Blackberry 2007 Annual Report Download - page 96

94
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
notes to the consolidated financial statements continued
For the Years Ended March 3, 2007, March 4, 2006 and February 26, 2005
In thousands of United States dollars, except share and per share data, and except as otherwise indicated
the appellate courts have been asked to stay the outstanding
appeals pending the decision of the German Federal Patent
Court becoming final and binding. It is not anticipated that
the appellate courts will rule on the merits of any of the
appeals until the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008. At this time,
the likelihood of damages or recoveries and the ultimate
amounts, if any, with respect to the Neomax Litigation (or
any related litigation) is not determinable. Accordingly, no
amount has been recorded in these consolidated financial
statements as at March 3, 2007.
On May 9, 2005, RIM-UK filed 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 sought a declaration that the
UK patent, designated under European Patent EP 0892947B1
(“the B1 Patent”), was 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
appealed the decision of the High Court and a hearing was
held in the Court of Appeals for the Chancery Division, Patent
Court on January 16 to 18, 2007. The Court of Appeals issued
an order on February 7, 2007, dismissing Inpro’s appeal and
upholding the lower courts ruling in favor of RIM.
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. The company also filed an invalidity action in
the patent court in Munich Germany. On January 27, 2006,
the Munich court declared the B1 Patent invalid. Inpro has
appealed the Munich’s court’s decision and an appeal will
not be heard until some time in 2008. On March 21, 2006,
the Düsseldorf court stayed the infringement action until
a final decision on validity has been made. At this time,
the likelihood of damages or recoveries and the ultimate
amounts, if any, with respect to the Litigation (or any related
litigation) is not determinable. Accordingly, no amount has
been recorded in these consolidated financial statements as
at March 3, 2007.
On May 1, 2006, Visto Corporation (“Visto”) filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Marshall Division (the “Marshall District
Court”), 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. On May 1, 2006, RIM filed a declaratory
judgment complaint against Visto in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas
Division) (the “Dallas District Court”) alleging that the Visto
6,085,192, 6,151,606, and 6,708,221 patents are invalid and/or
not infringed. RIM filed an amended declaratory judgment
complaint in the Dallas District Court on May 12, 2006 adding
complaints of infringement against Visto for infringement
of United States Patent No. 6,389,457 and 6,219,694, which
are owned by RIM. Visto responded to RIM’s amended
complaint by filing a declaratory judgment claims in the
Dallas District Court that the RIM 6,389,457 and 6,219,694
patents are invalid and/or not infringed. On June 16, 2006,
RIM filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Visto in
the Dallas District Court alleging that Patent No. 7,039,679 is
invalid and/or not infringed. The declaratory judgment filed
by RIM in the Dallas District Court against Visto’s United
States Patents No. 6,085,192, 6,151,606 and 6,708,221 has
been dismissed. This will proceed as part of the Visto suit
in the Eastern District of Texas. The RIM complaint filed in
the Dallas District Court against Visto for infringement of
RIM’s United States Patent No. 6,389,457 and 6,219,694 was
consolidated with the declaratory judgment action filed by
RIM against Visto’s patent No. 7,039,679 into one case. RIM’s
complaint filed against Visto for infringement of RIM’s United
States Patent No. 6,389,457 and 6,219,694 (consolidated with
the declaratory judgment filed by RIM against Visto patent
No, 7,039,679) was dismissed to allow RIM to refile those
complaints in the Marshall District Court. RIM’s motion to
amend its response to add an infringement claim under
the RIM ‘457 and ‘694 patents, along with a declaratory
judgement complaint against Visto patent 7,039,679, to the
Marshall District Court action was granted on March 6, 2007.
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 financial statements as at March 3, 2007.
On July 5, 2006, RIM commenced an action in the Federal
Court of Canada against Visto for infringement of RIM’s
Canadian Patent No. 2,245,157; 2,356,073 and 2,356,046.
Proceedings are currently pending.
On October 30, 2006, RIM commenced an action against
Visto in the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division, Patents
Court) in London, England. The action sought a declaration
that Visto’s U.K. patent [EP (UK) 0,996,905] is invalid and