XWELL, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2015 March (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015

For the transition period from to

Commission file number: 001-34785

VRINGO, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

(212) 309-7549

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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

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

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

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

As of April 24, 2015, 93,571,042 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.

VRINGO, INC.

Table of Contents

Part I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.    Financial Statements

Vringo, Inc. and Subsidiaries

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

The accompanying notes form an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Vringo, Inc. and Subsidiaries

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

The accompanying notes form an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Vringo, Inc. and Subsidiaries

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

(Unaudited)

(In thousands)

The accompanying notes form an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Vringo, Inc. and Subsidiaries

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(In thousands)

The accompanying notes form an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Vringo, Inc. and Subsidiaries

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except for share and per share data)

Note 1. General

Overview

Vringo, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries (“Vringo” or the “Company”), is engaged in the development and monetization of intellectual property worldwide. The Company's intellectual property portfolio consists of over 600 patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure, internet search and mobile technologies. The Company’s patents and patent applications have been developed internally or acquired from third parties. In potential acquisitions, the Company seeks to purchase all of, or interests in, technology and intellectual property in exchange for cash, the Company’s securities and/or interests in the monetization of those assets. Revenue from this aspect of Vringo’s business can be generated through licensing and litigation efforts.

Prior to December 31, 2013, the Company operated a global platform for the distribution of mobile social applications and the services that it developed. On February 18, 2014, the Company executed the sale of its mobile social application business to InfoMedia Services Limited (“InfoMedia”), receiving an 8.25% ownership interest in InfoMedia as consideration. As part of the transaction, the Company has the opportunity to license certain intellectual property assets and support InfoMedia to identify and protect new intellectual property.

Infrastructure Patents

The Company’s infrastructure patents are primarily made up of a patent portfolio purchased from Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”) in 2012. This patent portfolio is comprised of 124 patent families with counterparts in certain jurisdictions world-wide and encompass technologies relating to telecom infrastructure, including communication management, data and signal transmission, mobility management, radio resources management and services. Declarations were filed by Nokia indicating that 31 of the 124 patent families acquired may be essential to wireless communications standards. The Company also owns other acquired infrastructure patent portfolios and has filed over 60 internally developed patent applications. As one of the means of realizing the value of the patents on telecom infrastructure, the Company has filed a number of suits against ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”), ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUS”), and certain of their subsidiaries, affiliates and other companies in the United States, European jurisdictions, India, Australia, Brazil, and Malaysia alleging infringement of certain U.S., European, Indian, Australian, Brazilian, and Malaysian patents.

To date, in connection with the suits filed against ZTE, Vringo patents have been found to be infringed in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and Germany, and preliminary relief has been granted in India, Brazil, Romania, and the Netherlands. Separately, Vringo has entered into settlement and license agreements with ADT, Tyco, D-Link, and Belkin.

Search Patents

On September 15, 2011, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”), initiated litigation against AOL Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation (collectively, the “Defendants”) for infringement of claims of certain of its owned patents. Trial commenced during 2012, and, on November 6, 2012, the jury ruled in favor of I/P Engine and against the Defendants. After upholding the validity of the patents-in-suit, and determining that the asserted claims of the patents were infringed by the Defendants, the jury found that reasonable royalty damages should be based on a “running royalty,” and that the running royalty rate should be 3.5%. The jury also awarded I/P Engine a total of approximately $30.5 million. In January 2014, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “District Court”) ordered that I/P Engine recover an additional sum of $17.32 million from the Defendants for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest. Further, the District Court ruled that the appropriate ongoing royalty rate for Defendants' continued infringement of the patents-in-suit is a rate of 6.5% of the 20.9% royalty base previously set by the District Court. These rulings were appealed by the Defendants and the oral argument was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) on May 6, 2014.

On August 15, 2014, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court by holding that the claims of the patents-in-suit asserted by the Company against the Defendants are invalid for obviousness. The Company filed a petition with the Federal Circuit on October 15, 2014 seeking en banc review of the decision. On October 20, 2014, the Federal Circuit invited the defendants/appellants to respond to the petition. On December 15, 2014, the Federal Circuit denied I/P Engine's petition for rehearing of the case en banc and consequently, the Company announced that I/P Engine will seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) of the Federal Circuit’s decision. I/P Engine intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which requests review of the Federal Circuit’s decision, by the May 14, 2015 deadline.

Financial conditions

As of March 31, 2015, the Company had a cash balance of $12,239. The Company’s average monthly cash spent in operations for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 was approximately $1,167 and $2,831, respectively. In addition, the Company paid approximately $2,682 in deposits with courts beginning in the second quarter of 2014 to date, related to proceedings in Germany, Brazil, Romania, and Malaysia, which are included in Deposits with courts in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. Deposits with courts paid in local currency are remeasured on the balance sheet date based on the related foreign exchange rate on that date. As of March 31, 2015, Deposits with courts totaled $2,070. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company’s total stockholders' equity was $26,251 and $31,180, respectively. The decrease in stockholders’ equity since December 31, 2014 is mainly due to the operating loss during the quarter ended March 31, 2015.

On May 4, 2015 (the “Closing Date”), the Company entered into a securities purchase agreement with certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering of $12,500 of Senior Secured Convertible Notes (the “Notes”) and certain warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock. On the Closing Date, the Company issued the Notes, which are convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at $1.00 per share, bear 8% interest and mature in 21 months from the date of issuance, unless earlier converted. In addition, the Company issued approximately 5.4 million warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock, which are exercisable at $1.00 per share and are exercisable for a period of five years. In connection with the issuance of the Notes and warrants, the Company received net cash proceeds of $12,425 on May 5, 2015. The Company’s obligations under the outstanding Notes are secured by a first priority perfected security interest in substantially all of the Company’s U.S. assets. In addition, stock of certain subsidiaries of the Company has been pledged. The outstanding notes contain customary events of default, as well as covenants which include restrictions on the assumption of new debt by the Company.

The principal amount of the outstanding Notes will be repaid monthly, and the Company may make such payments and related interest payments in cash or, subject to certain conditions, in registered shares of the Company’s common stock, at its election. If the Company chooses to repay the Notes in shares of its common stock, the shares will be issued at a 15% discount, based on the then-current market price data of the Company’s common stock. The Company may also repay the Notes in advance of the maturity schedule subject to early repayment penalties. This transaction will be accounted for in the second quarter of fiscal 2015. As a result of this transaction, the Company’s cash balance as of May 5, 2015 is approximately $22,900.

The Company’s operating plans include efforts to increase revenue through the licensing of its intellectual property, strategic partnerships, and litigation, when required, which may be resolved through a settlement or collection. Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical. The majority of the Company’s expenditures consist of costs related to the Company’s litigation campaigns. In the cases against ZTE and ASUS, the Company incurred costs during the first quarter of 2015 related to the preparation and filing of briefs and other court documents, as well as case preparation and management. A large percentage of these costs were incurred in the UK and the U.S. In civil law jurisdictions, such as Germany, France, Spain, and others, the majority of costs are incurred in the early stages of litigation. With respect to the Company’s litigation in such countries, the respective campaigns are currently in the later stages and therefore the Company has already incurred the large majority of the related anticipated costs. As such, based on the Company’s plans, costs in these jurisdictions are projected to be lower in the remainder of 2015 and other future periods. 

Despite the Company’s plans, its legal proceedings may continue for several years and may require significant expenditures for legal fees and other expenses. Further, should the Company be deemed the losing party in certain of its litigations, it may be liable for some or all of its opponents’ legal fees. In addition, in connection with litigation, the Company has made several affirmative financial guarantees to courts around the world, and might face the need to make additional guarantees in the future.

In addition, the Company’s plans to continue to expand its planned operations through acquisitions and monetization of additional patents, other intellectual property or operating businesses may be time consuming, complex and costly to consummate. The Company may utilize many different transaction structures in its acquisitions and the terms of such acquisition agreements tend to be heavily negotiated. The Company’s future ability to raise capital, if necessary, may be limited. Even if the Company is able to acquire particular patents or other intellectual property assets, there is no guarantee that it will generate sufficient revenue related to those assets to offset the acquisition costs. Therefore, no assurance can be given at this time as to whether the Company will be able to achieve its objectives or whether it will have the sources of liquidity for follow through with its operating plans.

In addition, until the Company generates sufficient revenue, the Company may need to raise additional funds, which may be achieved through the issuance of additional equity or debt, or through loans from financial institutions. There can be no assurance, however, that any such opportunities will materialize. The Company may also be able to raise additional funds through the exercise of its outstanding warrants and options, however, substantially all of such outstanding equity instruments are currently “out of the money”.

As a result of the events and circumstances described above, including the cash proceeds received in connection with the May 2015 financing transaction and the Company’s operating plans, which include paying the principal and interest related to the Notes in shares of the Company’s common stock, the Company believes that it currently has sufficient cash to continue its current operations for at least the next twelve months.

Note 2. Accounting and Reporting Policies

(a) Basis of presentation and principles of consolidation

The accompanying interim consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information and the instructions to Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X, and should be read in conjunction with the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. The results of operations for the three month period ended March 31, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire fiscal year or for any other interim period. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

(b) Use of estimates

The preparation of accompanying consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses for the periods presented. Actual results may differ from such estimates. Significant items subject to such estimates and assumptions include the Company’s intangibles assets, the useful lives of the Company’s intangible assets, the valuation of the Company’s derivative warrants, the valuation of stock-based compensation, deferred tax assets and liabilities, income tax uncertainties and other contingencies.

(c) Translation into U.S. dollars

The Company conducts certain transactions in foreign currencies, which are recorded at the exchange rate as of the transaction date. All exchange gains and losses occurring from the remeasurement of monetary balance sheet items denominated in non-dollar currencies are reflected as non-operating income or expense in the consolidated statements of operations.   

(d) Cash and cash equivalents

The Company invests its cash in money market funds with financial institutions. The Company has established guidelines relating to diversification and maturities of its investments in order to minimize credit risk and maintain high liquidity of funds. All highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less at acquisition date are considered cash equivalents.

(e) Derivative instruments

The Company recognizes all derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets at their respective fair values. Derivative instruments are revalued at each reporting date, with changes in the fair value of the instruments included in the consolidated statements of operations as non-operating income (expense). As of March 31, 2015, the Company does not have any outstanding derivative instruments.

(f) Intangible assets

Intangible assets include purchased patents which are recorded based on the cost to acquire them. These assets are amortized over their remaining estimated useful lives, which are periodically evaluated for reasonableness. The Company’s intangible assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. In assessing the recoverability of the Company's intangible assets, the Company must make estimates and assumptions regarding future cash flows and other factors to determine the fair value of the respective assets. These estimates and assumptions could have a significant impact on whether an impairment charge is recognized and also the magnitude of any such charge. Fair value estimates are made at a specific point in time, based on relevant information. These estimates are subjective in nature and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgments and therefore cannot be determined with precision. Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the estimates. If these estimates or material related assumptions change in the future, the Company may be required to record impairment charges related to its intangible assets. 

(g) Revenue recognition

Revenue from patent licensing and enforcement is recognized if collectability is reasonably assured, persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the sales price is fixed or determinable and delivery of the service has been rendered. The Company uses management's best estimate of selling price for individual elements in multiple-element arrangements, where vendor specific evidence or third party evidence of selling price is not available. 

Currently, the Company’s revenue arrangements provide for the payment of contractually determined fees and other consideration for the grant of certain intellectual property rights related to the Company’s patents. These rights typically include some combination of the following: (i) the grant of a non-exclusive, retroactive and future license to manufacture and/or sell products covered by patents, (ii) the release of the licensee from certain claims, and (iii) the dismissal of any pending litigation. The intellectual property rights granted typically extend until the expiration of the related patents. Pursuant to the terms of these agreements, the Company has no further obligation with respect to the grant of the non-exclusive retroactive and future licenses, covenants-not-to-sue, releases, and other deliverables, including no express or implied obligation on the Company’s part to maintain or upgrade the related technology, or provide future support or services. Generally, the agreements provide for the grant of the licenses, covenants-not-to-sue, releases, and other significant deliverables upon execution of the agreement, or upon receipt of the upfront payment. As such, the earnings process is complete and revenue is recognized upon the execution of the agreement, upon receipt of the upfront fee, and when all other revenue recognition criteria have been met. 

(h) Operating legal costs

Operating legal costs mainly include expenses incurred in connection with the Company’s patent licensing and enforcement activities, patent-related legal expenses paid to external patent counsel (including contingent legal fees), licensing and enforcement related research, consulting and other expenses paid to third parties, as well as related internal payroll expenses and stock-based compensation. In addition, amounts received by the Company for reimbursements of legal fees in connection with our litigation campaigns are recorded in Operating legal costs as contra-expense.  

(i) Stock-based compensation

Stock-based compensation is recognized as an expense in the consolidated statements of operations and such cost is measured at the grant-date fair value of the equity-settled award. The fair value of stock options is estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton option-pricing model. The expense is recognized on a straight-line basis, over the requisite service period. The Company uses the simplified method to estimate the expected term of options due to insufficient history and high turnover in the past. Since the Company lacks sufficient history, expected volatility is estimated based on a weighted average historical volatility of the Company and comparable entities with publicly traded shares. The risk-free rate for the expected term of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve at the date of grant.

(j) Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which impacts virtually all aspects of an entity's revenue recognition. The core principle of the new standard is that revenue should be recognized to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption on its consolidated financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205): Going Concern. The new standard provides guidance around management's responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity's ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016 and early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption on its consolidated financial statements.

(k) Reclassification

Certain balances have been reclassified to conform to presentation requirements.

Note 3. Intangible Assets

The following table provides information regarding the Company’s intangible assets, which consist of its patents:

The Company’s patents consist of three major patent portfolios, which were acquired from third parties, as well as a number of internally developed patents. The costs related to internally developed patents are expensed as incurred.

In August 2012, the Company purchased a portfolio from Nokia consisting of various patents and patent applications as described in Note 1. The total consideration paid for the portfolio was $22,000 and the Company capitalized certain costs related to the acquisition of patents in the total amount of $548. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, to the extent that the gross revenue generated by such portfolio exceeds $22,000, the Company is obligated to pay a royalty of 35% of such excess. The Company has not recorded any amounts in respect of this contingent consideration, as both the amounts of future potential revenue, if any, and the timing of such revenue cannot be reasonably estimated.  

The Company’s patents are amortized over their expected useful lives (i.e., through the expiration date of the patent). During the three-month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded amortization expense of $804 and $957, respectively, related to its patents.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company determined that there were impairment indicators related to certain of its patents. A significant factor that was considered when making this determination included the announcement of the Federal Circuit’s decision on August 15, 2014 described in Note 1. The Company concluded that this factor was deemed a “triggering” event requiring that the related patent assets be tested for impairment during the third quarter of 2014. In performing this impairment test, the Company determined that the patent portfolio containing the patents-in-suit in I/P Engine's litigation against AOL Inc., Google Inc. et al, which represents an asset group, was subject to impairment testing. In the first step of the impairment test, the Company utilized its projections of future undiscounted cash flows based on the Company’s existing plans for the patents. As a result, it was determined that the Company’s projections of future undiscounted cash flows were less than the carrying value of the asset group. Accordingly, the Company performed the second step of the impairment test to measure the potential impairment by calculating the asset group’s fair value. This resulted in an impairment of $1,355 during the third quarter of 2014, related to the asset group, which represents the difference between the fair value and the carrying value of the asset group. There were no impairment charges related to the Company’s patents during the three-month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014.

Note 4. Net Loss per Common Share

Basic net loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss for the period by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss for the period by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock plus dilutive potential common stock considered outstanding during the period. However, as the Company generated net losses in all periods presented, some potentially dilutive securities that relate to the continuing operations, including certain warrants and stock options, were not reflected in diluted net loss per share because the impact of such instruments was anti-dilutive. The table below presents the computation of basic and diluted net losses per common share: 

Note 5. Discontinued Operations

On February 18, 2014, the Company executed the sale of its mobile social application business to InfoMedia. As consideration for the assets and agreements related to the Company’s mobile social application business, the Company received 18 Class B shares of InfoMedia, which represent an 8.25% ownership interest in InfoMedia. Additionally, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer was appointed as a full voting member on InfoMedia’s board of directors and the Company received a number of customary protective rights. The InfoMedia Class B shares are accounted for as a cost-method investment at the carrying amount of $787 and are included in Other assets in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. During the quarter ended March 31, 2015, there were no events or changes in circumstances that would indicate that the carrying amount of this investment may no longer be recoverable.

In connection with the sale of its mobile social application business, the Company is required to present the results of the Company’s mobile social application business as discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations. The following table represents the components of operating results from discontinued operations for the three months ended March 31, 2014, as presented in the consolidated statements of operations: 

 Note 6. Fair Value Measurements

The Company measures fair value in accordance with FASB Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures. FASB ASC 820-10 clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received by selling an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or a liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, FASB ASC 820-10 establishes a three-tier value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in the valuation methodologies in measuring fair value:

Level 1: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities accessible to the reporting entity at the measurement date.

Level 2: Other than quoted prices included in Level 1 inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

Level 3: Unobservable inputs for the asset or liability used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available, thereby allowing for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at measurement date.

The fair value hierarchy also requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value.

The following table presents the placement in the fair value hierarchy of liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2014:

The Company measures its derivative liabilities at fair value. The Conversion Warrants, the derivative Reload Warrants and the derivative Series 1 Warrants (as defined in Note 8) were classified within Level 3 because they were valued using the Black-Scholes-Merton and the Monte-Carlo models (as these warrants included down-round protection clauses), which utilize significant inputs that are unobservable in the market. On January 1, 2015, the down-round protection clauses associated with all of the Company’s outstanding derivative warrants expired and, as a result, these warrants no longer meet the criteria for liability classification. As such, the related liabilities were revalued as of January 1, 2015 and the balance of $175 was reclassified to equity as of March 31, 2015.

In addition to the above, the Company’s financial instruments as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 consisted of cash, cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable and deposits. The carrying amounts of all the aforementioned financial instruments approximate fair value.

Valuation processes for Level 3 Fair Value Measurements

Fair value measurement of the derivative warrant liabilities related to the Conversion Warrants, Reload Warrants and Series 1 Warrants (as defined in Note 8) fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value measurements are evaluated by management to ensure that changes are consistent with expectations of management based upon the sensitivity and nature of the inputs.

December 31, 2014:  

  Sensitivity of Level 3 measurements to changes in significant unobservable inputs

The inputs to estimate the fair value of the Company’s derivative warrant liabilities were the current market price of the Company’s common stock, the exercise price of the warrant, its remaining expected term, the volatility of the Company’s common stock price, the Company’s assumptions regarding the probability and timing of a down-round protection triggering event and the risk-free interest rate. Significant changes in any of those inputs in isolation can result in a significant change in the fair value measurement. Generally, an increase in the market price of the Company’s shares of common stock, an increase in the volatility of the Company’s shares of common stock, an increase in the remaining term of the warrant, or an increase of a probability of a down-round triggering event would each result in a directionally similar change in the estimated fair value of the Company’s warrants. Such changes would increase the associated liability while decreases in these assumptions would decrease the associated liability. An increase in the risk-free interest rate or a decrease in the positive differential between the warrant’s exercise price and the market price of the Company’s shares of common stock would result in a decrease in the estimated fair value measurement of the warrants and thus a decrease in the associated liability. The Company has not, and does not plan to, declare dividends on its common stock, and as such, there is no change in the estimated fair value of the warrants due to the dividend assumption.

Note 7. Stock-based Compensation

The Company has a stock-based compensation plan available to grant stock options and RSU to the Company’s directors, employees and consultants. Under the 2012 Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), a maximum of 15,600,000 shares of common stock may be awarded. As of March 31, 2015, 4,974,566 shares were available for future grants under the Plan.   

The following table illustrates the stock options granted during the three month period ended March 31, 2015:

Certain options granted are subject to acceleration of vesting of 75% - 100% (according to the agreement signed with each grantee), upon a subsequent change of control.

The activity related to stock options and RSU during the three month period ended March 31, 2015 consisted of the following:

The Company did not recognize tax benefits related to its stock-based compensation as there is a full valuation allowance recorded.

Note 8. Warrants

The following table summarizes information about warrant activity during the three month period ended March 31, 2015: 

The Company’s outstanding warrants as of March 31, 2015 consist of the following:

* All outstanding warrants as of March 31, 2015 are classified as equity.

Note 9. Revenue from Settlements and Licensing Agreements

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company entered into a confidential agreement with D-Link, effective March 10, 2015, that resolved all litigation pending between the parties.

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and legal proceedings

The Company retains the services of professional service providers, including law firms that specialize in intellectual property licensing, enforcement and patent law. These service providers are often retained on an hourly, monthly, project, contingent or a blended fee basis. In contingency fee arrangements, a portion of the legal fee is based on predetermined milestones or the Company’s actual collection of funds. The Company accrues contingent fees when it is probable that the milestones will be achieved and the fees can be reasonably estimated.

The Company’s subsidiaries have filed patent infringement lawsuits against the subsidiaries of ZTE and its subsidiaries in the UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Australia, India, Brazil, Malaysia, and Romania, and against ASUS and its subsidiaries in Germany, Spain and India. In such jurisdictions, an unsuccessful plaintiff may be required to pay a portion of the other party’s legal fees. In addition, the Company may be required to grant additional written commitments, as necessary, in connection with its commenced proceedings against ZTE and its subsidiaries in various countries. It should be noted, however, that if the Company were successful on any court applications or the entirety of any litigation, the defendants may be responsible for a substantial portion of the Company’s legal fees.

Pursuant to negotiation with ZTE’s UK subsidiary, the Company made two written commitments, in November 2012 and May 2013, representing payment should a liability by Vringo Infrastructure arise as a result of the two cases it has filed. Each of the cases filed include three patents which the Company has alleged are infringed by ZTE. The defendants estimated the total possible liability to be no more than approximately $2,900 for each case.

In March 2014, the Company withdrew one of the patents included in the first case against ZTE’s UK subsidiary. ZTE withdrew its invalidity counterclaims.

In November 2014, with respect to another patent included in the first case, the Court found that Vringo’s patent is valid as amended and infringed by ZTE. ZTE did not appeal the decision, and the decision is final.

On February 17, 2015, Vringo withdrew its infringement claims against ZTE on three of the four remaining European Patents in suit in the second litigation in the UK. ZTE subsequently withdrew its invalidity counterclaims in respect of these three patents.

On April 10, 2015, Vringo and ZTE reached an agreement in relation to the remaining European Patent in issue (EP (UK) 1 330 933) in the second patent case in the UK in which the parties will withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims.

The Company recorded its best estimate of its liability in respect of ZTE’s legal fees, which is presented in Other liabilities included in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

On September 13, 2013 and January 28, 2014, Vringo Germany filed two suits in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of two European patents by ZTE’s German subsidiary. Those cases were heard by the Court on November 27, 2014. On January 22, 2015, the Court issued its judgment, finding that ZTE does not infringe either patent. On February 17, 2015, Vringo filed notices of appeal for each patent. The appeal process is anticipated to take at least one year.

On May 5, 2014, the Company deposited a bond of €1,000 (approximately $1,085 as of March 31, 2015) to enforce an injunction against ZTE in Germany. Should the injunction be successfully overturned on appeal, the Company may be obligated to compensate ZTE for any damages allegedly suffered as a result of the enforcement of the injunction, which would be ascertained through separate damages proceedings. Should the judgment which granted the injunction be affirmed on appeal, however, the amount paid as security would be returnable to the Company in full. The Company has assessed the likelihood of the injunction being successfully overturned on appeal as remote.   

In Brazil, as a condition of the relief requested, the Company deposited R$2,020 on April 17, 2014 (approximately $621 as of March 31, 2015), as a surety against the truth of allegations contained in the complaint. This deposit is returnable at the end of the litigation unless ZTE is the prevailing party and proves that actual material damages were suffered while the requested relief was in place. The Company has assessed the likelihood of ZTE doing so as remote.

In Romania, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the Bucharest Tribunal Civil Section on June 23, 2014 and the Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction, ordering ZTE to cease any importation, exportation, introduction on the market, offer for sale, storage, sale, trade, distribution, promotion, or any other business activity regarding the infringing product. The Company deposited a bond of €243 on February 11, 2015 (approximately $264 as of March 31, 2015) with the Court in order to continue to enforce the injunction.

The bond deposits in Germany and Romania and the surety deposit in Brazil are included in Deposits with courts in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

Leases

In July 2012, the Company signed a rental agreement for its corporate executive office in New York for an annual rental fee of approximately $137 (subject to certain adjustments) which was to expire in September 2015. In January 2014, the Company entered into an amended lease agreement with the landlord for a different office space within the same building. The initial annual rental fee for this new office is approximately $403 (subject to certain future escalations and adjustments) beginning on August 1, 2014, which was the date when the new office space was available. This lease will expire in October 2019. Rent expense for operating leases for the three month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 were $91 and $112, respectively.

Note 11. Risks and Uncertainties

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

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains “forward-looking statements” that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The statements contained herein that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are often identified by the use of words such as, but not limited to, “anticipates,” “believes,” “can,” “continues,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “will be,” “plans,” “projects,” “seeks,” “should,” “targets,” “will,” “would,” and similar expressions or variations intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the beliefs and assumptions of our management based on information currently available to management. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below, and those discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors” included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 16, 2015 and any future reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The forward-looking statements set forth herein speak only as of the date of this report. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements, except as required by law.

All references in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Vringo, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries.  

Overview

Vringo, Inc. (“Vringo”) strives to develop, acquire, license and protect innovation worldwide. We are currently focused on identifying, generating, acquiring, and deriving economic benefits from intellectual property assets. We plan to continue to expand our portfolio of intellectual property assets through acquiring and internally developing new technologies. We intend to monetize our technology portfolio through a variety of value enhancing initiatives, including, but not limited to:

On February 18, 2014, we closed a transaction with InfoMedia Services Limited (“InfoMedia”) for the sale of certain assets and the assignment of certain agreements related to our mobile social application business. As consideration, we received 18 Class B shares of InfoMedia, which represent an 8.25% ownership interest in InfoMedia. InfoMedia is a privately owned, United Kingdom (“UK”) based, provider of customer relationship management and monetization technologies to mobile carriers and device manufacturers. As part of the transaction, we will have the opportunity to license certain intellectual property assets and support InfoMedia to identify and protect new intellectual property.

The accompanying interim consolidated financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Our Strategy

We manage an intellectual property portfolio consisting of over 600 patents and patent applications, covering telecom infrastructure, internet search and mobile technologies. These patents and patent applications have been developed internally or acquired from third parties. We strive to develop, acquire, license and protect innovation worldwide. We seek to expand our portfolio of intellectual property through acquisition and development both internally and with the assistance of third parties. Our goal is to partner with innovators of compelling technologies.

In potential acquisitions, we seek to purchase all of, or interests in, technology and intellectual property in exchange for cash, our securities and/or interests in the monetization of those assets. Our revenue from this aspect of our business can be generated through licensing and litigation efforts. We engage in robust due diligence and a principled risk underwriting process to evaluate the merits and potential value of any acquisition or partnership. We seek to structure the terms of our acquisitions and partnerships in a manner that will achieve the highest risk-adjusted returns possible. We believe that our capital resources and potential access to capital, together with the experience of our management team and board of directors, will allow us to assemble a portfolio of quality assets with short and long-term revenue opportunities.

Intellectual Property

Search Patents

On September 15, 2011, our wholly-owned subsidiary, I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) initiated litigation in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against AOL Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation (collectively, the “Defendants”) for infringement of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664, which I/P Engine acquired from Lycos, Inc.

Trial commenced on October 16, 2012, and the case was submitted to the jury on November 1, 2012. On November 6, 2012, the jury ruled in favor of I/P Engine and against the Defendants. After upholding the validity of the patents-in-suit, and determining that the asserted claims of the patents were infringed by the defendants, the jury found that reasonable royalty damages should be based on a “running royalty,” and that the running royalty rate should be 3.5%. The jury also awarded I/P Engine a total of approximately $30.5 million. On November 20, 2012, the clerk entered the District Court's final judgment.

On January 3, 2014, the District Court ordered that I/P Engine recover an additional sum of $17.32 million from Defendants for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest. On January 21, 2014, the District Court ruled that Defendants' alleged design-around is “nothing more than a colorable variation of the system adjudged to infringe," and accordingly I/P Engine "is entitled to ongoing royalties as long as Defendants continue to use the modified system.” On January 28, 2014, the District Court ruled that the appropriate ongoing royalty rate for Defendants' continued infringement of the patents-in-suit that “would reasonably compensate [I/P Engine] for giving up [its] right to exclude yet allow an ongoing willful infringer to make a reasonable profit” is a rate of 6.5% of the 20.9% royalty base previously set by the District Court. The Defendants also filed a separate appeal related to these matters.

On August 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that the claims of the patents-in-suit asserted by the Company against the Defendants are invalid for obviousness. On August 20, 2014, Vringo announced that I/P Engine would seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit's decision.

On October 15, 2014, I/P Engine filed a petition for rehearing en banc, in which it argues that the majority's opinion in this case presents important questions of law and is at odds with a series of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions which do not allow appellate judges to disregard a jury's detailed findings under these circumstances. I/P Engine argued that review is particularly appropriate here, where the panel majority not only failed to adopt the proper legal standard, but explicitly rejected it.

On December 15, 2014, the Federal Circuit denied I/P Engine's petition for rehearing of the case en banc and consequently, we announced that I/P Engine will seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) of the Federal Circuit's decision. I/P Engine intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which requests review of the Federal Circuit’s decision, by the May 14, 2015 deadline.

The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the website for the Supreme Court of the United States, www.supremecourt.gov.

Infrastructure Patents

As one of the means of realizing the value of the patents on telecom infrastructure, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. (“Vringo Infrastructure”), Vringo, Inc. and Vringo Germany GmbH (“Vringo Germany”) have filed a number of suits against ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”), ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUS”), D-Link Corporation (“D-Link”), and certain of their subsidiaries, affiliates and other companies in the United States, European jurisdictions, India, Australia, Brazil, and Malaysia alleging infringement of certain U.S., European, Indian, Australian, Brazilian, and Malaysian patents.

ZTE

United Kingdom

On October 5, 2012, Vringo Infrastructure filed a suit in the UK High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, alleging infringement of three European patents. Subsequently, ZTE responded to the complaint with a counterclaim for invalidity of the patents-in-suit. Vringo Infrastructure filed a second UK suit on December 3, 2012, alleging infringement of three additional European patents.

In March 2014, Vringo Infrastructure withdrew its claim to one of the patents included in the first suit, and ZTE withdrew its invalidity counterclaim. Another patent included in the first suit was heard in a trial that commenced on October 28, 2014.

On November 28, 2014, the Court found the patent valid as amended and infringed by ZTE. Following the Court’s ruling, ZTE applied to introduce new prior art and re-argue the validity of the patent; the application was rejected on January 30, 2015. There was no appeal by ZTE of the substantive decision and therefore the decision is final. The parties will submit pleadings on remedies over the next several months. A hearing to determine the scope, timing and course of the remedies phase of the litigation is scheduled for June 2015.

On February 17, 2015, Vringo withdrew its infringement claims against ZTE on three of the four remaining European Patents in suit in the second litigation in the UK. ZTE subsequently withdrew its invalidity counterclaims in respect of these three patents.

On April 10, 2015, Vringo and ZTE reached an agreement in relation to the remaining European Patent in issue (EP (UK) 1 330 933) in the second patent case in the UK in which the parties will withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims.  

Germany

On November 15, 2012, Vringo Germany filed a suit in the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany, alleging infringement of a European patent. The litigation was expanded to include a second European patent on February 21, 2013. On November 4, 2013, Vringo Germany filed a further brief with respect to the proceedings of the first European patent suit, asserting infringement by ZTE eNode B infrastructure equipment used in 4G networks. Vringo Germany re-filed the first European patent case in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf on December 5, 2014.

On December 17, 2013, the Court issued its judgment in the second European patent case, finding that ZTE infringed that patent and ordering an accounting and an injunction upon payment of the appropriate bonds. On February 19, 2014, Vringo Germany filed suit in the Mannheim Regional Court seeking enforcement of the accounting ordered and a further order that non-compliance be subject to civil and criminal penalties. On May 5, 2014, we paid a bond of €1,000,000 (approximately $1,085,000 as of March 31, 2015) to the Court in order to enforce the injunction against ZTE. On December 27, 2013, ZTE filed a notice of appeal of the Mannheim Regional Court’s judgment in the second European patent case, and on January 24, 2014, ZTE filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals seeking a stay of the judge’s order pending appeal. On February 24, 2014, ZTE’s motion was denied. A hearing in the appeal is scheduled for the third quarter of 2015.

On September 13, 2013 and January 28, 2014, Vringo Germany filed two suits in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of two additional European patents. Those cases were heard by the Court on November 27, 2014. On January 22, 2015, the Court issued its judgment, finding that ZTE does not infringe either patent. On February 17, 2015, Vringo filed notices of appeal for each patent. The appeal process is anticipated to take at least one year.

ZTE filed nullity suits with respect to the first and second European patents in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany during the second and fourth quarters, respectively, of 2013. Trial in the nullity suit with respect to the first European patent took place on March 4, 2015. The Court indicated that it will present its findings in a written decision, which is likely to be released in the second quarter of 2015. Trial in the nullity suit with respect to the second European patent has been scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2015.

ZTE filed a nullity suit with respect to the third European patent in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany, in the fourth quarter of 2013. A schedule has not yet been set and the trial is not anticipated before the third quarter of 2015. In addition, ZTE filed a nullity suit with respect to the fourth European patent in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany in the second quarter of 2014. A schedule has not yet been set and the trial is not anticipated before the third quarter of 2015.

China

ZTE has filed 33 reexamination requests of Vringo’s Chinese patents with the Patent Re-Examination Board (“PRB”) of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China. To date, the PRB has upheld the validity of fourteen of Vringo’s patents, partially upheld the validity of two of Vringo’s patents, and has held that nine of Vringo’s patents are invalid. Vringo has filed appeals on the PRB’s decision on the nine patents that are held invalid. The appeal process is expected to take at least one year. The remaining reexamination requests remain pending, with decisions expected to be rendered on a rolling basis.

On February 21, 2014, ZTE filed a civil complaint against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure in the Shenzhen Intermediate Court alleging that Vringo violated China’s antimonopoly laws. Vringo received notice of the action on June 26, 2014. Vringo intends to vigorously contest all aspects of this action in the appropriate manner. On July 28, 2014, Vringo filed a motion to have this complaint dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. On August 6, 2014, the Court dismissed this motion. Vringo filed an appeal of the dismissal, which was denied by the Court. The Court has scheduled a hearing on May 29, 2015 for the parties to submit any evidence on which they intend to rely. The Court has further scheduled a hearing on June 1, 2015 for the parties to argue their positions. It is not yet clear whether the Court will schedule additional evidentiary hearings and/or argument or how long it will take for the Court to rule after all evidence and argument have been submitted by the parties. Vringo anticipates that the Court will render a decision no earlier than the third quarter of 2015.

France

On March 29, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in France in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, alleging infringement of the French part of two European patents. Vringo Infrastructure filed the lawsuit based on particular information uncovered during a seizure to obtain evidence of infringement, known as a saisie-contrefaçon, which was executed at two of ZTE's facilities in France. The oral hearing in relation to liability and injunctive relief for these patents was held on April 13, 2015 before the 3^rd division of the 3^rd chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (specializing in IP matters). We anticipate that the Court will render a decision in the third quarter of 2015.

Australia

On June 11, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia in the New South Wales registry, alleging infringement by ZTE of two Australian patents. In March 2015, the Court granted Vringo’s request to join ZTE as a party to the action. We currently anticipate that the Court will set a trial date in 2015.

Spain

On September 6, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a preliminary inquiry order against ZTE in the Commercial Court of Madrid, Spain, requiring ZTE to provide discovery relating to alleged infringement of a patent which is the Spanish counter-part of the second European patent filed in Germany.  In light of ZTE’s non-responsiveness to the order, on March 24, 2014 the Court granted our request to seek discovery of four of ZTE’s Spanish customers. We have received responses from all four customers. On July 31, 2014, ZTE filed a nullity suit in the Commercial Court of Madrid seeking to invalidate two of the Spanish counter-parts of Vringo’s European patents, including the patent found valid as amended and infringed in the UK.

India

On November 7, 2013, we and our subsidiary, Vringo Infrastructure, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, India, alleging infringement of an Indian patent related to CDMA. On November 8, 2013, the Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction and appointed commissioners to inspect ZTE’s facilities and collect evidence. ZTE appealed the preliminary injunction and, on December 12, 2013, the Court instituted an interim arrangement. On February 3, 2014, we filed a motion for contempt for ZTE’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, and requested that the Court order ZTE to pay an increased bond. A ruling on this motion is pending.

On January 31, 2014, we and our subsidiary, Vringo Infrastructure, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, alleging infringement of a second Indian patent related to GSM Infrastructure. The Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction and appointed commissioners to inspect ZTE’s facilities and collect evidence. ZTE appealed the preliminary injunction and, on August 13, 2014, the Court instituted an interim arrangement. On August 30, 2014, we filed a motion for contempt for ZTE’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, and requested that the Court order ZTE to pay an increased bond. A ruling on this motion is pending.

Brazil

On April 14, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit assigned to the 5th Trial Court of Rio de Janeiro State Court in Brazil, alleging infringement of a Brazilian patent related to 3G/4G/LTE infrastructure. This is the Brazilian counterpart to the patent found to be valid as amended and infringed in the UK. On April 15, 2014, the court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction restraining ZTE from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, installing, testing, or importing such infrastructure equipment, subject to a fine. The Company posted a bond of approximately R$ 2,020,000 (approximately $621,000 as of March 31, 2015) with the court on April 17, 2014 as a surety against the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint. ZTE has filed numerous appeals against the injunction since, all of which have been rejected.

On July 17, 2014, ZTE filed a nullity suit in the Federal district court in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, against both Vringo and the Brazilian patent office, seeking to invalidate Vringo’s Brazilian patent. The Brazilian patent office answered the complaint, supporting the validity of the patent and requesting the dismissal of the complaint. A schedule for the remainder of this matter has not yet been set.

In April 2015, ZTE filed a second suit in the Federal district court in Rio de Janeiro, against Vringo and the Brazilian patent office, seeking to prevent Vringo from enforcing the injunction issued in the state court. A schedule for this matter has not yet been set.

Malaysia

On June 23, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur. The Court is expected to hear the case in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Romania

On June 23, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the Bucharest Tribunal Civil Section. On July 1, 2014, the court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction, ordering ZTE to cease any importation, exportation, introduction on the market, offer for sale, storage, sale, trade, distribution, promotion, or any other business activity regarding the infringing product. ZTE appealed the injunction and, on October 10, 2014, the Bucharest Court of Appeal suspended enforcement of the injunction in light of ZTE’s allegations that it was immediately subject to approximately €31,500,000 in contract losses, pending the outcome of the appeal. On January 8, 2015, the Court rejected ZTE’s appeal, and reinstated the injunction with immediate effect. The Court ordered Vringo to pay a bond of approximately €243,000 in order to continue to enforce the injunction. On February 4, 2015, the Court rejected ZTE’s request for the Court to order Vringo to pay an increased bond of €40,000,000, in a final decision that may not be appealed. Vringo paid the €243,000 bond on February 11, 2015 (approximately $264,000 as of March 31, 2015).

Netherlands

On May 28, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure commenced legal proceedings, pursuant to European Anti-Piracy Regulations, Number 1383/2003, Article 11 against ZTE in the District Court of The Hague. ZTE has filed an invalidity lawsuit for the patent-in-suit. On August 19, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed another suit at the District Court of The Hague, which subsumed the May 18, 2014 lawsuit. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter.

On June 4, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of Rotterdam against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure for the alleged wrongful detention of goods under the relevant anti-piracy regulations. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter.

On July 24, 2014, ZTE filed a request with the District Court of The Hague to seek the release of ZTE UMTS products being held by Dutch customs officials and to order Vringo to ask the Dutch customs authorities to stop their actions against ZTE’s products based on the Anti-Piracy Regulations of the European Union. On October 24, 2014, the President of the Court denied ZTE’s requests, and upheld the detention of ZTE’s goods, finding, prima facie, that ZTE has infringed one of Vringo’s European patents, upholding the validity of that patent, and rejecting ZTE’s argument that Vringo has violated European competition law by enforcing that patent. ZTE was also ordered to pay Vringo’s legal costs of approximately $250,000. ZTE may choose to appeal this decision.

On October 23, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of The Hague seeking the invalidity of Vringo’s European Patent that is the subject of the other proceedings taking place in the same Court. A hearing in this matter has not yet been scheduled.

United States

On July 2, 2014, Vringo filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions against ZTE, enjoining ZTE’s use of prohibited materials captured under NDA, including but not limited to ZTE’s use of such materials in its antitrust lawsuit in China against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure. On July 7, 2014, the court granted a temporary restraining order against ZTE’s use of such material. On July 23, 2014, ZTE filed a counterclaim against Vringo. On July 24, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Vringo’s motion for a preliminary injunction against ZTE. A ruling on this motion is pending. On October 2, 2014, Vringo filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, similar to a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to render a judgment on Vringo’s cause of action based solely on the pleadings of the parties. On April 6, 2015, the Court granted Vringo’s motion in part, holding that ZTE breached the NDA.

On February 5, 2015, ZTE filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Vringo breached its contractual obligations to ETSI, which it assumed from Nokia when it purchased its infrastructure patent portfolio. On February 6, 2015, the Court granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Vringo. On February 10, 2015, the Court dissolved the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and granted Vringo’s request to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On February 5, 2015, ZTE filed inter partes review (“IPR”) requests for five of Vringo’s United States Patents. The requests, filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office will remain pending until the PTAB makes a decision on whether to grant the requests and, thus, review the patents. While these patents have counterparts being litigated by Vringo in other parts of the world, none of these United States Patents are currently in litigation.

European Commission

On April 10, 2014, ZTE filed a complaint with the European Commission. We believe that the accusations are not accurate. The European Commission has not yet set the schedule for this matter.

ASUS  

Germany

On October 4, 2013 and January 29, 2014, Vringo Germany filed two patent infringement lawsuits against ASUS in the Düsseldorf Regional Court, alleging infringement of two European patents. Those cases were heard by the Court on November 27, 2014. On January 22, 2015, the Court issued its judgment, finding that ASUS does not infringe either patent. On February 17, 2015, Vringo filed notices of appeal for each patent. The appeal process is anticipated to take at least one year.

ASUS filed nullity suits with respect to the first and second European patents in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany, during the second quarter of 2014. Trials in the nullity suits have not been scheduled but are not anticipated before the second quarter of 2016 for the first patent and the second quarter of 2015 for the second patent.

Spain  

On February 7, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed suit in the Commercial Court of Barcelona alleging infringement of a patent which is the Spanish counter-part of the first European patent filed in Germany. The oral hearing for this case was heard before the Commercial Court of Barcelona on November 25, 2014. Judgment is pending. On December 19, 2014, ASUS filed a nullity suit with respect to the same patent. A schedule for the case has not yet been set.

India

On April 15, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed suit in the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi alleging infringement of a patent related to use of dictionaries in search engines preloaded on certain ASUS devices. Google has successfully petitioned to intervene as an interested party and, by right, has filed responsive pleadings. A schedule for the remainder of case has not yet been set.  

D-Link

We entered into a confidential agreement with D-Link, effective March 10, 2015, that resolved all litigation pending between the parties.

Other Legal Matters

On January 13, 2015, Vringo Infrastructure received a Request for Assistance in Investigation from the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China.

May 2015 Financing Transaction

On May 4, 2015 (the “Closing Date”), we entered into a securities purchase agreement with certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering of $12,500,000 of Senior Secured Convertible Notes (the “Notes”) and certain warrants to purchase shares of our common stock. On the Closing Date, we issued the Notes, which are convertible into shares of our common stock at $1.00 per share, bear 8% interest and mature in 21 months from the date of issuance, unless earlier converted. In addition, we issued approximately 5.4 million warrants to purchase shares of our common stock, which are exercisable at $1.00 per share and are exercisable for a period of five years. In connection with the issuance of the Notes and warrants, we received net cash proceeds of $12,425,000 on May 5, 2015. Our obligations under the outstanding Notes are secured by a first priority perfected security interest in substantially all of our U.S. assets. In addition, stock of certain of our subsidiaries has been pledged. The outstanding notes contain customary events of default, as well as covenants, which include restrictions on the assumption of new debt by Vringo.

The principal amount of the outstanding Notes will be repaid monthly, and we may make such payments and related interest payments in cash or, subject to certain conditions, in registered shares of our common stock, at its election. If we choose to repay the Notes in shares of its common stock, the shares will be issued at a 15% discount, based on the then-current market price data of our common stock. We may also repay the Notes in advance of the maturity schedule subject to early repayment penalties. This transaction will be accounted for in the second quarter of fiscal 2015. As a result of this transaction, our cash balance as of May 5, 2015 is approximately $22,900,000.

Financial Conditions

Since January 2012, we have raised approximately $113,135,000 (including the May 2015 financing transaction mentioned above) which has been used to finance our operations. As of now, we have not yet generated any significant revenues. As of March 31, 2015, we had a cash balance of $12,239,000. Our average monthly cash spent in operations for the three-month period ended March 31, 2015 was approximately $1,167,000. This is not necessarily indicative of the future use of our working capital. In addition, we paid approximately $2,682,000 in deposits with courts beginning in the second quarter of 2014 to date, related to proceedings in Germany, Brazil, Romania, and Malaysia, which are included in Deposits with courts in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. Deposits with courts paid in local currency are remeasured on the balance sheet date based on the related foreign exchange rate on that date. As of March 31, 2015, deposits with courts totaled $2,070,000.

As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our total stockholders' equity was $26,251,000 and $31,180,000, respectively. The decrease in stockholders’ equity since December 31, 2014 is mainly due to the operating loss during the quarter ended March 31, 2015.

Our operating plans include increasing revenue through the licensing of our intellectual property, strategic partnerships, and litigation, when required, which may be resolved through a settlement or collection. Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical. The majority of our expenditures consist of costs related to our litigation campaigns. In our cases against ZTE and ASUS, we incurred costs during the first quarter of 2015 related to the preparation and filing of briefs and other court documents, as well as case preparation and management. A large percentage of these costs were incurred in the UK and the U.S. With respect to our litigation in these countries, the respective campaigns are currently in the later stages and therefore we have already incurred the large majority of the related anticipated costs. As such, based on our plans, costs in these jurisdictions are projected to be lower in the remainder of 2015 and other future periods.

Despite our plans, our legal proceedings may continue for several years and may require significant expenditures for legal fees and other expenses. Further, should we be deemed the losing party in certain of our litigations, we may be liable for some or all of our opponents’ legal fees. In addition, in connection with litigation, we have made several affirmative financial guarantees to courts around the world, and might face the need to make additional guarantees in the future.

In addition, our plans to continue to expand our planned operations through acquisitions and monetization of additional patents, other intellectual property or operating businesses may be 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. Our future ability to raise capital, if necessary, may be limited. Even if we are able to acquire particular patents or other intellectual property assets, there is no guarantee that we will generate sufficient revenue related to those assets to offset the acquisition costs. Therefore, no assurance can be given at this time as to whether we will be able to achieve our objectives or whether we will have the sources of liquidity for follow through with our operating plans.

In addition, until we generate sufficient revenue, we may need to raise additional funds, which may be achieved through the issuance of additional equity or debt, or through loans from financial institutions. There can be no assurance, however, that any such opportunities will materialize. We may also be able to raise additional funds through the exercise of our outstanding warrants and options, however, substantially all of such outstanding equity instruments are currently “out of the money” due to the decline in our common stock price which began in the third quarter of 2014.

We anticipate that we will continue to seek additional sources of liquidity, when needed, until we generate positive cash flows to support our operations. We cannot give any assurance that the necessary capital will be raised or that, if funds are raised, it will be on favorable terms. If we are unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis, we may be required to curtail or terminate some of our business plans. Any future sales of securities to finance our operations may require stockholder approval and will dilute existing stockholders' ownership. We cannot guarantee when or if we will ever generate positive cash flows.

As a result of the events and circumstances described above, including the cash proceeds received in connection with the May 2015 financing transaction and our operating plans, which include paying the principal and interest related to the Notes in shares of our common stock, we believe that we currently have sufficient cash to continue our current operations for at least the next twelve months.

Results of Operations

Overview

Revenue

Revenue from patent licensing and enforcement is recognized when collection is reasonably assured, persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the sales price is fixed or determinable and delivery of the service has been rendered. We use management's best estimate of selling price for individual elements in multiple-element arrangements, where vendor specific evidence or third party evidence of selling price is not available.

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

Operating legal costs

Operating legal costs mainly include expenses incurred in connection with our patent licensing and enforcement activities, patent-related legal expenses paid to external patent counsel (including contingent legal fees), licensing and enforcement related research, consulting and other expenses paid to third parties, as well as related internal payroll expenses and stock-based compensation.  

Amortization of intangibles

Amortization of intangibles represents the amortization expense of our acquired patents which is recognized on a straight-line basis over the remaining legal life of the patents.  

General and administrative expenses  

General and administrative expenses include costs related to management and administrative personnel, development personnel, public and investor relations, overhead/office costs and various professional fees, as well as insurance, non-operational depreciation and amortization. 

Non-operating income (expenses)

Non-operating income (expenses) includes transaction gains (losses) from foreign exchange rate differences, interest on deposits, bank charges, as well as fair value adjustments related to our derivative warrant liabilities. The value of such derivative warrant liabilities is highly influenced by assumptions used in its valuation, as well as by our stock price at the period end (revaluation date). 

Income taxes

As of March 31, 2015, deferred tax assets generated from activities were offset by a valuation allowance because realization depends on generating future taxable income, which, in our estimation, is not more likely than not to be generated before such net operating loss carryforwards expire.

Three month period ended March 31, 2015 compared to the three month period ended March 31, 2014

Revenue  

During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, we recorded total revenue of $150,000 as compared to $250,000 of revenue recorded during the three month period ended March 31, 2014. The revenue recorded during both periods were due to a one-time payments in connection with licensing agreements for certain of our owned intellectual property.

We seek to generate revenue through the monetization of our intellectual property through licensing, strategic partnerships and litigation, when required, which may be resolved through a settlement or collection. We also intend to continue to expand our planned operations worldwide through acquisitions and monetization of additional patents, other intellectual property or operating businesses. 

Acquisitions of patents or other intellectual property assets 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. Our ability to raise capital may be limited. Even if we are able to acquire particular patents or other intellectual property assets, there is no guarantee that we will generate sufficient revenue related to those assets to offset the acquisition costs. We anticipate that our legal proceedings may continue for several years and may require significant expenditures for legal fees and other expenses. Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical.

Operating legal costs

During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, our operating legal costs were $3,101,000, which represents a decrease of $1,774,000 (or 36.4%) from operating legal costs recorded for the three months ended March 31, 2014. This decrease was partially due to the timing and nature of consulting and patent litigation costs related to legal proceedings against ZTE and Google. With respect to our legal proceedings against ZTE, costs during the three month period ended March 31, 2015 were associated with our continued worldwide litigation efforts in the UK, U.S., and other countries. We did not incur significant expenses in connection with our legal proceedings against Google during the three month period ended March 31, 2015. In addition, we recorded approximately $1,014,000 of legal fee reimbursements from ZTE in connection with our patent suits in the UK as contra-expense during the current period, which partially offset our total operating legal costs for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

We expect our operating legal costs to decrease during the remainder of 2015 as compared to 2014 since most of our litigation campaigns are in the later stages of development. Our goal is to decrease our overall operating legal expenses by performing more work in-house, which we believe will cost less than outsourcing to external firms. There is no guarantee, however, that an in-house team will be less expensive or more efficient than outsourcing this work. Moreover, as we expand the scope of our monetization efforts, the amount of legal work will increase leading to a concomitant increase in our operating legal costs, regardless of if such work is performed in-house or outsourced.  

Amortization of intangibles

Our intangible assets consist of our patent portfolios, which are amortized over their remaining useful lives (i.e., through the expiration date of the patent). During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, amortization expense related to our intangible assets totaled $804,000, which represents a decrease of $153,000 (or 16.0%) from amortization of intangibles recorded for the three month period ended March 31, 2014. This decrease is attributable to the fact that the patents-in-suit in I/P Engine's litigation against AOL Inc., Google Inc. et al were fully impaired during the third quarter of 2014. As such, there was less amortization expense during the three months ended March 31, 2015 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2014.

General and administrative

During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, general and administrative expenses decreased by $1,245,000 (or 29.3%), to $2,998,000, compared to $4,243,000 that was recorded during the three month period ended March 31, 2014. The overall decrease was primarily due to a decrease in stock-based compensation expense of approximately $752,000, resulting mostly from the forfeitures of certain equity awards held by our former Chief Operating Officer during the fourth quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015. Also, the awards associated with the current period expense were valued lower than the awards associated with the prior period expense, mostly due to the decrease in our stock price, which also contributed to the decrease in stock-based compensation expense. In addition, there was a decrease in payroll expense and office administration costs as compared to the prior period.

Non-operating expense, net  

During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, we recorded non-operating expense, net, of $223,000 compared to non-operating expense, net, of $1,075,000 during the three month period ended March 31, 2014. Included in non-operating expense, net, for the three month period ended March 31, 2014 is approximately $1,076,000 of expense related to an increase in the fair value of our derivative warrant liabilities. On January 1, 2015, the down-round protection clauses associated with our remaining outstanding derivative warrants expired and, as a result, these warrants no longer meet the criteria for liability classification. As such, the related liabilities were revalued as of January 1, 2015 and the balance was reclassified to equity. There was no change in value of the derivative warrant liabilities between December 31, 2014 and January 1, 2015, and therefore no gain or loss was recorded during the three month period ended March 31, 2015. The current period expense of $223,000 is primarily related to foreign exchanges losses in connection with our deposits with courts.

Loss from discontinued mobile social application operations

On February 18, 2014, we executed the sale of our mobile social application business to InfoMedia, receiving eighteen (18) Class B shares of InfoMedia as consideration, which represent an 8.25% ownership interest in InfoMedia. Additionally, our Chief Executive Officer was appointed as a full voting member on InfoMedia’s board of directors and we received a number of customary protective rights. The InfoMedia Class B shares are accounted for as a cost-method investment.

During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, there were no results from discontinued operations since all related activities ceased when the sale was executed. 

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of March 31, 2015, we had a cash balance of $12,239,000. This represents a decrease of $3,784,000 from our cash balance on December 31, 2014, which is mainly due to net cash in operations of approximately $3,502,000 during the quarter ended March 31, 2015. Our average monthly cash spent in operations for the quarters ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 was approximately $1,167,000 and $2,831,000, respectively. The majority of these expenditures during the quarter ended March 31, 2015 consisted of costs related to our litigation campaigns. In our cases against ZTE and ASUS, we incurred costs during the first quarter of 2015 related to the preparation and filing of briefs and other court documents, as well as case preparation and management. A large percentage of these costs were incurred in the UK and the U.S. In civil law jurisdictions, such as Germany, France, Spain, and others, the majority of costs are incurred in the early stages of litigation and we anticipate that the costs in these jurisdictions will be lower in future periods. The overall decrease in our cash balance from expenditures related to our litigation campaigns was partially offset by approximately $1,014,000 that was received for legal fee reimbursements from ZTE related to legal proceedings in the UK.

In addition, we paid approximately $2,682,000 in deposits with courts beginning in the second quarter of 2014 to date, related to our proceedings in Germany, Brazil, Romania and Malaysia. Deposits with courts paid in local currency are remeasured on the balance sheet date based on the related foreign exchange rate on that date. As of March 31, 2015, deposits with courts totaled $2,070,000.

On May 4, 2015, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering of $12,500,000 of Notes and certain warrants to purchase shares of our common stock. On the Closing Date, we issued the Notes, which are convertible into shares of our common stock at $1.00 per share, bear 8% interest and mature in 21 months from the date of issuance, unless earlier converted. In addition, we issued approximately 5.4 million warrants to purchase shares of our common stock, which are exercisable at $1.00 per share and are exercisable for a period of five years. In connection with the issuance of the Notes and warrants, we received net cash proceeds of $12,425,000 on May 5, 2015. Our obligations under the outstanding Notes are secured by a first priority perfected security interest in substantially all of our U.S. assets. In addition, stock of certain of our subsidiaries has been pledged. The outstanding notes contain customary events of default, as well as covenants, which include restrictions on the assumption of new debt by Vringo.

The principal amount of the outstanding Notes will be repaid monthly, and we may make such payments and related interest payments in cash or, subject to certain conditions, in registered shares of our common stock, at its election. If we choose to repay the Notes in shares of its common stock, the shares will be issued at a 15% discount, based on the then-current market price data of our common stock. We may also repay the Notes in advance of the maturity schedule subject to early repayment penalties. As a result of this transaction, our cash balance as of May 5, 2015 is approximately $22,900,000.

Our operating plans include increasing revenue through the licensing of our intellectual property, strategic partnerships, and litigation, when required, which may be resolved through a settlement or collection. Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical. The majority of our expenditures consist of costs related to our four litigation campaigns. A large percentage of these costs were incurred in the UK, Australia, Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, and France. In civil law jurisdictions, such as Germany, France, Spain, and others, the majority of costs are incurred in the early stages of litigation. With respect to our litigation in such countries, the respective litigation campaigns are currently in the later stages and therefore we have already incurred the large majority of the related anticipated costs. As such, based on our plans, costs in these jurisdictions are projected to be lower in remainder of 2015 and other future periods.

Despite our plans, our legal proceedings may continue for several years and may require significant expenditures for legal fees and other expenses. Further, should we be deemed the losing party in certain of our litigations, we may be liable for some or all of our opponents’ legal fees. In addition, in connection with litigation, we have made several affirmative financial guarantees to courts around the world, and might face the need to make additional guarantees in the future.

In addition, our plans to continue to expand our planned operations through acquisitions and monetization of additional patents, other intellectual property or operating businesses may be 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. Our future ability to raise capital, if necessary, may be limited. Even if we are able to acquire particular patents or other intellectual property assets, there is no guarantee that we will generate sufficient revenue related to those assets to offset the acquisition costs. Therefore, no assurance can be given at this time as to whether we will be able to achieve our objectives or whether we will have the sources of liquidity for follow through with our operating plans.

We anticipate that we will continue to seek additional sources of liquidity, when needed, until we generate positive cash flows to support our operations. We cannot give any assurance that the necessary capital will be raised or that, if funds are raised, it will be on favorable terms. If we are unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis, we may be required to curtail or terminate some of our business plans. Any future sales of securities to finance our operations may require stockholder approval and will dilute existing stockholders' ownership. We cannot guarantee when or if we will ever generate positive cash flows.

As a result of the events and circumstances described above, including the cash proceeds received in connection with the May 2015 financing transaction and our operating plans, which include paying the principal and interest related to the Notes in shares of our common stock, we believe that we currently have sufficient cash to continue our current operations for at least the next twelve months.

Cash flows

Operating activities

During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, net cash used in operating activities totaled $3,502,000 compared to net cash used in operating activities of $8,493,000 during the three month period ended March 31, 2014. The decrease of $4,991,000 was mainly due to the timing and nature of litigation costs described above.

Our net cash used in operating activities could increase if we engage in future business development activities. As we expect to move towards greater revenue generation in the future, we expect that these amounts will be offset over time by the collection of revenues. There is no guarantee that we will generate sufficient revenue to offset future operating expenses and our ability to raise additional capital may be limited.

Investing activities

During the three month period ended March 31, 2015, net cash used in investing activities totaled $278,000, which represents the deposit we made to a Romanian court to enforce an injunction against ZTE in Romania. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014, net cash used in investing activities totaled $72,000, which relates to the acquisition of fixed assets during that period.

We expect that net cash used in investing activities will increase as we intend to continue to acquire additional intellectual property assets and invest surplus cash, according to our investment policy.

Financing activities

We did not have cash flows related to financing activities during the three month period ended March 31, 2015. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014, cash provided by financing activities totaled $2,796,000, which relates to funds received from the exercises of warrants and stock options in the total amount of $1,265,000 and $1,531,000, respectively.

A significant portion of our issued and outstanding warrants, for which the underlying shares of common stock held by non-affiliates are freely tradable, are currently “out of the money.” Therefore, the potential of additional incoming funds from exercises by our warrant holders is currently very limited. To the extent that this portion of our issued and outstanding warrants were “in the money”, it could be used as a source of additional funding if the warrant holders choose to exercise.

We may also choose to raise additional funds in connection with any acquisitions of patent portfolios or other intellectual property assets that we may pursue. There can be no assurance, however, that any such opportunity will materialize. Moreover, any such financing would likely be dilutive to our current stockholders.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

From October 2012 through the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, our subsidiaries filed patent infringement lawsuits against the subsidiaries of ZTE Corporation in the UK, France, Germany, Australia, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Romania, and the Netherlands. Should we be deemed the losing party in any of its applications to the court in the UK, we may be held responsible for a portion of the defendant’s legal fees for the relevant application or for the litigation. Pursuant to negotiation with ZTE’s UK subsidiary, as part of standard legal procedures in the UK, we placed two written commitments to ensure the payment of a potential liability by Vringo Infrastructure resulting for the two cases filed in the fourth quarter of 2012 and second quarter of 2013, which the defendants estimated to be approximately $2,900,000 each. With respect to these written commitments, we believe that Vringo’s commitments will be shortly discharged since all claims in the UK cases, other than the remedies for the patent found infringed and valid as amended, have been dismissed. As such, any remaining costs where Vringo was not the “commercial victor” as defined under UK procedural law can be assessed. We believe that the amounts of the written commitments well exceed any costs, to the extent that they are assessed, and anticipate that such costs will not exceed the amount of the estimated liability recorded in our consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2015.

In addition, we may be required to grant additional written commitments, as necessary, in connection with our commenced proceedings against ZTE Corporation in Europe, Brazil, India and Australia. It should be noted, however, that if we were successful on any court applications or the entirety of any litigation, ZTE Corporation would be responsible for a substantial portion of our legal fees.

Other than the arrangements described in the preceding paragraph, we have no obligations, assets or liabilities which would be considered off-balance sheet arrangements. We do not participate in transactions that create relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, often referred to as variable interest entities, which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements. 

Contractual Obligations

The following table summarizes our future contractual obligations beginning on April 1, 2015:

In July 2012, we signed a rental agreement for our corporate executive office in New York for an annual rental fee of approximately $137,000 (subject to certain adjustments) which was to expire in September 2015. However, in January 2014, we entered into an amended lease agreement with the landlord for a different office space within the same building. The initial annual rental fee for this new office is approximately $403,000 (subject to certain future escalations and adjustments) beginning on August 1, 2014, which was the date when the new office space was available. This lease will expire in October 2019. 

Critical Accounting Estimates

These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 16, 2015, which includes a description of our critical accounting policies that involve subjective and complex judgments that could potentially affect reported results. While there have been no material changes to our critical accounting policies as to the methodologies or assumptions we apply under them, we continue to monitor such methodologies and assumptions.  

Item 3.             Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Financial instruments which potentially subject us to significant concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash and cash equivalents. We maintain our cash and cash equivalents with various major financial institutions. These major financial institutions are located in the United States and our policy is designed to limit exposure to any one institution.

The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while concurrently maximizing the income we receive from our investments without significantly increasing risk. To minimize risks in the future, we intend to maintain our portfolio of cash equivalents and short-term investments in securities such as commercial paper and money market funds. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our cash was mostly held in money market funds in the amounts of $8,087,000 and $13,085,000, respectively. In general, money market funds are not subject to market risk because the interest paid on such funds fluctuates with the prevailing interest rate. Accordingly, a 100 basis point increase in interest rates or a 10% decline in the value of the United States equity markets would not be expected to have a material impact on the value of such money market funds.

A portion of our expenses are denominated in foreign currencies. If the value of the U.S. dollar weakens against the value of these currencies, there will be a negative impact on our operating costs. In addition, we are subject to the risk of exchange rate fluctuations to the extent we hold monetary assets and liabilities in these currencies.

Item 4.            Controls and Procedures.

Our management, with the participation of our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rule 13a-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Based on this evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that, as of March 31, 2015 our disclosure controls and procedures are designed at a reasonable assurance level and are effective to provide reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Part II- OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

Search Patents

On September 15, 2011, our wholly-owned subsidiary, I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) initiated litigation in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against AOL Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation (collectively, the “Defendants”) for infringement of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664, which I/P Engine acquired from Lycos, Inc.

Trial commenced on October 16, 2012, and the case was submitted to the jury on November 1, 2012. On November 6, 2012, the jury ruled in favor of I/P Engine and against the Defendants. After upholding the validity of the patents-in-suit, and determining that the asserted claims of the patents were infringed by the defendants, the jury found that reasonable royalty damages should be based on a “running royalty,” and that the running royalty rate should be 3.5%. The jury also awarded I/P Engine a total of approximately $30.5 million. On November 20, 2012, the clerk entered the District Court's final judgment.

On January 3, 2014, the District Court ordered that I/P Engine recover an additional sum of $17.32 million from Defendants for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest. On January 21, 2014, the District Court ruled that Defendants' alleged design-around is “nothing more than a colorable variation of the system adjudged to infringe," and accordingly I/P Engine "is entitled to ongoing royalties as long as Defendants continue to use the modified system.” On January 28, 2014, the District Court ruled that the appropriate ongoing royalty rate for Defendants' continued infringement of the patents-in-suit that “would reasonably compensate [I/P Engine] for giving up [its] right to exclude yet allow an ongoing willful infringer to make a reasonable profit” is a rate of 6.5% of the 20.9% royalty base previously set by the District Court. The Defendants also filed a separate appeal related to these matters.

On August 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that the claims of the patents-in-suit asserted by the Company against the Defendants are invalid for obviousness. On August 20, 2014, Vringo announced that I/P Engine would seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit's decision.

On October 15, 2014, I/P Engine filed a petition for rehearing en banc, in which it argues that the majority's opinion in this case presents important questions of law and is at odds with a series of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions which do not allow appellate judges to disregard a jury's detailed findings under these circumstances. I/P Engine argued that review is particularly appropriate here, where the panel majority not only failed to adopt the proper legal standard, but explicitly rejected it.

On December 15, 2014, the Federal Circuit denied I/P Engine's petition for rehearing of the case en banc and consequently, we announced that I/P Engine will seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) of the Federal Circuit's decision. I/P Engine intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which requests review of the Federal Circuit’s decision, by the May 14, 2015 deadline.

The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the website for the Supreme Court of the United States, www.supremecourt.gov.

Infrastructure Patents

As one of the means of realizing the value of the patents on telecom infrastructure, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. (“Vringo Infrastructure”), Vringo, Inc. and Vringo Germany GmbH (“Vringo Germany”) have filed a number of suits against ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”), ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUS”), D-Link Corporation (“D-Link”), and certain of their subsidiaries, affiliates and other companies in the United States, European jurisdictions, India, Australia, Brazil, and Malaysia alleging infringement of certain U.S., European, Indian, Australian, Brazilian, and Malaysian patents.

ZTE

United Kingdom

On October 5, 2012, Vringo Infrastructure filed a suit in the UK High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, alleging infringement of three European patents. Subsequently, ZTE responded to the complaint with a counterclaim for invalidity of the patents-in-suit. Vringo Infrastructure filed a second UK suit on December 3, 2012, alleging infringement of three additional European patents.

In March 2014, Vringo Infrastructure withdrew its claim to one of the patents included in the first suit, and ZTE withdrew its invalidity counterclaim. Another patent included in the first suit was heard in a trial that commenced on October 28, 2014.

On November 28, 2014, the Court found the patent valid as amended and infringed by ZTE. Following the Court’s ruling, ZTE applied to introduce new prior art and re-argue the validity of the patent; the application was rejected on January 30, 2015. There was no appeal by ZTE of the substantive decision and therefore the decision is final. The parties will submit pleadings on remedies over the next several months. A hearing to determine the scope, timing and course of the remedies phase of the litigation is scheduled for June 2015.

On February 17, 2015, Vringo withdrew its infringement claims against ZTE on three of the four remaining European Patents in suit in the second litigation in the UK. ZTE subsequently withdrew its invalidity counterclaims in respect of these three patents.

On April 10, 2015, Vringo and ZTE reached an agreement in relation to the remaining European Patent in issue (EP (UK) 1 330 933) in the second patent case in the UK in which the parties will withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims.  

Germany

On November 15, 2012, Vringo Germany filed a suit in the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany, alleging infringement of a European patent. The litigation was expanded to include a second European patent on February 21, 2013. On November 4, 2013, Vringo Germany filed a further brief with respect to the proceedings of the first European patent suit, asserting infringement by ZTE eNode B infrastructure equipment used in 4G networks. Vringo Germany re-filed the first European patent case in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf on December 5, 2014.

On December 17, 2013, the Court issued its judgment in the second European patent case, finding that ZTE infringed that patent and ordering an accounting and an injunction upon payment of the appropriate bonds. On February 19, 2014, Vringo Germany filed suit in the Mannheim Regional Court seeking enforcement of the accounting ordered and a further order that non-compliance be subject to civil and criminal penalties. On May 5, 2014, we paid a bond of €1,000,000 (approximately $1,085,000 as of March 31, 2015) to the Court in order to enforce the injunction against ZTE. On December 27, 2013, ZTE filed a notice of appeal of the Mannheim Regional Court’s judgment in the second European patent case, and on January 24, 2014, ZTE filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals seeking a stay of the judge’s order pending appeal. On February 24, 2014, ZTE’s motion was denied. A hearing in the appeal is scheduled for the third quarter of 2015.

On September 13, 2013 and January 28, 2014, Vringo Germany filed two suits in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of two additional European patents. Those cases were heard by the Court on November 27, 2014. On January 22, 2015, the Court issued its judgment, finding that ZTE does not infringe either patent. On February 17, 2015, Vringo filed notices of appeal for each patent. The appeal process is anticipated to take at least one year.

ZTE filed nullity suits with respect to the first and second European patents in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany during the second and fourth quarters, respectively, of 2013. Trial in the nullity suit with respect to the first European patent took place on March 4, 2015. The Court indicated that it will present its findings in a written decision, which is likely to be released in the second quarter of 2015. Trial in the nullity suit with respect to the second European patent has been scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2015.

ZTE filed a nullity suit with respect to the third European patent in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany, in the fourth quarter of 2013. A schedule has not yet been set and the trial is not anticipated before the third quarter of 2015. In addition, ZTE filed a nullity suit with respect to the fourth European patent in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany in the second quarter of 2014. A schedule has not yet been set and the trial is not anticipated before the third quarter of 2015.

China

ZTE has filed 33 reexamination requests of Vringo’s Chinese patents with the Patent Re-Examination Board (“PRB”) of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China. To date, the PRB has upheld the validity of fourteen of Vringo’s patents, partially upheld the validity of two of Vringo’s patents, and has held that nine of Vringo’s patents are invalid. Vringo has filed appeals on the PRB’s decision on the nine patents that are held invalid. The appeal process is expected to take at least one year. The remaining reexamination requests remain pending, with decisions expected to be rendered on a rolling basis.

On February 21, 2014, ZTE filed a civil complaint against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure in the Shenzhen Intermediate Court alleging that Vringo violated China’s antimonopoly laws. Vringo received notice of the action on June 26, 2014. Vringo intends to vigorously contest all aspects of this action in the appropriate manner. On July 28, 2014, Vringo filed a motion to have this complaint dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. On August 6, 2014, the Court dismissed this motion. Vringo filed an appeal of the dismissal, which was denied by the Court. The Court has scheduled a hearing on May 29, 2015 for the parties to submit any evidence on which they intend to rely. The Court has further scheduled a hearing on June 1, 2015 for the parties to argue their positions. It is not yet clear whether the Court will schedule additional evidentiary hearings and/or argument or how long it will take for the Court to rule after all evidence and argument have been submitted by the parties. Vringo anticipates that the Court will render a decision no earlier than the third quarter of 2015.

France

On March 29, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in France in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, alleging infringement of the French part of two European patents. Vringo Infrastructure filed the lawsuit based on particular information uncovered during a seizure to obtain evidence of infringement, known as a saisie-contrefaçon, which was executed at two of ZTE's facilities in France. The oral hearing in relation to liability and injunctive relief for these patents was held on April 13, 2015 before the 3^rd division of the 3^rd chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (specializing in IP matters). We anticipate that the Court will render a decision in the third quarter of 2015.

Australia

On June 11, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia in the New South Wales registry, alleging infringement by ZTE of two Australian patents. In March 2015, the Court granted Vringo’s request to join ZTE as a party to the action. We currently anticipate that the Court will set a trial date in 2015.

Spain

On September 6, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a preliminary inquiry order against ZTE in the Commercial Court of Madrid, Spain, requiring ZTE to provide discovery relating to alleged infringement of a patent which is the Spanish counter-part of the second European patent filed in Germany.  In light of ZTE’s non-responsiveness to the order, on March 24, 2014 the Court granted our request to seek discovery of four of ZTE’s Spanish customers. We have received responses from all four customers. On July 31, 2014, ZTE filed a nullity suit in the Commercial Court of Madrid seeking to invalidate two of the Spanish counter-parts of Vringo’s European patents, including the patent found valid as amended and infringed in the UK.

India

On November 7, 2013, we and our subsidiary, Vringo Infrastructure, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, India, alleging infringement of an Indian patent related to CDMA. On November 8, 2013, the Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction and appointed commissioners to inspect ZTE’s facilities and collect evidence. ZTE appealed the preliminary injunction and, on December 12, 2013, the Court instituted an interim arrangement. On February 3, 2014, we filed a motion for contempt for ZTE’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, and requested that the Court order ZTE to pay an increased bond. A ruling on this motion is pending.

On January 31, 2014, we and our subsidiary, Vringo Infrastructure, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, alleging infringement of a second Indian patent related to GSM Infrastructure. The Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction and appointed commissioners to inspect ZTE’s facilities and collect evidence. ZTE appealed the preliminary injunction and, on August 13, 2014, the Court instituted an interim arrangement. On August 30, 2014, we filed a motion for contempt for ZTE’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, and requested that the Court order ZTE to pay an increased bond. A ruling on this motion is pending.

Brazil

On April 14, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit assigned to the 5th Trial Court of Rio de Janeiro State Court in Brazil, alleging infringement of a Brazilian patent related to 3G/4G/LTE infrastructure. This is the Brazilian counterpart to the patent found to be valid as amended and infringed in the UK. On April 15, 2014, the court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction restraining ZTE from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, installing, testing, or importing such infrastructure equipment, subject to a fine. The Company posted a bond of approximately R$ 2,020,000 (approximately $621,000 as of March 31, 2015) with the court on April 17, 2014 as a surety against the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint. ZTE has filed numerous appeals against the injunction since, all of which have been rejected.

On July 17, 2014, ZTE filed a nullity suit in the Federal district court in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, against both Vringo and the Brazilian patent office, seeking to invalidate Vringo’s Brazilian patent. The Brazilian patent office answered the complaint, supporting the validity of the patent and requesting the dismissal of the complaint. A schedule for the remainder of this matter has not yet been set.

In April 2015, ZTE filed a second suit in the Federal district court in Rio de Janeiro, against Vringo and the Brazilian patent office, seeking to prevent Vringo from enforcing the injunction issued in the state court. A schedule for this matter has not yet been set.

Malaysia

On June 23, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur. The Court is expected to hear the case in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Romania

On June 23, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the Bucharest Tribunal Civil Section. On July 1, 2014, the court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction, ordering ZTE to cease any importation, exportation, introduction on the market, offer for sale, storage, sale, trade, distribution, promotion, or any other business activity regarding the infringing product. ZTE appealed the injunction and, on October 10, 2014, the Bucharest Court of Appeal suspended enforcement of the injunction in light of ZTE’s allegations that it was immediately subject to approximately €31,500,000 in contract losses, pending the outcome of the appeal. On January 8, 2015, the Court rejected ZTE’s appeal, and reinstated the injunction with immediate effect. The Court ordered Vringo to pay a bond of approximately €243,000 in order to continue to enforce the injunction. On February 4, 2015, the Court rejected ZTE’s request for the Court to order Vringo to pay an increased bond of €40,000,000, in a final decision that may not be appealed. Vringo paid the €243,000 bond on February 11, 2015 (approximately $264,000 as of March 31, 2015).

Netherlands

On May 28, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure commenced legal proceedings, pursuant to European Anti-Piracy Regulations, Number 1383/2003, Article 11 against ZTE in the District Court of The Hague. ZTE has filed an invalidity lawsuit for the patent-in-suit. On August 19, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed another suit at the District Court of The Hague, which subsumed the May 18, 2014 lawsuit. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter.

On June 4, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of Rotterdam against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure for the alleged wrongful detention of goods under the relevant anti-piracy regulations. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter.

On July 24, 2014, ZTE filed a request with the District Court of The Hague to seek the release of ZTE UMTS products being held by Dutch customs officials and to order Vringo to ask the Dutch customs authorities to stop their actions against ZTE’s products based on the Anti-Piracy Regulations of the European Union. On October 24, 2014, the President of the Court denied ZTE’s requests, and upheld the detention of ZTE’s goods, finding, prima facie, that ZTE has infringed one of Vringo’s European patents, upholding the validity of that patent, and rejecting ZTE’s argument that Vringo has violated European competition law by enforcing that patent. ZTE was also ordered to pay Vringo’s legal costs of approximately $250,000. ZTE may choose to appeal this decision.

On October 23, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of The Hague seeking the invalidity of Vringo’s European Patent that is the subject of the other proceedings taking place in the same Court. A hearing in this matter has not yet been scheduled.

United States

On July 2, 2014, Vringo filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions against ZTE, enjoining ZTE’s use of prohibited materials captured under NDA, including but not limited to ZTE’s use of such materials in its antitrust lawsuit in China against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure. On July 7, 2014, the court granted a temporary restraining order against ZTE’s use of such material. On July 23, 2014, ZTE filed a counterclaim against Vringo. On July 24, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Vringo’s motion for a preliminary injunction against ZTE. A ruling on this motion is pending. On October 2, 2014, Vringo filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, similar to a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to render a judgment on Vringo’s cause of action based solely on the pleadings of the parties. On April 6, 2015, the Court granted Vringo’s motion in part, holding that ZTE breached the NDA.

On February 5, 2015, ZTE filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Vringo breached its contractual obligations to ETSI, which it assumed from Nokia when it purchased its infrastructure patent portfolio. On February 6, 2015, the Court granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Vringo. On February 10, 2015, the Court dissolved the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and granted Vringo’s request to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On February 5, 2015, ZTE filed inter partes review (“IPR”) requests for five of Vringo’s United States Patents. The requests, filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office will remain pending until the PTAB makes a decision on whether to grant the requests and, thus, review the patents. While these patents have counterparts being litigated by Vringo in other parts of the world, none of these United States Patents are currently in litigation.

European Commission

On April 10, 2014, ZTE filed a complaint with the European Commission. We believe that the accusations are not accurate. The European Commission has not yet set the schedule for this matter.

ASUS  

Germany

On October 4, 2013 and January 29, 2014, Vringo Germany filed two patent infringement lawsuits against ASUS in the Düsseldorf Regional Court, alleging infringement of two European patents. Those cases were heard by the Court on November 27, 2014. On January 22, 2015, the Court issued its judgment, finding that ASUS does not infringe either patent. On February 17, 2015, Vringo filed notices of appeal for each patent. The appeal process is anticipated to take at least one year.

ASUS filed nullity suits with respect to the first and second European patents in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany, during the second quarter of 2014. Trials in the nullity suits have not been scheduled but are not anticipated before the second quarter of 2016 for the first patent and the second quarter of 2015 for the second patent.

Spain  

On February 7, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed suit in the Commercial Court of Barcelona alleging infringement of a patent which is the Spanish counter-part of the first European patent filed in Germany. The oral hearing for this case was heard before the Commercial Court of Barcelona on November 25, 2014. Judgment is pending. On December 19, 2014, ASUS filed a nullity suit with respect to the same patent. A schedule for the case has not yet been set.

India

On April 15, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed suit in the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi alleging infringement of a patent related to use of dictionaries in search engines preloaded on certain ASUS devices. Google has successfully petitioned to intervene as an interested party and, by right, has filed responsive pleadings. A schedule for the remainder of case has not yet been set.  

D-Link

We entered into a confidential agreement with D-Link, effective March 10, 2015, that resolved all litigation pending between the parties.

Other Legal Matters

On January 13, 2015, Vringo Infrastructure received a Request for Assistance in Investigation from the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

The risk factors set forth below update the risk factors in Part I, “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. In addition to the risk factors below and the risk factors included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, you should carefully consider the other risks highlighted elsewhere in this report or in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which could materially affect our business, financial position and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business, financial position and results of operations.

We may not be able to raise additional capital. Moreover, additional financing may have an adverse effect on the value of the equity instruments held by our stockholders.

We may choose to raise additional funds in connection with any potential acquisition of patent portfolios or other intellectual property assets or operating businesses. In addition, we may also need additional funds to respond to business opportunities and challenges, including our ongoing operating expenses, protection of our assets, development of new lines of business and enhancement of our operating infrastructure. While we will need to seek additional funding, we may not be able to obtain financing on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, the terms of our financings may be dilutive to, or otherwise adversely affect, holders of our common stock. We may also seek additional funds through arrangements with collaborators or other third parties. We may not be able to negotiate arrangements on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis, we may be required to curtail or terminate some or all of our business plans. Any such financing that we undertake will likely be dilutive to our current stockholders.

Our ability to raise capital through equity or equity-linked transactions may be limited.

In order for us to raise capital privately through equity or equity-linked transactions, stockholder approval is required to enable us to issue more than 19.99% of our outstanding shares of common stock pursuant to the rules and regulations of the NASDAQ Capital Market. Should stockholders not approve such issuances, one means to raise capital could be through debt (if such financing is available), which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated balance sheet and overall financial condition.

As of April 24, 2015 we had 17,402,654 warrants outstanding which can be exercised for 17,402,654 shares of common stock and incentive equity instruments outstanding to purchase 9,878,909 shares of our common stock granted to our management, employees, directors and consultants. Substantially all of these aforementioned outstanding equity instruments are currently “out of the money” and therefore our ability to raise capital through the exercise of these outstanding instruments are significantly limited.

There is substantial doubt concerning our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. We expect to incur further losses in the operations of our business and have been dependent on funding our operations through the issuance and sale of equity securities. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result of this uncertainty and the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as of December 31, 2014, KPMG LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, issued a report dated March 16, 2015, stating its opinion that our recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows from operating activities, and potential insufficiency of cash or available sources of liquidity to support our current operating requirements raise substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. Investors in our securities should review carefully the report of KPMG LLP, which is included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. Management’s plans include increasing revenue through the licensing of our intellectual property, strategic partnerships, and litigation, when required, which may be resolved through a settlement or collection. We also intend to continue to expand our planned operations through acquisitions and monetization of additional patents, other intellectual property or operating businesses. However, no assurance can be given at this time as to whether we will be able to achieve these objectives or whether we will have the sources of liquidity for follow through with these plans.

The exercise of a substantial number of warrants or options by our security holders may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

Should our warrants outstanding as of April 24, 2015 be exercised, there would be an additional 17,402,654 shares of common stock eligible for trading in the public market. The incentive equity instruments currently outstanding to purchase 9,878,909 shares of our common stock granted to our management, employees, directors and consultants are subject to acceleration of vesting of 75% and 100% (according to the agreement signed with each grantee), upon a subsequent change of control. Such securities, if exercised, will increase the number of issued and outstanding shares of our common stock. Therefore, the sale, or even the possibility of sale, of the shares of common stock underlying the warrants and options could have an adverse effect on the market price for our securities and/or on our ability to obtain future financing.

Our limited operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our current business and future prospects.

To date, our business is focused on the assertion of our patent portfolio of which the earliest patent was acquired by us in June 2011. Therefore, we not only have a limited operating history, but also a limited track record in executing our business model which includes, among other things, creating, prosecuting, licensing, litigating or otherwise monetizing our patent assets. Our limited operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our current business model and future prospects.

In light of the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the early stages of development with no operating history, there is a significant risk that we will not be able to:

If we are unable to execute any one of the foregoing or similar matters relating to our operations, our business may fail.

We commenced legal proceedings against security and communications companies, and we expect such proceedings to be time-consuming and costly, which may adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to operate our business.

To license or otherwise monetize the patent assets that we own, we commenced legal proceedings against a number of large, multi-national companies, pursuant to which we allege that such companies infringe on one or more of our patents. Our viability is highly dependent on the outcome of these litigations, and there is a risk that we may be unable to achieve the results we desire from such litigation, failure from which would harm our business to a great degree. In addition, the defendants in these litigations have substantially more resources than we do, which could make our litigation efforts more difficult.

We anticipate that legal proceedings may continue for several years and may require significant expenditures for legal fees and other expenses. Disputes regarding the assertion of patents and other intellectual property rights are highly complex and technical. Once initiated, we may be forced to litigate against other parties in addition to the originally named defendants. Our adversaries may allege defenses and/or file counterclaims for, among other things, revocation of our patents or file collateral litigations or initiate investigations in the United States, Europe, India, and China or elsewhere in an effort to avoid or limit liability and damages for patent infringement. If such actions are successful, they may preclude our ability to derive licensing revenue from the patents currently being asserted.

Additionally, we anticipate that our legal fees and other expenses will be material and will negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations and may result in our inability to continue our business. We estimate that our legal fees over the next twelve months will be significant for these enforcement actions. Expenses thereafter are dependent on the outcome of the status of the litigation. Our failure to monetize our patent assets would significantly harm our business.

Further, should we be deemed the losing party in certain of our litigations, we may be liable for some or all of our opponents’ legal fees. In addition, in connection with litigation, we have made several affirmative financial guarantees to courts around the world, and might face the need to make additional guarantees in the future.

In any of our applications to the Court in the UK ZTE litigation or for the entire UK ZTE litigation, we may be held responsible for a substantial percentage of the defendant’s legal fees for the relevant application or for the litigation. These fees may be substantial. Pursuant to negotiation with ZTE’s UK subsidiary, we placed two written commitments, in November 2012 and May 2013, to ensure payment should a liability by Vringo Infrastructure arise as a result of the two cases we filed. To date, ZTE has asserted that its anticipated fees in defending the UK litigation may be approximately $5,800,000. With respect to the first filed UK case, all claims other than the remedies for the patent found infringed and valid as amended have been dismissed. With respect to the second filed case, all claims have been dismissed as well. As such, any remaining costs where Vringo was not the “commercial victor” as defined under UK procedural law can be assessed. We believe that the amounts of the written commitments well exceed any costs, to the extent that they are assessed, and anticipate that such costs will not exceed the amount of the estimated liability recorded in our consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2015.

In Australia, should we be deemed the losing party in any of our applications to the Court or for the entire litigation, we may be held responsible for a substantial percentage of the defendant’s legal fees for the relevant application or for the litigation. These fees may be substantial. In addition, pursuant to negotiations with ZTE’s Australian subsidiary, we placed a written commitment in April 2014 to ensure payment should a liability by Vringo Infrastructure arise as a result of the case filed. The amount of such commitment cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, and we assess the likelihood of such payment as remote.

In Germany, the amount of fees payable by a losing party is determined based on certain possible statutory levels of “value in dispute.” The value in dispute is only very loosely correlated to the actual value of any potential final settlement or license. Under the current statute, our risk is capped at approximately $1,000,000 in legal fees were the court to determine that the value in dispute is at the highest tier under law.

In Germany, should the court order an injunction, for it to be enforced, we will have to pay a security based on the relevant statutory rate. In our litigations against ZTE and ASUS the statutory rate is approximately $1,400,000 for each patent asserted. We have already deposited a bond of €1,000,000 on May 5, 2014 (approximately $1,085,000 as of March 31, 2015) in one of our cases. The statutory rate is only loosely correlated to any actual harm the defendant may suffer from an injunction. The district court judge is entitled to increase the amount of the security. Generally, the courts take the value in dispute as the amount payable as security. Should the injunction be successfully overturned on appeal, we may be obligated to compensate the defendant for any damages allegedly suffered as a result of the enforcement of the injunction, which would be ascertained through separate damages proceedings. Should the judgment which granted the injunction be affirmed on appeal, however, the amount paid as security would be returnable to us in full. 

In France, should we be deemed to be the losing party, it is more likely than not that we will be ordered to pay a contribution to ZTE’s attorney and expert fees. The court in France will make an assessment of winning party’s costs during the course of the proceeding on the merits, and at its discretion order the losing party to pay a portion of those costs, typically between 40 and 60%.

In Spain, should we be deemed to be the losing party to the nullity suit or our counterclaims against ZTE, it is more likely than not that we will be ordered to pay a contribution to ZTE’s attorney and expert fees. The same would apply for our claims against Asus. The court in Spain will make an assessment of winning party’s costs during the course of the proceeding on the merits, and at its discretion order the losing party to pay a portion of those costs. We estimate the maximum exposure related to this suit to be approximately €90,000 with respect to ZTE and approximately €60,000 with respect to Asus.

In Brazil, as a condition of the relief requested, we deposited R$2,020,000 (approximately $621,000 as of March 31, 2015) as a surety against the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint. Unless ZTE is the prevailing party and proves that actual material damages were suffered while the requested relief was in place, the funds are returnable at the end of the litigation.

In Romania, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the Bucharest Tribunal Civil Section on June 23, 2014 and the Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction, ordering ZTE to cease any importation, exportation, introduction on the market, offer for sale, storage, sale, trade, distribution, promotion, or any other business activity regarding the infringing product. The Company deposited a bond of €243,000 on February 11, 2015 (approximately $264,000 as of March 31, 2015) with the Court in order to continue to enforce the injunction.

In addition, we may be required to grant additional written commitments, as necessary, in connection with our commenced proceedings against ZTE Corporation and its subsidiaries in various countries. As of today, we cannot estimate our potential future liability. However, should we be successful on any court applications, for example, in the UK, Australia, France, or Germany or the entire litigation and/or litigations, our adversary may be responsible for a substantial percentage of our legal fees.  

Further, if any of the patents in suit are found not infringed or invalid, it is highly unlikely that the relevant patents would be viewed as essential and therefore infringed by all unlicensed market participants.

There is a risk that a court will find our patents invalid, not infringed or unenforceable and/or that the USPTO or other relevant patent offices in various countries will either invalidate the patents or materially narrow the scope of their claims during the course of a reexamination, opposition or other such proceeding. In addition, even with a positive trial court verdict, the patents may be invalidated, found not infringed or rendered unenforceable on appeal. This risk may occur either presently or from time to time in connection with future litigations we may bring. If this were to occur, it would have a material adverse effect on the viability of our company and our operations.

We believe that certain companies infringe certain of our patents, but recognize that obtaining and collecting a judgment against such companies may be difficult or impossible. Patent litigation is inherently risky and the outcome is uncertain. Some of the parties that we believe infringe on our patents are large and well-financed companies with substantially greater resources than ours. We believe that these parties would devote a substantial amount of resources in an attempt to avoid or limit a finding that they are liable for infringing on our patents or, in the event liability is found, to avoid or limit the amount of associated damages. In addition, there is a risk that these parties may file reexaminations or other proceedings with the USPTO or other government agencies in the United States or abroad in an attempt to invalidate, narrow the scope or render unenforceable the patents we own.

In addition, as part of our ongoing legal proceedings, the validity and/or enforceability of our patents-in-suit is often challenged in a court or an administrative proceeding. On August 15, 2014, the Federal Circuit reversed a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by holding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in I/P Engine's litigation against AOL Inc., Google Inc. et al. are invalid for obviousness. During the third quarter of 2014, we experienced a decline in our common stock price.

Moreover, in connection with any of our present or future patent enforcement actions, it is possible that a defendant may request and/or a court may rule that we violated relevant statues, regulations, rules or standards relating to the substantive or procedural aspects of such enforcement actions in the United States or abroad. In such event, a court or other regulatory agency may issue monetary sanctions against us or our operating subsidiaries or award attorneys’ fees and/or expenses to one or more defendants, which could be material, and if we or our subsidiaries are required to pay such monetary sanctions, attorneys’ fees and/or expenses, such payment could materially harm our operating results and financial position.

In addition, it is difficult in general to predict the outcome of patent enforcement litigation at the trial or appellate level. In the United States, there is a higher rate of appeals in patent enforcement litigation than in standard business litigation. The defendant to any case we bring, may file as many appeals as allowed by right, including to the first, second and/or final courts of appeal (in the United States those courts would be the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court, respectively). Such appeals are expensive and time-consuming, and the outcomes of such appeals are sometimes unpredictable, resulting in increased costs and reduced or delayed revenue.

We may not be able to successfully monetize the patents we acquired from Nokia, nor any of the other patent acquisitions, thus we may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of such acquisition. 

There is no assurance that we will be able to successfully monetize the patent portfolio that we acquired from Nokia, nor any other patent acquisitions. The patents we acquired from Nokia could fail to produce anticipated benefits, or could have other adverse effects that we currently do not foresee. Failure to successfully monetize these patent assets may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

Therefore, there is no assurance that we will be able to monetize an acquired patent portfolio and recoup our investment.

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

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

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

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

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

New legislation, regulations or court rulings related to enforcing patents could harm our business and operating results.

Intellectual property is the subject of intense scrutiny by the courts, legislatures and executive branches of governments around the world. Various patent offices, governments or intergovernmental bodies (like the European Commission) may implement new legislation, regulations or rulings that impact the patent enforcement process or the rights of patent holders and such changes could negatively affect our business model. For example, limitations on the ability to bring patent enforcement claims, limitations on potential liability for patent infringement, lower evidentiary standards for invalidating patents, increases in the cost to resolve patent disputes and other similar developments could negatively affect our ability to assert our patent or other intellectual property rights.

In September 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is planning to gather information from approximately 25 companies that are in the business of buying and asserting patents in order to develop a better understanding of how those companies do business and impact innovation and competition. Both the Federal Trade Commission and European Commission are actively considering what the appropriate restrictions are on the ability of owners of patents declared to technical standards to receive both injunctions and royalties.

Furthermore, United States patent laws have been amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“America Invents Act”). The America Invents Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. In general, the legislation attempts to address issues surrounding the enforceability of patents and the increase in patent litigation by, among other things, establishing new procedures for patent litigation. For example, the America Invents Act changes the way that parties may be joined in patent infringement actions, increasing the likelihood that such actions will need to be brought against individual parties allegedly infringing by their respective individual actions or activities. At this time, it is not clear what, if any, impact the America Invents Act will have on the operation of our enforcement business. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the enforcement of our patented technologies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

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

Furthermore, in various pending litigation and appeals in the United States Federal courts, various arguments and legal theories are being advanced to potentially limit the scope of damages that a patent licensing company such as us might be entitled to. Any one of these pending cases could result in new legal doctrines that could make our existing or future patent portfolios less valuable or more costly to enforce.

Further, and in general, it is impossible to determine the extent of the impact of any new laws, regulations or initiatives that may be proposed, or whether any of the proposals will become enacted as laws. Compliance with any new or existing laws or regulations could be difficult and expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct our business and negatively impact our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. That said, to date, we do not believe that any existing or proposed statutory or regulatory change has materially affected our business.

Further, the leadership changes in the European Commission (“EC”) make it challenging to predict whether and how the EC will shift its focus from its prior stances regarding the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the relationship between such rights and European competition law.

Additionally, there are numerous initiatives being pursued in multiple countries including India and Brazil, regarding when and how intellectual property rights should be enforced as well as the relationship between enforcement and other laws, including relevant anti-trust or competition law. It is too early to state with any degree of certainty the impact that such initiatives may have on our business.

Additionally, the political and legal climate in China appears to have changed and is causing significant challenges for foreign companies that attempt to enforce their intellectual property rights against Chinese business whether such rights are enforced in China or elsewhere in the world. At this time, it is unclear what if any impact this change in climate will have on our business.

If we fail to comply with the continued listing requirements of the NASDAQ Capital Market, our common stock may be delisted and the price of our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets could be negatively impacted.

Our common stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market (“NASDAQ”). We must satisfy NASDAQ’s continued listing requirements, including, among other things, a minimum closing bid price requirement of $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days. If a company trades for 30 consecutive business days below the $1.00 minimum closing bid price requirement, NASDAQ will send a deficiency notice to the company, advising that it has been afforded a “compliance period” of 180 calendar days to regain compliance with the applicable requirements. Thereafter, if such a company does not regain compliance with the bid price requirement, a second 180-day compliance period may be available.  

A delisting of our common stock from NASDAQ could materially reduce the liquidity of our common stock and result in a corresponding material reduction in the price of our common stock. In addition, delisting could harm our ability to raise capital through alternative financing sources on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and may result in the potential loss of confidence by investors, employees and fewer business development opportunities.

On December 18, 2014, we received a notification letter from NASDAQ informing us that for the last 30 consecutive business days, the bid price of our securities had closed below $1.00 per share. This notice has no immediate effect on our NASDAQ listing and we have 180 calendar days, or until June 16, 2015, to regain compliance. To regain compliance, the closing bid price of our securities must be at least $1.00 per share for a minimum of ten consecutive business days. If we do not regain compliance by June 16, 2015, we may be eligible for additional time to regain compliance or if we are otherwise not eligible, we may request a hearing before a hearings panel.

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

Acquisitions of patents or other intellectual property assets, which are and will be critical to our business plan, are often time consuming, complex and costly to consummate. We may utilize many different transaction structures in our acquisitions and the terms of such acquisition agreements tend to be heavily negotiated. As a result, we expect to incur significant operating expenses and will likely be required to raise capital during the negotiations.

Even if we are able to acquire particular patents or other intellectual property assets, there is no guarantee that we will generate sufficient revenue related to those assets to offset the acquisition costs. While we will seek to conduct confirmatory due diligence on the patents or other intellectual property assets we are considering for acquisition, we may acquire such assets from a seller who does not have proper title to those assets. In those cases, we may be required to spend significant resources to defend our interest in such assets and, if we are not successful, our acquisition may be invalid, in which case we could lose part or all of our investment in those assets.

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

In addition, we may acquire patents and technologies that are in the early stages of adoption 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 our licensees will adopt our patents and technologies in their products and services. As a result, there can be no assurance as to whether technologies we acquire or develop will have value that we can monetize.

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

We have limited capital and may seek to negotiate acquisitions of patent or other intellectual property assets where we can defer payments or finance a portion of the acquisition price. These types of debt financing or deferred payment arrangements may not be as attractive to sellers of patent assets as receiving the full purchase price for those assets in cash at the closing of the acquisition. As a result, we might not compete effectively against other companies in the market for acquiring patent assets, some of whom have greater cash resources than we have.

Our confidential information may be disclosed by other parties.

We routinely enter into non-disclosure agreements with other parties, including but not limited to vendors, law firms, parties with whom we are engaged in negotiations, and employees. However, there exists a risk that those other parties will not honor their contractual obligations to not disclose our confidential information. This may include parties who breach such obligations in the context of confidential settlement offers and/or negotiations. In addition, there exists a risk that, upon such breach and subsequent dissemination of our confidential information, third parties and potential licensees may seek to use such confidential information to their advantage and/or to our disadvantage including in legal proceedings in which we are involved. Our ability to act against such third parties may be limited, as we may not be in privity of contract with such third parties.

Competition is intense in the industries in which our subsidiaries do business and as a result, we may not be able to grow or maintain our market share for our technologies and patents.

We expect to encounter competition in the area of patent acquisition and enforcement as the number of companies entering this market is increasing. This includes competitors seeking to acquire the same or similar patents and technologies that we may seek to acquire. As new technological advances occur, many of our patented technologies may become obsolete before they are completely monetized. If we are unable to replace obsolete technologies with more technologically advanced patented technologies, then this obsolescence could have a negative effect on our ability to generate future revenues.

Our licensing business also competes with venture capital firms and various industry leaders for technology licensing opportunities. Many of these competitors may have more financial and human resources than we do. As we become more successful, we may find more companies entering the market for similar technology opportunities, which may reduce our market share in one or more technology industries that we currently rely upon to generate future revenue.

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

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

Future sales of our shares of common stock by our stockholders could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is otherwise performing well.

As of April 24, 2015, we had 93,571,042 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, excluding shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of warrants, options or restricted stock units. As shares saleable under Rule 144 are sold or as restrictions on resale lapse, the market price of our common stock could drop significantly, if the holders of restricted shares sell them, or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them. This decline in our stock price could occur even if our business is otherwise performing well.

Technology company stock prices are especially volatile, and this volatility may depress the price of our common stock.

The stock market has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations, and the market prices of technology companies have been highly volatile. We believe that various factors may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate, perhaps substantially, including, among others, the following:

The market prices of the securities of technology companies have been highly volatile and are likely to remain highly volatile in the future. The stock market as a whole also has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price of many technology companies in ways that may have been unrelated to these companies' operating performance. Furthermore, we believe that fluctuations in our stock price can also be impacted by court rulings and/or other developments in our patent licensing and enforcement actions and stock price may reflect certain future growth and profitability expectations. If we fail to meet these expectations then our stock price may significantly decline which could have an adverse impact on investor confidence.

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

None.

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities.

None.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

Item 5. Other Information.

None.

Item 6. Exhibits.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized on the 5th day of May 2015.