Blackberry 2013 Annual Report Download - page 220

Research In Motion Limited
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
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. On May 29,
2012, a trial date was set in December 2012. On November 28, 2012, Judge Kinkeade reset the trial to April 2013 based on a joint
motion by both parties. The parties further agreed to a bench trial. On January 11, 2013, the bankruptcy court approved Kodak’s sale
of its digital imaging patent portfolio to a consortium of companies. Kodak completed the sale on February 1, 2013. As part of the
proceedings, the Company obtained a license to all the patents in suit. As a result, the Company and Kodak jointly moved for
dismissal on February 5, 2013. On Monday, February 11, 2013, the court dismissed and closed the case with prejudice.
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 of the Company’s 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 Administrative Law
Judge (“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, ALJ 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.
On May 21, 2012, Judge Pender issued his Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. On June 4,
2012, Kodak filed a petition for review of Judge Pender’s Initial Determination and the Company filed a contingent petition for
review. On July 20, 2012, the Commission issued its Final Determination agreeing with Judge Pender’s finding of no violation of
Section 337. On Wednesday, August 7, 2012, Kodak filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit. The Company filed a Motion
to Intervene and a Petition for Review/Notice of Cross Appeal on September 6, 2012. On November 21, 2012, the Federal Circuit
granted the Motion to Intervene and dismissed the Petition for Cross Appeal on procedural grounds. Kodak completed the sale of its
digital imaging patent portfolio on February 1, 2013, and as part of the proceedings, the Company obtained a license to all the patents
in suit, thus settling all outstanding litigation. On February 5, 2013, Kodak filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion on
February 15, 2013.
On March 31, 2010, MobileMedia Ideas LLC (“MMI”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas (Marshall Division) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,479,476; 5,845,219; 6,055,439; 6,253,075;
6,427,078; RE.39231; 5,732,390; 5,737,394; 6,070,068; 6,389,301; 6,446,080; and 7,349,012. The patents are generally directed to
mobile telephone technologies
55