NETWORK-1 Technologies, Inc. NTIP US Equity
NETWORK-1 Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: NTIP), an SEC filer in Patent Owners & Lessors, closed at $1.56, +1.3%, on 2026-08-28, with a market cap of $35M as of 2026-08-27, a return on equity of -5.8% and a net margin of -1613.3%. Institutional ownership, earnings history and filed financials are on the tabs below.
Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-03-13 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · M2M/IoT Patent Portfolio Litigation On June 27, 2025, we commenced patent litigation against Samsung Electronics Co., LTD and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(collectively, “Samsung”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,233,780, U.S. Patent No.11,916,893, U.S. Patent No.12,207,094, U.S. Patent No. 12,166,869, U.S. Patent No.11,606,204, and U.S. Patent No.11,973,864. All such patents are part of our M2M/IoT Patent Portfolio. The lawsuit alleges that Samsung infringes the asserted patents by supporting certain eSIM (embedded Subscriber Identification Module) and 5G technologies in its mobile devices, including its Galaxy smartphones, watches and tablets. The parties are conducting discovery. A trial date has been scheduled for June 7, 2027. HFT Patent Portfolio Litigation On December 24, 2024, our wholly-owned subsidiary, HFT Solutions, LLC (“HFT”), initiated patent litigations against Citadel Securities, LLC and Jump Trading, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,931,286, U.S. Patent No. 11,128,305, and U.S. Patent No. 11,575,381. A… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon this review, our executive officers concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms and is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · HFT Patent Portfolio Litigation On December 24, 2024, our wholly-owned subsidiary, HFT Solutions, LLC (“HFT”), initiated patent litigations against Citadel Securities, LLC and Jump Trading, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,931,286, U.S. Patent No. 11,128,305, and U.S. Patent No. 11,575,381. The asserted patents are part of the HFT Patent Portfolio acquired by us in March 2022. The HFT Patent Portfolio relates to, among other things, certain advanced technologies relating to high frequency trading, which inventions specifically address technological problems associated with speed and latency and provide critical latency gains in trading systems where the difference between success and failure may be measured in nanoseconds. Cox Patent Portfolio Litigation On April 4, 2014 and December 3, 2014, we initiated litigation against Google Inc. (“Google”) and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of several of our patents within our Cox Patent Portfolio which relate to the identification of media content on the Internet. The lawsuit alleged… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon this review, our executive officers concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms and is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-08 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Cox Patent Portfolio Litigation On April 4, 2014 and December 3, 2014, we initiated litigation against Google Inc. (“Google”) and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of several of our patents within our Cox Patent Portfolio which relate to the identification of media content on the Internet. The lawsuit alleges that Google and YouTube have infringed and continue to infringe certain of our patents by making, using, selling and offering to sell unlicensed systems and related products and services, which include YouTube’s Content ID system. The litigations against Google and YouTube were subject to court ordered stays which were in effect from July 2, 2015 until January 2, 2019 as a result of proceedings then pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and appeals to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pursuant to a joint stipulation and order, entered on January 2, 2019, the parties agreed, among other things, that the stays with respect to the litigations were lifted. In January 2019, the two litigations against Google and YouTube were consolidated. Discovery is complete and the pa… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon this review, our executive officers concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms and is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-30 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Cox Patent Portfolio Litigation On April 4, 2014 and December 3, 2014, we initiated litigation against Google Inc. (“Google”) and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of several of our patents within our Cox Patent Portfolio which relate to the identification of media content on the Internet. The lawsuit alleges that Google and YouTube have infringed and continue to infringe certain of our patents by making, using, selling and offering to sell unlicensed systems and related products and services, which include YouTube’s Content ID system. The litigations against Google and YouTube were subject to court ordered stays which were in effect from July 2, 2015 until January 2, 2019 as a result of proceedings then pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the appeals to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pursuant to a joint stipulation and order, entered on January 2, 2019, the parties agreed, among other things, that the stays with respect to the litigations were lifted. In January 2019, the two litigations against Google and YouTube were consolidated. Discovery is complete and th… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon this review, our executive officers concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms and is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-30 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Remote Power Patent Litigation Hewlett-Packard Litigation On July 26, 2021, we agreed to settle our patent litigation against Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company (collectively, “Hewlett-Packard”) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for infringement of our Remote Power Patent. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company paid us $17,000,000 in full settlement of the litigation and Hewlett-Packard received a fully paid license and release to the Remote Power Patent for its full term, which applies to sales of Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) products by Hewlett-Packard and its wholly-owned subsidiary Aruba Networks, LLC. Netgear Litigation On December 15, 2020, we filed a lawsuit against Netgear in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, for breach of a Settlement and License Agreement, dated May 22, 2009, with us for Netgear’s failure to make royalty payments, and provide corresponding royalty reports to us based on sales of Netgear’s PoE products. On October 22, 2021, Netgear filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon this review, our executive officers concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms and is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.