Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (NTIP) on Thursday announced a favorable decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its litigation with Hewlett-Packard involving its Remote Power Patent.

Network-1 is involved in development, marketing, licensing and support a series of patented network security software products designed to provide comprehensive security to computer networks. The company is also engaged in protection of intellectual property rights. Its patent portfolios include the remote power patent portfolio, the QoS patents, the CoS patent portfolio and the mirror worlds patent portfolio. The company generates revenue from licensing of its intellectual property and related activities. The company is expanding licensing opportunities for IP assets as part of its current strategy.

In the current decision the Federal Circuit invalidated the previous judgment of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas. The District Court in its decision ruled a non-infringement of Remote Power Patent by Hewlett-Packard. The District Court had also ruled the validity of the Remote Power Patent, which the Federal Circuit vacated in current decision. The Federal Circuit has sent the case back to the District Court for a new trial on infringement against Hewlett-Packard and further proceedings on validity.

After the Federal Circuit’s decision, Network-1 is confident that Cisco and certain others companies will also be obligated to pay royalties to the company for being licensees of Network-1’s Remote Power Patent. Those royalties will be significant for the company as those were not been paid from fourth quarter of 2017 till expiry of the licensing agreement on March 7, 2020. As per licensing agreements of Cisco and others companies with Network-1, the amount of those royalties payable to the company depends upon the amount of sales of licensed products by licensee companies.

The company in July settled a similar dispute with Dell, Inc for an amount of $4,150,000 to fully settle the litigation. The litigation was related to a dispute regarding a Settlement and License Agreement with respect to royalty payments relating to licensing of Remote Power Patent.