Blackberry 2011 Annual Report Download - page 49

expected to be provided on July 13, 2011 and the target date for completion of the investigation is November 14, 2011. Proceedings
are ongoing.
On June 20, 2008, St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. (“St. Clair”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the
Company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The patents-in-suit include U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,138,459, 6,094,219, 6,233,010 and 6,323,899. These patents are generally directed to image processing in digital cameras.
The court has set a trial date for September 7, 2010. The complaint seeks an injunction and monetary damages. Proceedings are
ongoing.
On November 16, 2010, St. Clair filed a second complaint against the Company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware. The patents in suit include U.S. Patent Nos. 5,630,163; 5,710,929; 5,758,175; 5,892,959; 6,079,025 and
5,822,610. These patents are generally directed to power management. The Complaint seeks an injunction and monetary damages.
Proceedings are ongoing.
On October 31, 2008, Mformation Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The patents-in-suit include U.S. Patent Nos. 6,970,917 and 7,343,408. These patents are
generally directed to remote device management functionality. The complaint seeks an injunction and monetary damages. On
February 26, 2010, the Court issued a claim construction order. No trial date has been set. Proceedings are ongoing.
On November 17, 2008, Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (“Spansion”) filed a complaint with the ITC against Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. and other related Samsung companies (collectively “Samsung”) and other proposed respondents, including the Company, who
purchase flash memory chips from Samsung, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,380,029 (“the ’029 Patent”); 6,080,639 (“the
’639 Patent”); 6,376,877 (“the ’877 Patent”) and 5,715,194 (“the ’194 Patent”). The patents relate generally to flash memory chips.
The complaint does not seek monetary damages, but requests that the ITC issue orders prohibiting RIM products containing certain
flash memory chips made by Samsung from being imported into the U.S. and sold in the U.S. On March 16, 2010 and April 7, 2010,
the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) presiding over the case granted consent motions from Spansion to terminate the ITC investigation
in part as to the ’029 Patent and the ’639 Patent, respectively, thereby leaving only two patents remaining in the case. From May 3,
2010 to May 14, 2010, a trial was held regarding the ’877 Patent and the ’194 Patent. On October 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his initial
determination finding no violation. On December 23, 2010, the ITC Commission decided not to review the ALJ’s initial determination,
thereby letting stand the ALJ’s finding of no violation. The investigation has been terminated.
On August 6, 2010, Spansion LLC filed a second complaint with the ITC against Samsung and other respondents, including the
Company, which use Samsung flash memory, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,018,922; 6,900,124; 6,369,416; and
6,459,625. All the patents-at-issue are generally directed to flash memory chips. The complaint does not seek monetary damages, but
requests that the ITC issue orders prohibiting certain RIM products containing Samsung flash memory chips from being imported into
the U.S. and sold in the U.S. The ALJ has set a trial date of June 20, 2011 and a target date for completion of the investigation of
January 12, 2012. Proceedings are ongoing.
On November 20, 2008, the Company filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability
against four Eastman Kodak (“Kodak”) patents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). The
patents-in-suit include U.S. Patent Nos. 5,493,335, 6,292,218 (“the ’218 Patent”) and 6,600,510 (“ the ’510 Patent”) which are
generally directed to digital camera technologies and U.S. Patent No. 5,226,161 which is directed to data sharing in applications.
Kodak counterclaimed for infringement of these same patents seeking an injunction and monetary damages. The claim construction
hearing was held on March 23, 2010. On July 23, 2010, Kodak dismissed the ’510 Patent from the case without prejudice. The court
set an initial trial date in December 2010. The court also ordered mediation to seek to settle the case. Mediation was unsuccessful and
on November 29, 2010 the court reset the trial date for August 1, 2011. The petitions for review were granted on March 25, 2011.
Proceedings are ongoing.
On January 14, 2010, Kodak filed a complaint with the ITC against the Company and Apple Inc. alleging infringement of the
’218 Patent and requesting the ITC to issue orders prohibiting certain RIM products from being imported into the U.S. and sold in the
U.S. On February 23, 2010, the ITC published a Notice of Investigation in the Federal Register. The ALJ set a trial date of September 1,
2010 and a target date for completion of the investigation by the ITC of May 23, 2011. A claim construction hearing was held on
May 24-25, 2010. The Chief Judge issued his claim construction order as an Initial Determination on June 22, 2010. In accordance
with the ALJ’s ruling, the trial was held and lasted for six days. On January 24, 2011, the ALJ ruled that RIM’s smartphones do not
infringe the ’218 Patent and that the only asserted claim is invalid as obvious. Kodak and the ITC Staff separately petitioned for
36 RESEARCH IN MOTION ANNUAL REPORT 2011
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS