In the ordinary course of business the Company may become a party to various legal proceedings generally involving collection actions, contractual matters, infringement actions, product liability claims and other matters.

On March 26, 2012, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Philips”) filed a lawsuit (civil action no. 12-cv-10549) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company alleging that the Company’s Array and certain other products infringe certain of Philips’ patents for LED lighting. In September 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement ending the patent litigation brought by Philips. In connection with the settlement and patent license agreement, Philips granted the Company an ongoing, royalty-bearing license to the comprehensive portfolio of patented LED technologies and solutions offered under Philips’ LED luminaire and retrofit bulb licensing program. The license allows Revolution to continue the manufacture and sale of LED-based lighting products, including the Array® brand of LED replacement light bulbs. In September 2012, Revolution paid Philips a one-time, lump-sum royalty fee to address past sales. In conjunction with the settlement and patent license agreement, on October 3, 2012, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting dismissal of the lawsuit and on October 4, 2012 the action was dismissed without prejudice. Prior to the merger of the Company with Seesmart, Seesmart also received a letter from Philips claiming patent infringement and threatening litigation if a license agreement was not negotiated. As a subsequently acquired subsidiary of the Company, Seesmart falls under the Company’s settlement agreement with Philips. However, Philips and Seesmart must first agree to the scope of infringing products, and Seesmart may be required to make a payment to address historical product sales.

On July 27, 2012, the Company received a letter from a vendor’s attorney threatening litigation relating to inventory this vendor is holding for future use and sale to the Company. The Company settled this matter with the vendor in September 2012.

The Company settled the above contingencies at the time of the Investment closing. In September 2012, the Company paid $265,000 to settle these matters.

On May 10, 2011, the CAO Group, Inc. (“CAO”) filed a lawsuit (civil action no. 2:11-cv-00426) in the United States District Court for the District of Utah Central Division against the Company alleging that the Company’s Array and certain other products infringe three of CAO’s patents for LED lighting. The complaint also lists GE Lighting, Osram Sylvania, Lighting Science Group Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Toshiba International Corporation, Feit Electric Company, Inc., and Lights of America, Inc. as defendants. The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and reimbursement of its attorney’s fees and costs. The Company is evaluating CAO’s claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend its products. In September 2012, GE Lighting and Osram Sylvania filed requests for reexaminations of the three asserted CAO patents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). The court stayed the litigation through February 28, 2013, pending a decision on the requests to grant the reexaminations. In November and December of 2012, the PTO ordered the reexamination of at least the independent claims of the patents. The parties of the lawsuit have jointly agreed to stay the lawsuit until after the issuance by the United States Patent Office of a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate in any one of the identified reexaminations. The order for the stay was issued March 22, 2013.