Annual report pursuant to section 13 and 15(d)

Contingencies

v2.4.0.8
Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Contingencies
19. CONTINGENCIES:

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 August 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement and patent license 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 the Company to continue the manufacture and sale of LED-based lighting products, including the Array® brand of LED replacement light bulbs. In September 2012, the Company paid Philips a one-time, lump-sum royalty fee to address past sales and patent royalty agreement for future 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, Seesmart also received a letter from Philips expressing concern that some of the Seesmart LED products utilize patented technologies and an interest in discussing Seesmart’s LED based products and Philips’ portfolio and licensing program. After negotiations between Philips and the Company, Philips granted the Company and its affiliates, including Seesmart and Relume, 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. In February, 2014, the Company paid Philips a one-time, lump-sum royalty fee to address past sales by its subsidiaries, which has been reflected in the 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. On October 1, 2013, the court administratively closed the case and indicated that the case may be reopened upon motion by plaintiffs or defendants.

On August 15, 2013, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of merger, dated as of August 9, 2013, by and among the Company, Relume Acquisition Company, Inc., Relume Technologies, Inc., Beringea Invest Michigan, LLC as noteholder representative and the noteholders named therein (the “Relume Merger Agreement”), Relume Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Relume, filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Relume was obligated to make quarterly royalty payments to Relume Corporation for the use of a patent that expires on September 23, 2016. The royalty is calculated at 5% of the net selling prices of specified products during the life of the patent. Relume was also a creditor of Relume Corporation, for unpaid loans totaling approximately $4.2 million. Revolution, Relume, Relume Corporation and third party creditors entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims whereby Revolution and Relume agreed to pay $400,000 for a full settlement and release of all existing and future claims against Revolution and Relume. On February 19, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, entered an order authorizing the Trustee to compromise claims and approving the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims. The settlement has been reflected in the 2013 consolidated financial statements.