Blackberry 2012 Annual Report Download - page 44

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 did not seek monetary damages, but
requested 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 had set a trial date of June 20, 2011 and a target date for completion of the investigation of
January 12, 2012. Samsung and Spansion settled all outstanding litigation around June 16, 2011, resulting in the dismissal of all
outstanding litigation against the Company.
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. On July 20, 2011, the Court again reset the trial date for the
three-week docket beginning on March 5, 2012. On January 19, 2012, following federal rules, Judge Kinkeade stayed the proceedings
because Kodak declared bankruptcy. The Company filed an unopposed motion with the bankruptcy court to lift the stay. On March 9,
2012, the bankruptcy court granted the Company’s motion to lift the stay of the case pending in the Northern District of Texas.
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 the Company’s products do
not infringe the ‘218 Patent and that the only asserted claim is invalid as obvious. Kodak and the ITC Staff separately petitioned for
ITC review on February 7, 2011. The Company also filed a contingent petition for review on February 7, 2011. On March 25, 2011,
the ITC issued a public notice advising that the ITC would review Chief Judge Luckern’s decision. The ITC delayed the target date
for completion of the investigation by the ITC. The new target date was June 23, 2011. On July 8, 2011, the ITC issued an Opinion
with its review of Chief Judge Luckern’s decision. The ITC remanded issues concerning both infringement and validity. The remand
proceedings were assigned to a different ALJ, Administrative Law Judge Pender, as Chief Judge Luckern retired from the bench.
Acting Chief Judge Bullock initially set October 30, 2011 as the target date for the new ALJ to determine how much additional time
is necessary for the remand proceedings and to set a new final target date and later extended this date to December 30, 2011. On
December 16, 2011, ALJ Pender determined that he will reopen the record to permit limited additional discovery and extended the
target date to September 21, 2012 to allow time for the parties to complete this discovery and remand briefing. On January 26, 2012,
Judge Pender decided not to reopen the record due to fact that certain issues had become moot. Proceedings are ongoing.
37