Blackberry 2013 Annual Report Download - page 42

defending these claims and could be subject to significant damage awards or other remedies” in the Company’s Annual Information
Form for the fiscal year ended March 3, 2012, which is included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 40-F.
Management reviews all of the relevant facts for each claim and applies judgment in evaluating the likelihood and, if applicable, the
amount of any potential loss. Where it is considered probable for a material exposure to result and where the amount of the claim is
quantifiable, provisions for loss are made based on management’s assessment of the likely outcome. The Company does not provide
for claims that are considered unlikely to result in a significant loss, claims for which the outcome is not determinable or claims
where the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Any settlements or awards under such claims are provided for when
reasonably determinable.
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 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. On October 31, 2011, the court
held a hearing to address summary judgment motions filed by both sides. On March 26, 2012, the court granted the defendants’
motion for summary judgment. On April 20, 2012, St. Clair filed a notice of appeal. On May 16, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal because it was filed prior to dismissal of the district court action. The court issued a mandate on August 3, 2012,
dismissing the appeal as premature. On Friday, September 7, 2012, St. Clair re-filed its notice of appeal. Proceedings are ongoing.
On November 16, 2010, St. Clair filed a second complaint against the Company and other defendants in 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 money damages. The court held a claim
construction hearing on December 16, 2011. On October 12, 2012, the court stayed the case pending final judgment in a case St. Clair
brought against other parties. No trial date is currently set. Proceedings are ongoing.
On October 31, 2008, Mformation Technologies, Inc. (“Mformation”) 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. A claim construction hearing was held on
November 20, 2009. On February 26, 2010, the court issued a claim construction order. A trial date was set for September 2011, but
then later vacated. On August 31, 2011, the court requested additional claim construction briefings. The court held a hearing on
September 26, 2011 for oral argument on the additional claim construction as well as motions for summary judgment and then took
the issues under advisement. On December 19, 2011, the court issued an order on the parties’ summary judgment motions and the
additional claim construction. Jury selection was completed on June 14, 2012, and trial began on June 19, 2012. On July 13, 2012, the
j
ury found that the Company had infringed the asserted patent claims, awarding damages of $147.2 million. On August 8, 2012,
Judge Ware overturned the jury verdict and granted judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law. On Sep. 5, 2012, Mformation
filed a motion for a new trial. On September 6, 2012, Mformation filed a notice of appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. However, the Federal Circuit deactivated the appeal while the motion for new trial was pending. On September 20, 2012, the
case was reassigned to Judge Edward M. Chen, in view of Judge Ware’s retirement from the bench. Judge Chen subsequently denied
Mformation’s motion for new trial on November 15, 2012. On December 4, 2012, the court denied Mformation’s motion for relief
from costs. The Federal Circuit reactivated the appeal on December 20, 2012 after Mformation filed a new notice of appeal. On
January 3, 2013, a new entity, Mformation Software Technologies, Inc. (“MST”), filed a motion to substitute parties, alleging that
Mformation had dissolved and that MST had assumed the rights, but not the liabilities, to the litigation. On January 14, 2013, the
Company filed an opposition to MST’s motion, combined with a motion to dismiss. 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
35