Blackberry 2009 Annual Report Download - page 74

72
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
notes to the consolidated financial statements continued
In thousands of United States dollars, except share and per share data, and except as otherwise indicated
Deferred Share Unit Plan
Under the DSU Plan, each independent director will be
credited with DSUs in satisfaction of all or a portion of the
cash fees otherwise payable to them for serving as a director
of the Company. Grants under the DSU Plan replace the stock
option awards that were historically granted to independent
members of the Board of Directors. DSUs will be redeemed
for cash with the redemption value of each DSU equal to the
weighted-average trading price of the Company’s shares
over the five trading days preceding the redemption date.
Alternatively, subject to receipt of shareholder approval,
the Company may elect to redeem DSUs by way of shares
purchased on the open market or issued by the Company.
The Company issued 11,282 DSUs in the year ended
February 28, 2009. There are 20,208 DSUs outstanding at
February 28, 2009 (March 1, 2008 – 8,926). The Company had
a liability of $834 in relation to the DSU plan as at February 28,
2009 (March 1, 2008 - $965).
12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Lease commitments
The Company is committed to future minimum annual lease
payments under operating leases as follows:
Real Estate Equipment and other Total
For the years ending
2010 $ 23,785 $ 1,459 $ 25,244
2011 22,253 1,269 23,522
2012 22,003 548 22,551
2013 20,395 - 20,395
2014 19,496 - 19,496
Thereafter 72,172 - 72,172
$ 180,104 $ 3,276 $ 183,380
For the year ended February 28, 2009, the Company incurred
rental expense of $22.7 million (March 1, 2008 - $15.5 million;
March 3, 2007 - $9.8 million).
(b) Litigation
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 European Patent
EP0892947B1 (the “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 Patent invalid. Inpro has
appealed the Munich court’s decision and an appeal will
not be heard until some time in 2009. 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 February 28, 2009.
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 (“U.S. Patent”) No. 6,023,708
(“’708”), 6,085,192 (“’192), 6,151,606 (“’606”) and 6,708,221
(“’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 ’192, ’606, and ’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 claims against Visto for infringement