Blackberry 2008 Annual Report Download - page 75

73
For the year ended March 1, 2008, the Company incurred
rental expense of $15,461 (March 3, 2007 - $9,794; March 4,
2006 - $5,767).
(b) Litigation
The Company was the defendant in a patent litigation matter
brought by NTP, Inc. (“NTP”) alleging that the Company
infringed on eight of NTP’s patents. On March 3, 2006,
the Company and NTP jointly announced that they signed
definitive licensing and settlement agreements. All terms of
the agreement were finalized and the litigation against RIM was
dismissed by a court order on March 3, 2006. The agreement
eliminated the need for any further court proceedings or
decisions relating to damages or injunctive relief. On March 3,
2006, RIM paid NTP $612.5 million in full and final settlement
of all claims against RIM, as well as for a perpetual, fully-paid
up license going forward. As the litigation was settled in fiscal
2006, no amount is reflected in the results of operations for
fiscal 2007 or fiscal 2008. The Company recorded an expense
of $201.8 million in fiscal 2006 to account for the additional
charge for the final settlement in the amount of $162.5 million,
the full writedown of the acquired NTP license that was
recorded in March 2005 which, after accumulated depreciation,
had net book value of $18.3 million as well as an expense of
$21.0 million to account for incremental current and estimated
legal and professional fees in connection with this litigation.
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
12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Lease commitments
The Company is committed to future minimum annual lease
payments under operating leases as follows:
“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 judgment
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. On April 3, 2006, Neomax filed
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. On March 26, 2007,
the German Federal Patent Court delivered a judgment
invalidating certain claims of the subject patent. As a result,
the appellate courts were asked to stay the outstanding
appeals pending the decision of the German Federal Patent
Court becoming final and binding. However, the Neomax
Litigation was settled effective February 20, 2008 without
RIM-UK being required to contribute to the settlement.
Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in these
consolidated financial statements as at March 1, 2008.
By letter dated February 3, 2005 (the “Letter”), TMO-DG
delivered to RIM-UK a 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
Real Estate Equipment and other Total
For the years ending
2009 $ 15,515 $ 164 $ 15,679
2010 14,168 1 14,169
2011 13,157 - 13,157
2012 12,502 - 12,502
2013 10,437 - 10,437
Thereafter 57,903 - 57,903
$ 123,682 $ 165 $ 123,847