.
what was the ratio of the square footage in alpharetta georgia to jersey city new jersey as december 2014
all facilities are leased at december 31 , 2014 , including 165000 square feet of our office in alpharetta , georgia . we executed a sale-leaseback transaction on this office during 2014 . see note 9 2014property and equipment , net in item 8 . financial statements and supplementary data for more information . all of our facilities are used by either our trading and investing or balance sheet management segments , in addition to the corporate/other category . all other leased facilities with space of less than 25000 square feet are not listed by location . in addition to the significant facilities above , we also lease all 30 e*trade branches , ranging in space from approximately 2500 to 8000 square feet . we believe our facilities space is adequate to meet our needs in 2015 . item 3 . legal proceedings on october 27 , 2000 , ajaxo , inc . ( "ajaxo" ) filed a complaint in the superior court for the state of california , county of santa clara . ajaxo sought damages and certain non-monetary relief for the company 2019s alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement with ajaxo pertaining to certain wireless technology that ajaxo offered the company as well as damages and other relief against the company for their alleged misappropriation of ajaxo 2019s trade secrets . following a jury trial , a judgment was entered in 2003 in favor of ajaxo against the company for $ 1 million for breach of the ajaxo non-disclosure agreement . although the jury found in favor of ajaxo on its claim against the company for misappropriation of trade secrets , the trial court subsequently denied ajaxo 2019s requests for additional damages and relief . on december 21 , 2005 , the california court of appeal affirmed the above-described award against the company for breach of the nondisclosure agreement but remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining what , if any , additional damages ajaxo may be entitled to as a result of the jury 2019s previous finding in favor of ajaxo on its claim against the company for misappropriation of trade secrets . although the company paid ajaxo the full amount due on the above-described judgment , the case was remanded back to the trial court , and on may 30 , 2008 , a jury returned a verdict in favor of the company denying all claims raised and demands for damages against the company . following the trial court 2019s entry of judgment in favor of the company on september 5 , 2008 , ajaxo filed post- trial motions for vacating this entry of judgment and requesting a new trial . the trial court denied these motions . on december 2 , 2008 , ajaxo filed a notice of appeal with the court of appeal of the state of california for the sixth district . on august 30 , 2010 , the court of appeal affirmed the trial court 2019s verdict in part and reversed the verdict in part , remanding the case . the company petitioned the supreme court of california for review of the court of appeal decision . on december 16 , 2010 , the california supreme court denied the company 2019s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings to the trial court . the testimonial phase of the third trial in this matter concluded on june 12 , 2012 . by order dated may 28 , 2014 , the court determined to conduct a second phase of this bench trial to allow ajaxo to attempt to prove entitlement to additional royalties . hearings in phase two of the trial concluded january 8 , 2015 , and final written closing statements will be submitted march 16 , 2015 . the company will continue to defend itself vigorously . on may 16 , 2011 , droplets inc. , the holder of two patents pertaining to user interface servers , filed a complaint in the u.s . district court for the eastern district of texas against e*trade financial corporation , e*trade securities llc , e*trade bank and multiple other unaffiliated financial services firms . plaintiff contends that the defendants engaged in patent infringement under federal law . plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against future infringements , plus royalties , costs , interest and attorneys 2019 fees . on september 30 , 2011 , the company and several co-defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the southern district of new york . venue discovery occurred throughout december 2011 . on january 1 , 2012 , a new judge was assigned to the case . on march 28 , 2012 , a change of venue was granted and the case was transferred to the united states district court for the southern district of new york . the company filed its answer and counterclaim on june 13 , 2012 and plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim . the company filed a motion for summary judgment . plaintiffs sought to change venue back to the eastern district of texas on the theory that this case is one of several matters that should be consolidated in a single multi-district litigation . on december 12 , 2012 , the multidistrict litigation panel denied the transfer of this action to texas . by opinion dated april 4 , 2013 , the court denied defendants 2019 motion for summary judgment and plaintiff 2019s motion to dismiss the counterclaims . the court issued its order on claim construction on october 22 , 2013 , and by order dated january 28 , 2014 , the court adopted the defendants' proposed claims construction . on march 25 , 2014 , the court granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add a newly-issued patent , but stayed all litigation pertaining to that patent until a covered business method review could be heard by the patent and trademark appeals board . the defendants' petitions for table of contents .