On October 17, 2016 Spherix Incorporated (Nasdaq: SPEX) an intellectual property development company committed to the fostering of technology and monetization of intellectual property, reported an update on its active patent infringement lawsuits, new lawsuits filed, and spending reduction initiatives (Press release, Spherix, OCT 17, 2016, View Source [SID1234538994]).
Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:
Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing
Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!
Anthony Hayes, Chief Executive Officer of Spherix, stated, "Spherix is now in the best position to deliver shareholder value from its patent portfolio than at any time in the past. In the last six months, we’ve effectuated ten new patent infringement lawsuits against defendants with a combined market capitalization of approximately $48 billion. There are more suits on file now than at any time in the last four years. And while most of these suits are recently filed, we are working with our partner Equitable IP to reach fair and equitable settlements with any licensee. Copies of all ten complaints can be viewed on our website, (www.spherix.com). We anticipate additional suits will be filed before year end. I am increasingly encouraged with our strategic position and confident in our ability to create sustainable shareholder value, even as our stock continues to be valued at less than the Company’s net tangible book value."
The following is a list of our key initiatives:
Through our relationship with Equitable IP, we have commenced litigation against:
ATN International, Inc. Commnet Wireless, LLC Choice Communications LLC, and Choice Communications, LLC ("Choice Wireless"), case number: 1:16-cv-00718-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
Cincinnati Bell, Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00715-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent, ‘461 patent, and the ‘167 patent.
Echostar Corporation, case number 1:16-cv-00716-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
Frontier Communications Corporation, case number 1:16-cv-00714-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
Sprint Corporation and Clearwire Corporation case number 1:16-cv-00719-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
Fortinet Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00795-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
ViaSat, Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00720-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
DragonWave Inc. and DragonWave Corp, case number 1:16-cv-00797-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
Fortinet, Inc, case number 1:16-cv-00795-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
GTT Communications, Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00796-RGA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, related to alleged infringement of the ‘999 patent.
The Company’s Federal Circuit appeal against Uniden continues to proceed. The Uniden case has now been fully briefed and oral argument is expected to be calendared in the next several weeks. Oral argument in such appeals is usually calendared within two months of the submission of the Joint Appendix of the record, which was completed on October 5, 2016. The oral argument hearing usually occurs within five to six months of the submission of the Joint Appendix.
Spherix management is confident in its position that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board erred and that the Board’s Decision invalidating Spherix’s patent-in-suit should be reversed. As stated in the briefing, the Board failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and its conclusion is not supported by the evidence. The Board also applied the wrong patent claim construction, requiring a reversal of its obviousness finding. Management looks forward to discussing its position with the Court during the upcoming oral argument and setting the record straight so that this case can move forward.
Mr. Hayes continued, "In addition to the strong progress we have made towards generating revenue, we have taken meaningful steps to reduce overhead and decrease our monthly cash burn. We have delivered sequential reductions in our overhead expenses in each of our last two quarters and expect this trend to continue as we work to refine our cost structure to an appropriate level consistent with providing the company with ample runway to achieving success. With costs on the decline and more than $7 million in unencumbered cash, we have the staying power to drive shareholder value."
"We understand that each of our cases may widely vary with respect to its size, scope and complexity," concluded Mr. Hayes. "However, there is one feature that tends to remain consistent. The patent enforcement process is often long and requires tremendous patience. To that end we want to thank our committed shareholders for their patience and long term focus. Our multimillion dollar settlement with RPX this past May is emblematic of the rewards that we can enjoy from our hard work and dedication simply by staying the course. As we move forward, we are constantly looking for ways to further creating value."