not consummated. Even if we are able to acquire particular intellectual property assets, there is no guarantee that we will generate sufficient revenue related to those intellectual property assets to offset the acquisition costs. We may also identify intellectual property assets that cost more than we are prepared to spend with our own capital resources. We may incur significant costs to organize and negotiate a structured acquisition that does not ultimately result in an acquisition of any intellectual property assets or, if consummated, proves to be unprofitable for us. These higher costs could adversely affect our operating results.

If we acquire technologies that are in the early stages of market development, we may be unable to monetize the rights we acquire. We may acquire patents, technologies and other intellectual property rights 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 companies may adopt our intellectual property 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. It may also be necessary for us to develop additional intellectual property and file new patent applications as the underlying commercial market evolves, as a result of which we may incur substantial costs with no assurance that we will ever be able to monetize our intellectual property.

Our intellectual property monetization cycle is lengthy and costly and may be unsuccessful. We expect to incur significant marketing, legal and sales expenses prior to entering into monetization events that generate revenue and cash flow from operations for us. We will also spend considerable resources educating potential licensees on the benefits of entering into an agreement with us that may include a non-exclusive license for future use of our intellectual property rights. Thus, we may incur significant losses in any particular period before any associated revenue stream begins. If our efforts to convince potential licensees of the benefits of a settlement arrangement are unsuccessful, we may need to continue with the litigation process or other enforcement action to protect our intellectual property rights and to realize revenue from those rights. We may also need to litigate to enforce the terms of existing agreements, protect our trade secrets, or determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others. Enforcement proceedings are typically protracted and complex. The costs are typically substantial, and the outcomes are unpredictable. Enforcement actions will divert our managerial, technical, legal and financial resources from business operations.

We may not be successful in obtaining judgments in our favor. We have commenced litigation seeking to monetize our intellectual property portfolios and it will be necessary for us to commence ligation in the future. All litigation is uncertain, and a number of the actions we commenced have been dismissed by the trial court. We cannot assure you that any litigation will be decided in our favor or that, if damages are awarded or a license is negotiated, that we will generate any significant revenue from the litigation or that any recovery may be allocated to counsel and third-party funding source which may result in little if any revenue to us.

Our financial condition may cause both intellectual property rights owners and potential licensees to believe that we do not have the financial resources to commence and prosecute litigation for infringement. Because of our financial condition, both intellectual property rights owners and potential licensees may believe that we do not have the ability to commence and prosecute sustained and expensive litigation to protect our intellection rights with the effect that (i) intellectual property rights owners may be reluctant to grant us rights to their intellectual property and (ii) potential licensees may be less inclined to pay for license rights from us or settle any litigation we may commence on terms which generate any meaningful monetization.

Any patents which may be issued to us pursuant to patent applications which we filed or may file may fail to give us necessary protection. We cannot be certain that patents will be issued as a result of any pending or future patent applications, or that any of our patents, once issued, will provide us with adequate protection from competing products. For example, issued patents may be circumvented or challenged, declared invalid or unenforceable, or narrowed in scope. In addition, since publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we will be the first to make 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 acquire, our continued rights will depend on meeting any obligations to the seller 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 adverse effect on us.

The provisions of Federal Declaratory Judgment Act may affect our ability to monetize our intellectual property. Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, it is possible for a party who we consider to be infringing upon our intellectual property to commence an action against us seeking a declaratory judgment that such party is not infringing upon our intellectual property rights. In such a case, the plaintiff could choose the court in which to bring the action and we would be the defendant in the action. Common claims for declaratory judgment in patent cases are claims of non-infringement, patent invalidity and unenforceability. Although the commencement of an action requires a claim or controversy, a court may find a letter from us to the alleged infringer seeking a royalty for the use of our intellectual property rights to form the basis of a controversy. In such a case, the plaintiff, rather than we, would choose the court in which to bring the action and the timing of the action. In addition, when we commence an action as plaintiff, we may be able to enter into a contingent fee arrangement with counsel, it is possible that counsel may be less willing to accept such an arrangement if we are the defendant. Further, we would not have the opportunity of choosing against which party to bring the action. An adverse decision in a declaratory judgment action could significantly impair our ability to monetize the intellectual property rights which are the subject of the litigation. We have been a defendant in one declaratory judgment action, which resulted in a settlement. We cannot assure you that potential infringers will not be able to use the Declaratory Judgment Act to reduce our ability to monetize the patents that are the subject of the action.

A 2014 Supreme Court decision could significantly impair business method and software patents. In June 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Alice v. CLS Bank, struck down patents covering a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” by using a third-party intermediary, holding the patent claims to be ineligible as being drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The courts have been dealing for many years over what business methods are patentable. We cannot predict the extent to which the decision in Alice as well as prior Supreme Court decisions dealing with patents, will be interpreted by courts. To the extent that the Supreme Court decision in Alice gives businesses reason to believe that business model and software patents are not enforceable, it may become more difficult for us to monetize patents which are held to be within the ambit of the patents before the Supreme Court in Alice and for us to obtain counsel willing to represent us on a contingency basis. As a result, the decision in Alice could materially impair our ability to obtain patent rights and monetize those which we do obtain.

Legislation, regulations or rules related to obtaining patents or enforcing patents could significantly increase our operating costs and decrease our revenue. We may apply for patents and may spend a significant amount of resources to enforce those patents. If legislation, regulations or rules are implemented either by Congress, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 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. For example, new rules regarding the burden of proof in patent enforcement actions could significantly both increase the cost of our enforcement actions and make it more difficult to sign licenses without litigation, changes in standards or limitations on liability for patent infringement could negatively impact our revenue derived from such enforcement actions, and any rules requiring that the losing party pay legal fees of the prevailing party could also significantly increase the cost of our enforcement actions. United States patent laws were amended with the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, which took effect on March 16, 2013. 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. The America Invents Act and its implementation increases 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 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 Department of Justice 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.

Proposed legislation may affect our ability to conduct our business. There are presently pending or proposed a number of laws which, if enacted, may affect the ability of companies such as us to generate revenue from our intellectual property rights. Typically, these proposed laws cover legal actions brought by companies which do not manufacture products or supply services but seek to collect licensing fees based on their intellectual property rights and, if they are not able to enter into a license, to commence litigation. Although a number of such bills have been proposed in Congress, we do not know which, if any, bills will be enacted into law or what the provisions will be and, therefore, we cannot predict the effect, if any, that such laws, if passed by Congress and signed by the president, would provide. However, we cannot assure you that legislation will not be enacted which would impair our ability to operate by making it more difficult for us to commence litigation against a potential licensee or infringer. To the extent that an alleged infringer believes that we will not prevail in litigation, it would be more difficult to negotiate a license agreement without litigation.

The unpredictability of our revenues may harm our financial condition. Our revenues from licensing have typically been lump sum payments entered into at the time of the license, which is typically in connection with the settlement of litigation, and not from licenses that pay an ongoing royalty. Due to the nature of the licensing business and uncertainties regarding the amount and timing of the receipt of license and other fees from potential infringers, stemming primarily from uncertainties regarding the outcome of enforcement actions, rates of adoption of our patented technologies, the growth rates of potential licensees and certain other factors, our revenues, if any, may vary significantly from quarter to quarter, which could make our business difficult to manage, adversely affect our business and operating results, cause our quarterly results to fall below market expectations and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our success depends in part upon our ability to retain the qualified legal counsel to represent us in patent enforcement litigation. The success of our licensing business may depend upon our ability to retain the qualified legal counsel to prosecute patent infringement litigation. As our patent enforcement actions increase, it will become more difficult to find the preferred choice for legal counsel to handle all of our cases because many of these firms may have a conflict of interest that prevents their representation of us or because they are not willing to represent us on a contingent or partial contingent fee basis.

Our reliance on representations, warranties and opinions of third parties may expose us to certain material liabilities. From time to time, we rely upon the representations and warranties of third parties, including persons claiming ownership of intellectual property rights, and opinions of purported experts. In certain instances, we may not have the opportunity to independently investigate and verify the facts upon which such representations, warranties and opinions are made. By relying on these representation, warranties and opinions, we may be exposed to liability in connection with the licensing and enforcement of intellectual property and intellectual property rights which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

In connection with patent enforcement actions, counterclaims may be brought against us, and a court may rule against us in counterclaims which may expose us and our operating subsidiaries to material liabilities. In connection with patent enforcement actions, it is possible that a defendant may file counterclaims against us, or 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 our operating subsidiaries or award attorney’s fees and/or expenses to the counterclaiming defendant, which could be material, and if we or our operating subsidiaries are required to pay such monetary sanctions, attorneys’ fees and/or expenses, such payment could materially harm our operating results, our financial position and our ability to continue in business.

Trial judges and juries may find it difficult to understand complex patent enforcement litigation, and as a result, we may need to appeal adverse decisions by lower courts in order to successfully enforce our patents. It is difficult to predict the outcome of patent enforcement litigation at the trial level. It is often difficult for juries and trial judges to understand complex, patented technologies, and, as a result, there is a higher rate of successful appeals in patent enforcement litigation than more standard business litigation. Regardless of whether we prevail in the trial court, appeals are expensive and time consuming, resulting in increased costs and delayed revenue, and attorneys may be less likely to represent us in an appeal on a contingency basis especially if we are seeking to appeal an adverse decision. Although we may diligently pursue enforcement litigation, we cannot predict the decisions made by juries and trial courts.

More patent applications are filed each year resulting in longer delays in getting patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We hold a number of pending patents and may file or acquire rights to additional patent applications. We have identified a trend of increasing patent applications each year, which we believe is resulting in longer delays in obtaining approval of pending patent applications. The application delays could cause delays in recognizing revenue, if any, from these patents and could cause us to miss opportunities to license patents before other competing technologies are developed or introduced into the market.

U.S. Federal courts are becoming more crowded, and, as a result, patent enforcement litigation is taking longer. Patent enforcement actions are almost exclusively prosecuted in federal district courts. In May 2017, the United States Supreme Court, in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Groups Brands, held that a corporate defendant may be sued either in its state of incorporation, or where it has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. To the extent that the Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland concentrates patent litigation in districts within states popular for business incorporation, such as the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware, such courts may become increasingly crowded. Federal trial courts that hear patent enforcement actions also hear criminal and other civil cases. Criminal cases always take priority over patent enforcement actions. As a result, it is difficult to predict the length of time it will take to complete any enforcement action. Moreover, we believe there is a trend in increasing numbers of civil lawsuits and criminal proceedings, and, as a result, we believe that the risk of delays in patent enforcement actions will have a significant effect on our business in the future unless this trend changes.

Any reductions in the funding of the United States Patent and Trademark Office could have an adverse impact on the cost of processing pending patent applications and the value of those pending patent applications. Our primary assets are our patent portfolios, including pending patent applications before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The value of our patent portfolios is dependent upon the issuance of patents in a timely manner, and any reductions in the funding of the United States Patent and Trademark Office could negatively impact the value of our assets. Further, reductions in funding from Congress could result in higher patent application filing and maintenance fees charged by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, causing an unexpected increase in our expenses.

The rapid development of technology may impair our ability to monetize intellectual property that we own. In order for us to generate revenue from our intellectual property, we need to offer intellectual property that is used in the manufacture or development of products. Rapid technological developments have reduced the market for products using less advanced technology. To the extent that technology develops in a manner in which our intellectual property is not a necessary element or to the extent that others design around our intellectual property, our ability to license our intellectual property portfolios or successfully prosecute litigation will be impaired. We cannot assure you that we will have rights to intellectual property for most advanced technology or that there will be a market for products which require our technology.

The intellectual property management business is highly competitive. A large number of other companies seek to obtain rights to new intellectual property and to market existing intellectual property. Most of these companies have significantly both greater resources that we have and industry contacts which place them in a better position to generate new business. Further, our financial position, our lack of executive personnel and our inability to generate revenue from our portfolio can be used against us by our competitors. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in obtaining intellectual property rights to new developing technologies.

As intellectual property enforcement litigation becomes more prevalent, it may become more difficult for us to voluntarily license our intellectual property. We believe that the more prevalent intellectual property enforcement actions become, the more difficult it will be for us to voluntarily license our intellectual property rights, and we generally have not been successful in negotiating licenses without litigation. As a result, we may need to increase the number of our intellectual property enforcement actions to cause infringing companies to license the intellectual property or pay damages for lost royalties.

Weak global economic conditions may cause potential licensees to delay entering into licensing agreements, which could prolong our litigation and adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. Our business depends significantly on strong economic conditions that would encourage potential licensees to enter into license agreements for our intellectual property rights. The United States and world economies have recently experienced weak economic conditions and the recent Russian invasion in Ukraine has exacerbated these conditions, including those resulting from inflation and supply chain line issues. 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 adverse effect on the willingness of parties infringing on our assets to enter into settlements or other revenue generating agreements voluntarily.

If we are unable to adequately protect our intellectual property, we may not be able to monetize our intellectual property effectively. Our ability to monetize our intellectual property depends in part upon the strength of the intellectual property and intellectual property rights that we own or may hereafter acquire in our technologies, brands and content and our ability to protect such intellectual property rights. We rely on a combination of patent and intellectual property laws and agreements to establish and protect our patent, intellectual property and other proprietary rights. The efforts we take to protect our patents, intellectual property and other proprietary rights may not be sufficient or effective at stopping unauthorized use of our patents, intellectual property and other proprietary rights. In addition, effective trademark, patent, copyright and trade secret protection may not be available or cost-effective in every country in which we have rights. There may be instances where we are not able to protect or utilize our patent and other intellectual property in a manner that maximizes competitive advantage. If we are unable to protect our patent assets and intellectual property and other proprietary rights from unauthorized use, the value of those assets may be reduced, which could negatively impact our business. Our inability to obtain appropriate protections for our intellectual property may also allow competitors to enter our markets and produce or sell the same or similar products as those covered by our intellectual property rights. In addition, protecting our intellectual property and intellectual property rights is expensive and diverts our critical and limited managerial resources. If any of the foregoing were to occur, or if we are otherwise unable to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, our business and financial results could be impaired. Commencing legal proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights is burdensome and expensive. In addition, our intellectual property rights could be at risk if we are unsuccessful in, or cannot afford to pursue, those proceedings. We also rely on trade secrets and contract law to protect some of our intellectual property rights. We will enter into confidentiality and invention agreements with our employees and consultants. Nevertheless, these agreements may not be honored and they may not effectively protect our right to our un-patented trade secrets and know-how. Moreover, others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and know-how.

Risks Concerning our Common Stock

If our stock price falls below $0.01 per share, our common stock may be delisted from OTCQB. On May 23, 2022, we received notice from OTC Markets Group, that, because the bid price for our common stock had closed below $0.01 per share for more than 30 consecutive days, we no longer met the Standards for Continued Eligibility under the OTC listing standards and, if this deficiency is not met by August 21, 2022, our stock would be removed from the OTCQB marketplace, in which event our common stock will be traded on the OTC Pink market. Our registration rights agreement with QFL provides that, in the event of a failure to comply with certain covenants, which includes the failure of our common stock to be traded on the OTCQB, in addition to any other remedies available to QFL, we are to pay to QFL an amount in cash equal to 2.0% of the aggregate value of QFL’s Registrable Securities, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, whether or not included in such registration statement, on each of the following dates: (i) the initial day of a maintenance failure; (ii) on the 30th day after the date of such a failure and (iii) every 30th day thereafter (prorated for periods totaling less than 30 days) until such failure is cured. In July 2022, we amended our certificate of incorporation to effect a one-for-100 reverse split of our common stock. We subsequently received advice from OTC Markets Group that the deficiency had been cured. We had previously received a similar notice, and our common stock was taken off the OTCQB effective August 31, 2020, and it traded on the OTC Pink Market until May 7, 2021 when trading resumed on the OTCQB. We cannot assure you that we will continue to meet the requirements for continued listing on the OTCQB, including the maintenance of a bid price of at least $0.01 per share.

There is a limited market for our common stock, which may make it difficult for you to sell your stock. Our common stock trades on the OTCQB market under the symbol “QPRC.” The OTCQB market is not a national securities exchange and does not provide the benefits to stockholders which a national exchange provides. Furthermore, according to the OTC Markets website, the OTCQB “is for early-stage and developing U.S. and international companies. To be eligible, companies must be current in their reporting and undergo an annual verification and management certification process. Companies must meet $0.01 bid test and may not be in bankruptcy.” There is a limited trading market for our common stock and our common stock has frequently traded for less than $0.02. From August 28, 2020 to May 7, 2021 our common stock was delisted from the OTCQB and traded on the OTC Pink because our stock price fell below $0.01 per share for more than 30 consecutive trading days and on May 23, 2022, we received notice from the OTC Markets Group that our bid price was less than $0.01 for more than 30 consecutive trading days. As a result of the one-for-100 reverse split, which enabled our common stock to remain listed on the OTCQB, the number of shares in our public float declined by approximately 99%. Accordingly, there can be no assurance as to the liquidity of any markets that may develop for our common stock, the ability of holders of our common stock to sell our common stock, or the prices at which holders may be able to sell our common stock. Further, because of the thin float, the reported bid and asked prices may have little relationship to the price you would pay if you wanted to buy shares or the price you would receive if you wanted to sell shares.

Because our common stock is a penny stock, you may have difficulty selling our common stock in the secondary trading market. Our common stock fits the definition of a penny stock and therefore is subject to the rules adopted by the SEC regulating broker-dealer practices in connection with transactions in penny stocks. The SEC rules may have the effect of reducing trading activity in our common stock making it more difficult for investors to purchase and sell their shares. The SEC’s rules require a broker or dealer proposing to effect a transaction in a penny stock to deliver the customer a risk disclosure document that provides certain information prescribed by the SEC, including, but not limited to, the nature and level of risks in the penny stock market. The broker or dealer must also disclose the aggregate amount of any compensation received or receivable by him in connection with such transaction prior to consummating the transaction. In addition, the SEC’s rules also require a broker or dealer to make a special written determination that the penny stock is a suitable investment for the purchaser and receive the purchaser’s written agreement to the transaction before completion of the transaction. The existence of the SEC’s rules may result in a lower trading volume of our common stock and lower trading prices. Further, some broker-dealers will not process transactions in penny stocks. Many brokers do not trade in penny stocks and stocks that are not listed on a stock exchange.

Our lack of internal controls over financial reporting may affect the market for and price of our common stock. Our disclosure controls and our internal controls over financial reporting are not effective because of material weaknesses. Since we became engaged in the intellectual property management business in 2008, we have not had the financial resources or personnel to develop or implement systems that would provide us with the necessary information on a timely basis so as to be able to implement financial controls. Our continued poor financial condition together with the fact that we have one full time employee, who is both our chief executive officer and acting chief financial officer, makes it difficult for us to implement a system of internal controls over financial reporting, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to develop and implement the necessary controls. The absence of internal controls over financial reporting may inhibit investors from purchasing our shares and may make it more difficult for us to raise debt or equity financing.