Blackberry 2006 Annual Report Download - page 68

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 68 of the 2006 Blackberry annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 80

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80

Research In Motion Limited
66
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)
to the Neomax Litigation (or any related litigation) is not determinable. Accordingly, no amount has been
recorded in these consolidated nancial statements as at March 4, 2006.
On May 9, 2005, RIM-UK led an action against Inpro Licensing S.à.r.l. (“Inpro”) in the High Court of Justice
(Chancery Division, Patents Court) (the “High Court”) in London, England. The action seeks a declaration
that the UK patent, designated under European Patent EP 0892947B1 (“the B1 Patent”), is invalid and
an order that the patent be revoked. On February 2, 2006, the High Court ruled in favor of RIM that all
patent claims in the B1 Patent are invalid. Inpro may seek permission to appeal the decision to the Court of
Appeal. At this time, the likelihood of damages or recoveries and the ultimate amounts, if any, with respect
to this litigation (or any related litigation) is not determinable. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded
in these consolidated nancial statements as at March 4, 2006.
By letter dated February 3, 2005 (the “Letter”), TMO-DG delivered to RIM-UK notice of a claim for
indemnity in relation to litigation in Düsseldorf, Germany in which the plaintiff, Inpro, brought action
against TMO-DG (the “Litigation”) for infringement of the B1 Patent. The Company joined the Litigation
as an intervening party in support of the defendant TMO-DG. On January 27, 2006, the court declared
the B1 Patent invalid. The decision is still subject to appeal, but no appeal has been led to-date. On
March 21, 2006, the court stayed the infringement action until a nal decision on validity has been made.
At this time, the likelihood of damages or recoveries and the ultimate amounts, if any, with respect to
this Litigation (or any related litigation) is not determinable. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded
in these consolidated nancial statements as at March 4, 2006.
On November 28, 2005, Barry Thomas led a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, against RIM Corporation, along with eight other defendants
alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 4,777,354 titled, “System for Controlling the Supply
of Utility Services to Consumers.” A nal settlement agreement was entered into by RIM and Thomas on
March 14, 2006. The amount of the settlement is immaterial to these nancial statements and was paid by
RIM on March 14, 2006. Thomas agreed to a dismissal of the litigation and all claims against RIM and its
customers as part of the settlement and the action has been dismissed.
On May 1, 2006, Visto Corporation (“Visto”) led a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against the Company alleging infringement of four patents
(United States Patent No. 6,023,708, 6,085,192, 6,151,606 and 6,708,221) and seeking an injunction and
monetary damages. The Company believes it does not infringe Visto’s patents and will le its legal response
in due course. In addition to challenging validity and infringement, RIM will now also consider asserting
its own patents against Visto. On May 1, 2006, RIM led a declaratory judgment complaint against Visto
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) alleging the Patent
Nos. 6,085,192; 6,151,606; and 6,708,221 are invalid and/or not infringed. At this time, the likelihood of
damages or recoveries and the ultimate amounts, if any, with respect to this litigation is not determinable.
Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in these consolidated nancial statements as at March 4, 2006.
From time to time, the Company is involved in other claims in the normal course of business. Management
assesses such claims and where considered likely to result in a material exposure and, where the amount
of the claim is quantiable, provisions for loss are made based on management’s assessment of the
likely outcome. The Company does not provide for claims that are considered unlikely to result in a
signicant loss, claims for which the outcome is not determinable or claims where the amount of the loss
cannot be reasonably estimated. Any settlements or awards under such claims are provided for when
reasonably determinable.