Blackberry 2008 Annual Report Download - page 77

75
28, 2008, the UK Court rendered a decision wherein it held that
Visto’s ‘905 UK patent was invalid for lack of inventive step and
not being patentable subject matter. On March 6, 2008, the
English Court of Appeal also denied Visto’s appeal in relation
to the abuse of process claims.
On December 27, 2006, RIM commenced an action in Italy
in the Court of Milan, Specialized Division in Industrial and
Intellectual Property. RIM is requesting that the court declare
the Italian portion of Visto’s patent No. EP0996905 invalid and
declare that RIM’s activities in Belgium, France, Italy, Germany,
the Netherlands and Spain do not infringe patent EP0996905.
On May 28, 2007 Visto filed a request with the Court of Milan
that the Court hold a hearing on the issue of whether the
Court has jurisdiction to decide that RIM’s activities in Belgium,
France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain do not
infringe patent EP 0996905. Proceedings are currently pending.
On May 31, 2006, RIM filed a declaratory judgment action
in the United States Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, against DataQuill BVI, Ltd. in which RIM seeks
a ruling that the United States Patent 6,058,304 (“the ‘304
Patent”) is invalid and not infringed by RIM products. On
August 15, 2006, DataQuill filed a motion to dismiss to which
RIM filed a response on September 15, 2006. On March 27,
2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
issued an order denying DataQuill’s Motion to Dismiss. On
April 13, 2007, RIM filed an amended complaint which added
a declaratory judgment counterclaim to the suit seeking a
ruling that DataQuill’s continuation patent of the 304 patent,
United States Patent 7,139,591 (“the ’591 Patent”) is invalid and
not infringed by RIM products. On April 24, 2007, DataQuill
filed its answer to RIM’s declaratory judgment complaint.
DataQuill counterclaimed for infringement of the ‘304 and
‘591 Patents and is seeking an injunction and monetary
damages. A trial date has been scheduled for October 2008.
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 1, 2008.
On June 6, 2007, Minerva Industries (“Minerva”) 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 United
States Patent No. 6,681,120 and seeking an injunction and
monetary damages. On January 22, 2008, Minerva filed a
second complaint in the Marshall District Court against the
Company alleging infringement of United States Patent No.
7,321,783 and seeking an injunction and monetary damages
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. The
trial is scheduled to commence May 12, 2008. On June 1, 2007,
RIM commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against Visto Corporation and two of its executive
officers. The action seeks damages for conspiracy, for false and
misleading statements in contravention of the Competition
Act, for contravention of the Trade-marks Act, for injurious
falsehood and for unlawful interference with RIM’s economic
relations. 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 should
be revoked. On December 5, 2006, RIM requested that the
court decide that RIM’s actions in the U.K. do not infringe the
same patent. RIM sent to Visto a non-confidential Product and
Process Description (PPD) providing a technical description
of RIM’s products offered in the U.K. On February 2, 2007,
Visto acknowledged that RIM’s products described in the
non-confidential PPD do not infringe Visto’s U.K. patent [EP
(UK) 0,996,905]. However, on February 2, 2007 Visto also filed a
defence and counterclaim alleging that another RIM product
allegedly not in the non-confidential PPD, the Mail Connector
product, does infringe Visto’s U.K. patent [EP (UK) 0,996,905].
Visto also alleged that the action filed by RIM in Italy (see
below) was filed in bad faith or with gross negligence and that
filing the proceedings in Italy amounts to the tort of abuse of
process. Visto further has asked the Court to order revocation
of RIM’s U.K. patents [EP (UK) 1 096 727] and [EP (UK) 1 126
662]. RIM presented a jurisdictional challenge to Visto’s abuse
of process claims related to RIM’s filing of the action in Italy on
the basis that the UK Court did not have jurisdiction in the UK
for the abuse of process claims. The Court decided in RIM’s
favour in a hearing held on April 3, 2007 on RIM’s jurisdictional
challenge, and Visto appealed the Court’s decision. On
April 13, 2007, in view of the fact that Visto acknowledged
that RIM’s products described in the PPD do not infringe the
Visto UK patent, RIM served a notice of discontinuance that
it was withdrawing its request that the Court decide that the
RIM products described in the PPD do not infringe the Visto
UK patent. A hearing was held in the UK Court on August 7,
2007 on an application filed by Visto requesting a stay of the
litigation. The UK Court denied Visto’s request for a stay. The
trial on the invalidity and non-infringement of Visto’s patents
proceeded in the UK Court on January 23, 2008. On February