VirnetX Holding Corp 10-K

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations The Company We are an Internet security software and technology company with patented technology for various types of secure network communications, including 5G and 4G LTE network security. Our patented Secure Domain Name Registry and GABRIEL Connection Technology™, are the foundation for our GABRIEL Secure Communication Platform™ that protects communications using Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA). Our technology generates secure connections on a “zero-click” or “single-click” basis, significantly simplifying the deployment of secure real-time communication solutions by eliminating the need for end-users to enter any encryption information. Our portfolio of intellectual property is the foundation of our business model. We currently own approximately 194 total patents and pending applications, including 70 U.S. patents/patent applications and 124 foreign patents/validations/pending applications. Our patent portfolio is primarily focused on securing real-time communications over the Internet, and related services, and is used in all our technology and products, some of which were acquired by our principal operating subsidiary; VirnetX, Inc., from Leidos, Inc., or Leidos, (f/k/a Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC) in 2006. Our product portfolio includes sophisticated technologies, products and services that are available for sale worldwide. Our GABRIEL Secure Communication Platform™ includes a set of software libraries with application interfaces available for securing third-party applications seamlessly across multiple operating systems. It enables individuals and organizations to maintain complete ownership and control over their personal and confidential data, secured within their own private network, while enabling authorized secure encrypted access from anywhere at any time. 25 Index Our GABRIEL Gateway product extends our Secure Communication Platform™ by allowing existing networked devices and services to seamlessly join the “GABRIEL SECURED” network without requiring any modifications. All these devices or services, including on-premise or cloud-based services, can now be assigned a VirnetX Secure Domain Name and use fully authenticated, secure communication channels for its communications. Our GABRIEL Collaboration Suite™ is a set of communication applications and tools that use our GABRIEL Secure Communication Platform™. It enables seamless and secure cross-platform communications between devices that are enrolled in our “GABRIEL SECURED” network and have our software installed. Our GABRIEL Collaboration Suite™ is available for download and free trial, for Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X platforms, at https://virnetx.com . We continue to enhance our products and add new functionality. We will provide updates to new and existing customers as they are released to the public. Many small and medium businesses have installed our GABRIEL Secure Communication Platform™ and GABRIEL Collaboration Suite™ products in their corporate networks. We intend to continue to expand our customer base with targeted promotions and direct sales initiatives. We have an ongoing GABRIEL Licensing Program under which we offer licenses to a portion of our patent portfolio, technology, and software, including our secure domain name registry service, to domain infrastructure providers, communication service providers as well as to system integrators. Our GABRIEL Connection Technology™ License is offered to OEM customers who want to adopt the GABRIEL Connection Technology™ as their solution for establishing secure connections using secure domain names within their products. We have developed GABRIEL Connection Technology™ Software Development Kit (SDK) to assist with rapid integration of these techniques into existing software implementations. Customers who want to develop their own implementation of the VirnetX patented techniques for supporting secure domain names, or other techniques that are covered by our patent portfolio for establishing secure communication links, can purchase a patent license. The number of patents licensed, and therefore the cost of the patent license to the customer, will depend upon which of the patents are used in a particular product or service. These licenses will typically include an initial license fee, as well as an ongoing royalty. Our employees include the core development team behind our patent portfolio, technology, and software. Some members of this team have worked together for over twenty years and were on same team that invented and developed this technology while working at Leidos, Inc. (“Leidos”). The team has continued its research and development work and expanded the set of patents we acquired in 2006 from Leidos, into a larger patent portfolio. This portfolio now serves as the foundation of our products, services, and our licensing business. It is expected to generate most of our future revenue in license fees and royalties. We intend to continue our efforts to develop new products and technologies and further strengthen and expand our patent portfolio. We intend to continue using an outsourced and leveraged model to maintain efficiency and manage costs as we grow our licensing business by, for example, offering incentives to early licensing targets or asserting our rights for use of our patents. 26 Index Litigation (all dollar amounts in this section are expressed in thousands except for rates per device) We have several intellectual property infringement lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (“USDC”), and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“USCAFC”) and the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”). VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. (Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED) (“Apple I”) On August 11, 2010, we filed a complaint against Aastra USA. Inc. (“Aastra”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), and NEC Corporation (“NEC”) the USDC in which we alleged that these parties infringe on certain of our patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The cases against each defendant were separated by the judge. Aastra and NEC agreed to sign license agreements with us, and we dropped all accusations of infringement against them. A jury in USDC decided that our patents were not invalid and rendered a verdict of non-infringement by Cisco on March 4, 2013. Our motion for a new Cisco trial was denied and the case against Cisco was closed. On November 6, 2012, a jury in the USDC awarded us over $368,000 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents, plus daily interest up to the final judgment. Apple filed an appeal of the judgment to the USCAFC. On September 16, 2014, USCAFC affirmed the USDC jury’s finding that all four of our patents at issue are valid and confirmed the USDC jury’s finding of infringement of VPN on Demand under many of the asserted claims of our ‘135 and ‘151 patents, and the USDC’s decision to allow evidence about our license and royalty rates regarding the determination of damages. However, the USCAFC vacated the USDC jury’s damages award and some of the USDC’s claim construction with respect to parts of our ‘504 and ‘211 patents and remanded the damages award and determination of infringement with respect to FaceTime back to the USDC for further proceedings. On September 30, 2016, pursuant to the 2014 remand from the USCAFC, a jury in the USDC awarded us $302,400 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents. On September 29, 2017, the USDC entered its final judgment, denied all of Apple’s post-trial motions, granted all our post-trial motions, including our motion for willful infringement and enhanced the royalty rate during the willfulness period from $1.20 to $1.80 per device, and awarded us costs, certain attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest. The total amount in the final judgment was $439,700, including $302,400 (jury verdict), $41,300 (enhanced damages) and $96,000 (costs, fees, and interest). On October 27, 2017 Apple appealed the final judgment entered on September 29, 2017 to the USCAFC. Oral arguments in this case were held on January 8, 2019. On January 15, 2019, the Court issued a Rule 36 order affirming the district court’s final judgment. Apple filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on February 21, 2019. On October 1, 2019, USCAFC issued an order denying Apple’s petition. Apple filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the SCOTUS , which was denied on February 24, 2020. Prior to the SCOTUS decision denying Apple’s petition for a writ of certiorari, on February 20, 2020, Apple filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment with the USDC, seeking relief from the district court’s September 29, 2017 final judgment. VirnetX filed a responsive brief in opposition on March 5, 2020. 27 Index On March 13, 2020, the Company received payment of $454,034 from Apple, representing the previously announced final judgment with interest in this case. Apple sought payment relief by filing a motion under Rule 60(b). On September 1, 2020 USDC issued an order denying Apple’s motion for relief of judgement. This case is now closed. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) (“Apple II”) This case began on November 6, 2012, when we had filed a complaint against Apple in USDC in which we alleged that Apple infringed on certain of our patents, (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers; these products were not included in the Apple I case because they were released after the Apple I case was initiated. Post-trial motions hearing was held on July 18, 2018. On August 31, 2018, the USDC entered a Final Judgment and issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding post-trial motions, affirming the jury’s verdict of $502,600 and granting VirnetX motions for supplemental damages, a sunset royalty, and the royalty rate of $1.20 per infringing iPhone, iPad and Mac products, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs. Apple filed a notice of appeal with the USCAFC in the Apple II case. On October 9, 2018, USCAFC docketed the appeal as Case No. 19-1050 - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc . On January 24, 2019 Apple filed its opening brief. We filed our response brief on March 1, 2019. Apple filed its reply brief on April 5, 2019. The oral arguments were heard on October 4, 2019. On November 22, 2019, the USCAFC issued an opinion affirming the district court’s findings that Apple is precluded from making certain invalidity arguments and that Apple infringed the ’135 and ’151 patents; reversing the USDC’s finding that Apple infringed the ’504 and ’211 patents; and remanding the case for proceedings on damages. Apple sought panel and en banc rehearing, which the USCAFC denied on February 10, 2020. On February 22, 2020, the USDC issued a scheduling order for the parties to brief the court about the need for a new trial for recalculating the damages. We filed our motion for entry of judgment on February 28, 2020. The arguments on this matter were heard on April 14, 2020. In its order, unsealed on May 1, 2020, the USDC denied VirnetX’s motion for entry of a new judgment based on the prior jury verdict and ordered a new jury trial on damages. On August 10, 2020, the USDC granted Apple’s motion for continuance and reset the date to October 26, 2020. On October 30, 2020, a jury returned a $502,800 verdict in favor of VirnetX based on Apple’s infringement of two network security patents: VirnetX US Patents No. 6,502,135 and No. 7,490,151. The jury verdict called for damages of $0.84 per accused device since the 2013 launch of Apple’s iOS 7 operating system and represents 598,629,580 infringing units from US sales only. On January 15, 2021, the district court denied Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and on February 4, 2021, Apple filed a notice of appeal to the USCAFC. VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 20-2271) and VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., Apple Inc., and Black Swamp, LLC (USAFC Case 20-2272) On September 15, 2020, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes review proceedings IPR2015-01046 and IPR2016-00062 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135, and an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter partes review proceedings IPR2015-1047, IPR2016- 00063, and IPR2016-00167 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151. On September 25, 2020, the USCAFC issued an order consolidating the two appeals. On December 15, 2020, we filed a motion to vacate the PTAB decisions below and to remand these appeals to the PTAB, which remains pending. In view of our motion to remand, our deadline to file an initial brief is currently stayed. Iancu v. Luoma (SCOTUS Case 20-74) On July 23, 2020, the United States and the USPTO (collectively, “the United States”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari from several decisions by the USAFC, including decisions in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. , Nos. 2019-1671, and VirnetX Inc. v. Iancu, Nos. 2017-2593, -2594. In those cases, the USAFC granted VirnetX’s motions to vacate the underlying decisions of the PTAB on the basis of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. , 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and remanded for further proceedings. The United States requested that the SCOTUS hold its certiorari petition pending the disposition of the United States’ separate petition in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. , No. 19-1434 (filed June 25, 2020). On August 26, 2020, VirnetX filed a response, agreeing that the United States’ certiorari petition should be held pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1434 (and related petitions filed by private parties in Nos. 19-1452 and 19-1458), and any further SCOTUS proceedings. 28 Index On October 13, 2020, SCOTUS granted the United States’ petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1434 as to USAFC Case No. 2018-2140, and the petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 19-1452 and 19-1458, all limited to Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States filed in No. 19-1434. The consolidated petition is seeking review of decisions by the USCAFC holding that administrative patent judges ( “ APJ ” ) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; and, whether the remedy imposed by USCAFC that federal laws that place restrictions on when officials can be removed from office cannot apply to APJ, was the appropriate one. SCOTUS heard oral argument in these consolidated cases on March 1, 2021. McKool Smith P.C. v. VirnetX, Inc., AAA Case No. 01-20-0003-7975 On March 23, 2020, the law firm of McKool Smith, P.C. (“McKool”) filed a Demand for Arbitration against VirnetX, Inc. with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). In its demand, McKool claims that a retention agreement it entered into in 2010 with VirnetX entitles it to a contingency fee arising from the recent 2020 payment made by Apple. McKool claims it is owed approximately $36,300 (or 8% of the Apple I payment). We have filed a general response with the AAA denying McKool’s claim and are contesting the matter vigorously. An evidentiary hearing was held on the matter during the week of February 22, 2021 and the parties will be submitting additional briefing. A ruling is expected sometime thereafter. Neal Hurwitz v. Kendall Larsen et al. (Case 2020-0425-JRS) On June 2, 2020, stockholder Neal Hurwitz filed a verified derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Kendall Larsen, Robert D. Short Ill, Gary Feiner, Michael F. Angelo, and Thomas M. O’Brien and naming the Company as nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment arising out of a series of previously-disclosed transactions and compensation awards and seeks an award of monetary damages and equitable relief. On July 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on a failure to plead demand futility and a failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and, on August 19, 2020, the defendants filed an opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On October 16, 2020, plaintiff amended his complaint rather than respond to the arguments in the defendants’ opening brief. On October 23, 2020, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint based on a failure to plead demand futility and a failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On January 12, 2021, Hurwitz voluntarily dismissed his suit without prejudice. Other Legal Matters One or more potential intellectual property infringement claims may also be available to us against certain other companies who have the resources to defend against any such claims. Although we believe these potential claims are likely valid, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we could prevail on such potential claims if we made them. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may distract our management and our other resources, including capital resources, from efforts to successfully commercialize our products. Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us. Commitments and Related Party Transactions We lease our offices under an operating lease with a third party expiring in October 2021. We recognize rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. We entered into a service agreement for the use of an aircraft from K2 Investment Fund LLC (“LLC”) for business travel for employees of the Company. We incurred approximately $324, and $1,790 in rental fees and reimbursements to the LLC during the years ended December 31, 2020, and 2019, respectively. We pay for the Company’s business usage of the aircraft and have no right to purchase. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Administrative Officer are the managing partners of the LLC and control the equity interests of the LLC. We entered into a 12-month non-exclusive agreement with the LLC for use of the plane at a rate of $8 per flight hour, with no minimum usage requirement. The agreement contains other terms and conditions normal in such transactions and can be cancelled by either us or the LLC with 30 days’ notice. The agreement renews on an annual basis unless terminated by either party. Neither party has exercised their termination rights. 29 Index Critical Accounting Policies The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reported period. The critical accounting policies we employ in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements are those which involve impairment of long-lived assets, income taxes, fair value of financial instruments and stock-based compensation. Basis of Consolidation The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of VirnetX Holding Corporation and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated. Use of Estimates We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP. In doing so, we must make estimates and assumptions that affect our reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses, as well as related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. In some cases, we could reasonably have used different accounting policies and estimates. In some cases, changes in our accounting estimates are reasonably likely to occur. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially from our estimates. To the extent that there are material differences between these estimates and actual results, our financial condition or results of operations will be affected. We base our estimates on experience and other assumptions that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, at the time they are made, and we evaluate these estimates on an ongoing basis. We refer to accounting estimates of this type as critical accounting policies and estimates, which we discuss further below. Leases The Company determines if an arrangement, giving the Company a right-of-use (“ROU”) asset, is a lease at inception. Operating lease ROU assets are included in other assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. ROU assets represent the Company’s right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent the Company’s obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. ROU assets and lease liabilities are recognized at the commencement date of the arrangement based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. Other assets at December 31 , 2020, include a ROU asset related to a facility lease for corporate promotional and marketing purposes. The facility lease was paid in full at inception and the ROU is being amortized over the term of the lease. Other assets also include an ROU related to our office operating lease which expires in October 2021 (See Note 13 - Leases). Revenue Recognition The Company derives revenue from licensing and royalty fees from contracts with customers which often span several years. We account for this revenue in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. A performance obligation is a promise in a contract to transfer a distinct good or service to the customer. A contract’s transaction price is allocated to each distinct performance obligation and recognized as revenue when, or as, the performance obligation is satisfied. Our revenue arrangements may consist of multiple-element arrangements, with revenue for each unit of accounting recognized as the product or service is delivered to the customer. With the licensing of our patents, performance obligations are generally satisfied at a point in time as work is complete when our patent rights are transferred to our customers. We generally have no further obligation to our customers regarding our technology. Certain contracts may require our customers to enter into a hosting arrangement with us and for these arrangements, revenue is recognized over time, generally over the life of the servicing contract. The Company actively monitors and enforces its intellectual property (“IP”) rights, including seeking appropriate compensation from third parties that utilize the Company’s IP without a license. As a result, the Company may, from time to time, receive payments as part of a settlement or compensation for a patent infringement dispute. Proceeds received are allocated to each element identified in the settlement or compensation, based on the fair value of each element. Generally, settlements and compensation may include the following elements: the value of a license or royalty agreement, cost reimbursement, damages, and interest. Elements identified related to licensing and royalty are recognized as revenue. Elements identified as reimbursed costs are generally recorded as a reduction to the reported expenses. Elements identified as damages or interest are generally recorded in other income in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. 30 Index Licensing Costs Licensing costs are incurred pursuant to favorable court decisions relating to patent infringement cases and are included in operating expenses in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations. Contingent Gains ASC Topic 450-30-25, Contingent Gains, prohibits recognition of contingent gains until realized. Accordingly, we do not record contingent gains ahead of such realization. Management generally considers any such gains as realized only upon the collection of cash. Earnings (Loss) Per Share Basic earnings (loss) per share are computed by dividing earnings (loss) available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of outstanding common shares during the period. Diluted earnings per share are computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period increased to include the number of additional shares of common stock that would have been outstanding if the potentially dilutive securities had been issued. Concentration of Credit Risk and Other Risks and Uncertainties Our cash and cash equivalents are primarily maintained at two major financial institutions in the United States. A portion of those balances are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. During the year ended December 31 , 2020, we had funds which were uninsured. We do not believe that we are subject to any unusual financial risk beyond the normal risk associated with commercial banking relationships with major financial institutions. We have not experienced any losses on our deposits of cash and cash equivalents. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets We identify and record impairment losses on long-lived assets used in operations when events and changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset might not be recoverable, but not less than annually. Recoverability is measured by comparison of the anticipated future net undiscounted cash flows to the related assets’ carrying value. If such assets are considered to be impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured by the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds the projected discounted future net cash flows arising from the asset. Income Taxes We account for income taxes using the asset and liability method. The asset and liability method require the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for expected future tax consequences of temporary differences that currently exist between the tax basis and financial reporting basis of our assets and liabilities. We calculate current and deferred tax provisions based on estimates and assumptions that could differ from actual results reflected on the income tax returns filed during the following years. Adjustments based on filed returns are recorded when identified in the subsequent years. The effect on deferred taxes for a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that the tax rate change is enacted. In assessing our deferred tax assets, we consider whether it is more likely than not that all or some portion of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. A valuation allowance is provided for deferred income tax assets when, in our judgment, based upon currently available information and other factors, it is more likely than not that all or a portion of such deferred income tax assets will not be realized. The determination of the need for a valuation allowance is based on an on-going evaluation of current information including, among other things, historical operating results, estimates of future earnings in different taxing jurisdictions and the expected timing of the reversals of temporary differences. We believe the determination to record a valuation allowance to reduce a deferred income tax asset is a significant accounting estimate because it is based, among other things, on an estimate of future taxable income in the United States and certain other jurisdictions, which is susceptible to change and may or may not occur, and because the impact of adjusting a valuation allowance may be material. In determining when to release the valuation allowance established against our net deferred income tax assets, we consider all available evidence, both positive and negative. Due to the 2020 income, we have released the valuation allowance against federal net deferred tax assets, and we maintain a partial valuation allowance against the state net operating loss and credit carryovers due to lack of income in California. We continually assess our ability to generate sufficient taxable income during future periods in which our deferred tax assets may be realized. If and when we believe it is more likely than not that we will recover our deferred tax assets, we will reverse the valuation allowance as an income tax benefit in our statements of operations. 31 Index We account for our uncertain tax positions in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The U.S. GAAP method of accounting for uncertain tax positions utilizes a two-step approach to evaluate tax positions. Step one, recognition, requires evaluation of the tax position to determine if based solely on technical merits it is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination. Step two, measurement, is addressed only if a position is more likely than not to be sustained. In step two, the tax benefit is measured as the largest amount of benefit, determined on a cumulative probability basis, which is more likely than not to be realized upon ultimate settlement with tax authorities. If a position does not meet the more likely than not threshold for recognition in step one, no benefit is recorded until the first subsequent period in which the more likely than not standard is met, the issue is resolved with the taxing authority, or the statute of limitations expires. Positions previously recognized are derecognized when we subsequently determine the position no longer is more likely than not to be sustained. Evaluation of tax positions, their technical merits, and measurements using cumulative probability are highly subjective management estimates. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. Stock-based Compensation We account for stock-based compensation using the fair value recognition method. We recognize these compensation costs on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of the award, which is generally based on the option vesting term of 4 years. In addition, we record stock-based compensation expense for awards granted to non-employees at fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity investments issued generally as they vest over the performance period. Fair Value We apply fair value accounting to all financial assets and liabilities and non-financial assets and liabilities that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis. Fair value is estimated by applying the following hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value into three levels and bases the categorization within the hierarchy upon the lowest level of input that is available and significant to the fair value measurement: Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 – Observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in inactive markets, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. Level 3 – Inputs that are generally unobservable and typically reflect management’s estimate of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Our financial instruments are stated at amounts that equal, or are intended to approximate, fair value. When we approximate fair value, we utilize market data or assumptions that we believe market participants would use in pricing the financial instrument, including assumptions about risk and inputs to the valuation technique. We use quoted valuation techniques, primarily the income and market approach that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs for recurring fair value measurements. New Accounting Pronouncements In December 2019, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2019-12 Income Taxes (Topic 740). The amendments in this ASU simplify the accounting for income taxes by removing certain exceptions to the general principles in Topic 740. The amendments also improve consistent application of and simplify U.S. GAAP for other areas of Topic 740 by clarifying and amending existing guidance. The amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2020. We are currently evaluating the impact, if any this ASU will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures . 32 Index In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, and issued subsequent amendments to the initial guidance within ASU 2019-04 and ASU 2019-05 (collectively, “ASU 2016-13”). The amendments in ASU 2016-13 replace the incurred loss impairment methodology with the current expected credit loss model, which requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to estimate credit losses. The Company adopted this ASU effective January 1, 2020 and the adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows . Results of Operations (all amounts in this section are expressed in thousands) Revenue 2020 2019 Revenue $ 302,636 $ 85 Revenue generated for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $302,636 compared to revenue for the year ended December 31, 2019 of $85. During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company collected a lump sum payment of $454,034 from Apple, Inc. (see “Legal Proceedings”), as a result of a favorable court decision relating to a patent infringement case. The one-time payment includes past royalties, damages for willful infringement, interest, court costs and attorneys’ fees. (See “Revenue Recognition” in Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.) We recognized royalty revenue as part of license agreements entered into with customers during the patent infringement actions (see “Litigation”). These revenues relate to payment for use of our patented technology prior to the signing of a license agreement, and royalty payments after the execution of the license agreements. Licensing Costs Included in operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020, were $90,101 in licensing costs we incurred in conjunction with the proceeds received from Apple Inc., pursuant to a favorable court decision relating to a patent infringement case. Research and Development Expenses 2020 2019 Research and Development $ 8,830 $ 3,845 Research and development costs include expenses paid to outside development consultants and compensation-related expenses for our engineering staff. Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Our research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 were $8,830 compared to December 31, 2019 of $3,845. The increase in 2020 compared to 2019 was primarily due to increased compensation expense. Selling, General and Administrative Expenses 2020 2019 Selling, General and Administrative $ 45,812 $ 15,905 Selling, general and administrative expenses include compensation expense for management and administrative personnel, as well as expenses for outside legal, accounting, and consulting services. Our selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 were $45,812 compared to December 31, 2019 of $15,905. The volatility within selling, general and administrative expenses was primarily due to legal fees related to cases involving the defense of our patents. Legal fees were $30,699 and $5,898 in 2020 and 2019, respectively and represent approximately 67% of selling, general and administrative expenses for 2020 compared to 37% for 2019. Gain on Settlement For the year ended December 31, 2020, we recorded a gain of $41,271 pursuant to a favorable court ruling in the case regarding Apple, Inc. discussed above. (See “Revenue Recognition” in Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.) Interest and Other Income, net 2020 2019 Interest and Other Income $ 108,288 $ 92 33 Index Interest and other income for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $108,288 compared to December 31, 2019 of $92. During 2020 we received interest of $108,221 pursuant to a favorable court ruling in the case with Apple, Inc. discussed above. (See “Revenue Recognition” in Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.) Effective Income Tax Rate A reconciliation of the United States federal statutory income tax rate to our effective income tax rate is as follows: Year Ended December 31, 2020 Year Ended December 31, 2019 United States federal statutory rate 21.00 % 21.00 % State taxes, net of federal benefit 0.17 % 1.99 % Valuation allowance (12.22 ) % (21.96 ) % Stock based compensation (0.01 ) % — R&D Credit (0.21 ) % 1.34 % Other 0.06 % (0.38 ) % Effective income tax rate 8.79 % 1.99 % The Company’s effective tax rate for both 2020 and 2019 was lower than the statutory Federal income tax rate primarily due to the change in valuation allowance. In 2020 we had pre-tax income of $307,452 and in 2019 we had pre-tax losses of $19,573. At December 31, 2020, we had state net operating loss carryforwards of $107,989. All of the Federal net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards have been utilized to offset the taxable income in 2020. The state NOL carryforwards begin expiring in 2029. Liquidity and Capital Resources For the year ended December 31, 2020, our cash and cash equivalents totaled $192,908 and our short-term investments totaled $28,348 compared to $3,135 and $2,394, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2019. We expect that our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments as of December 31, 2020, will be sufficient to fund our current level of selling, general and administration costs, including legal expenses and provide related working capital for the foreseeable future. Over the longer term, we expect to derive the majority of our future revenue from license fees and royalties associated with our patent portfolio, technology, software and secure domain name registry in the United States and other markets around the world. Universal Shelf Registration and ATM Offering On July 30, 2018 we filed a $100,000 universal shelf registration statement on SEC Form S-3 which was declared effective by the SEC on August 16, 2018. We also entered an at-the-market equity offering sales agreement (“ATM”) with Cowen & Company, LLC on August 31, 2018, under which we can offer and sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate value of up to $50,000. We use the ATM proceeds for GABRIEL product development, marketing, and general corporate purposes, which may include working capital, capital expenditures, other corporate expenses and acquisitions of complementary products, technologies, or businesses. As of December 31, 2020, common stock with an aggregate value of up to $21,964 remained available for offer and sale under the ATM agreement. During the year ended December 31, 2020, we sold 1,049,382 shares under the ATM. The average sales price per common share was $4.41 and the aggregate proceeds from the sales totaled $4,627 during the period. Sales commissions, fees and other costs associated with the ATM totaled $139. Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk Consistent with the rules applicable to “smaller reporting companies,” we have omitted the information required by Item 7A. 34 Index