Blackberry 2012 Annual Report Download - page 52

On December 2, 2011, Garnet Digital, LLC (“Garnet Digital”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division) along with 31 other defendants. Garnet alleges that the Company infringes U.S. Patent
No. 5,379,421 generally directed to using a terminal for accessing remote database information. The complaint seeks money damages, a
permanent injunction, and other relief that the Court may deem proper under the circumstances. The Company and Garnet Digital settled
all outstanding litigation on January 29, 2012 for an amount immaterial to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
On December 2, 2011, Digitude Innovations LLC (“Digitude”) filed a request that the ITC commence an investigation of alleged
unlawful importation by the Company, as well as seven other companies. With respect to allegations against the Company, Digitude
requests that the ITC issue orders prohibiting certain RIM products from being imported into the U.S. and sold in the U.S. Digitude
alleges that the Company infringes U.S. Patents Nos. 5,926,636 (“the ‘636 patent”); 5,929,655 (“the ‘655 patent”); 6,208,879 (“the ‘879
patent”); and 6,456,841 (“the ‘841 patent”). The patents are generally related to network management, I/O circuit design and application
screen selection. On December 2, 2011, Digitude also filed a companion complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware regarding the same patents. The Company and Digitude settled all outstanding litigation on March 29, 2012 for an amount
immaterial to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
On December 6, 2011, Advanced Video Technologies LLC (“AVT”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. AVT alleges that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,781,788 generally directed to a single-chip
video codec. The complaint seeks an injunction, money damages and other relief that the Court may deem proper under the
circumstances. Proceedings are ongoing.
On January 20, 2012, WI-LAN USA, Inc. and WI-LAN, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,515,369 and 6,232,969. The patents are generally directed to
Bluetooth and character selection display interface. The complaint seeks an injunction and money damages. On February 21, 2012, WI-
LAN USA, Inc. and WI-LAN, Inc. filed an amendment to the complaint, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,240,088. The patent
is generally directed to a message review feature. The Company’s answer is due on March 19, 2012. Proceedings are ongoing.
On February 17, 2012, Pragmatus AV, LLC (“Pragmatus”) filed a complaint with the ITC against the Company along with 7 other
defendants. Pragmatus alleges that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 5,854,893 (the “’893 Patent”), 6,237,025 (the “’025 Patent”),
6,351,762 (the “’762 Patent) and 7,185,054 (the “’054 Patent”) generally relating to telephone and video conferencing. The Complaint
seeks orders prohibiting certain RIM devices from being imported into the U.S. and sold in the U.S. Proceedings are ongoing.
On February 17, 2012, Pragmatus filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
alleging infringement of the ‘893, ‘0-25, ‘762, and ‘054 Patents. The Complaint seeks an injunction and money damages. Proceedings are
ongoing.
On March 9, 2012, Iswitch, LLC (“Iswitch”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against
the Company. Iswitch alleges that the Company infringes U.S, Patent No. 7,225,334 generally directed to voice over IP technology. The
Complaint seeks money damages and all other relief to which the Court may deem the Plaintiff be entitled. Proceedings are ongoing.
On March 15, 2012 Varia Holdings LLC (“Varia”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No 7,167,731 generally directed to emoticon input technologies. The
complaint seeks money damages and any and all other relief to which Varia may be entitled.
On March 16, 2012 Data Carriers, LLC (“Data Carriers”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,388,198 generally directed to proactive presentation of automating
features to a computer user. The complaint seeks money damages and any and all other relief to which Data Carriers may be entitled.
On March 30, 2012 Unifi Scientific Batteries, LLC (“USB”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas (Tyler Division), along with 4 other defendant groups including Samsung and Texas Instruments. USB asserted that the
Company infringes U.S. Patent 6,791,298 generally directed to battery charging technology. The complaint seeks money damages, an
injunction, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
On April 2, 2012, NXP B.V. (“NXP”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the US District court for the Middle District of Florida
(Orlando Division). NXP asserted that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,330,455; 6,434,654; 6,501,420; 5,597,668; 5,639,697;
and 5,763,955. NXP alleges that its patents are generally directed to certain wireless technologies including 802.11 and GPS, as well as
certain methods of manufacture for semiconductor devices. The complaint seeks money damages, an injunction, and other relief that the
Court deems just and proper.
Between May and August 2011, several purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its present or
former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, two of which have been voluntarily dismissed. On
January 6, 2012, Judge Richard S. Sullivan consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed both lead plaintiff and counsel. On
April 5, 2012, plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging that during the period from December 16, 2010
throu
g
h June 16, 2011, the Com
p
an
y
and certain of its officers made materiall
y
false and misleadin
g
statements re
g
ardin
g
the Com
p
an
y
’s