Blackberry 2006 Annual Report Download - page 67

Research In Motion Limited • Incorporated Under the Laws of Ontario (In thousands of United States dollars, except per share data, and except as otherwise indicated)
Annual Report 2006 65
For the years ended March 4, 2006, February 26, 2005 and February 28, 2004

In November 2003, Inpro II Licensing S.à.r.l. (“Inpro II”) led an action in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the “U.S. Inpro Action”) asserting United States Patent No. 6,523,079 against
both RIM and one of its customers. RIM was successful in the District Court, and the matter was heard on
appeal on December 8, 2005 at the Federal Circuit. A decision is expected within six months. At this time,
the likelihood of damages or recoveries and the ultimate amounts, if any, with respect to the U.S. Inpro
Action is not determinable. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in these consolidated nancial
statements as at March 4, 2006.
Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. (“Eatoni”) has alleged that RIM’s BlackBerry 7100 Series infringes the claims
of United States Patent No. 6,885,317, titled “Touch-Typable Devices Based On Ambiguous Codes And
Methods To Design Such Devices”. Proceedings are currently pending in United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). At this time, the likelihood of damages or recoveries and
the ultimate amount, if any, with respect to this action is not determinable. Accordingly, no amount has
been recorded in these consolidated nancial statements as at March 4, 2006.
On May 16, 2005, Antor Media Corporation (“Antor”) led a complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against RIM’s U.S. subsidiary, Research In Motion
Corporation, along with 11 other defendants, alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,734,961
(the “961 Patent”) titled “Methods and Apparatus for Transmitting Information Recorded on Information
Storage Means from a Central Server to Subscribers via a High Data Rate Digital Telecommunications
Network”. RIM has responded to the complaint by denying that the 961 patent is valid and/or infringed.
Court ordered mediation has been set for May 9 and 10, 2006 and a trial date has been set for March 12,
2007. At this time, the likelihood of damages or recoveries and the ultimate amounts, if any, with respect
to the Antor action is not determinable. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in these consolidated
nancial statements as at March 4, 2006.
On August 31, 2005, Morris Reese (“Reese”) led a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against Research In Motion Corporation, along with 7 other
defendants alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,427,009 (the “009 Patent”). During the
third quarter of scal 2006, RIM responded to the complaint by denying the 009 Patent is valid and/or
infringed. A trial date has been set for March 12, 2007. At this time, the likelihood of damages or recoveries
and the ultimate amounts, if any, with respect to the Reese action is not determinable. Accordingly, no
amount has been recorded in these consolidated nancial statements as at March 4, 2006.
By letter dated February 16, 2004, T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH (“TMO-DG”) and T-Mobile International AG
(collectively, “TMO”) served RIM’s wholly-owned UK subsidiary, Research In Motion UK Limited (“RIM-UK”),
with a third party notice in relation to litigation in Germany (the “Neomax Litigation”) in which the plaintiff,
Neomax Co., Ltd. (“Neomax”), formerly Sumitomo Special Metals Co., Ltd., brought an action against TMO
in relation to cell phones sold by TMO in Germany for alleged infringement of a European Patent purportedly
owned by Neomax, which in very general terms, relates to magnets installed as components in cell phones.
On February 16, 2006, a partial judgement was issued by the Court of Appeals in Düsseldorf which rejected
Neomax’s damage claim based upon negligent patent infringement and ordered the scheduling of further
evidentiary proceedings. In light of the appellate court’s ruling on damages, it is not anticipated the
Company will be involved in these further evidentiary proceedings. On April 3, 2006, Neomax led an
appeal before the German Federal Supreme Court for Civil Matters (BGH) seeking to overturn the partial
judgment by the Court of Appeals in Düsseldorf. A decision on the BGH appeal is expected within twelve
months. At this time, the likelihood of damages or recoveries and the ultimate amounts, if any, with respect