Blackberry 2013 Annual Report Download - page 43

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 43 of the 2013 Blackberry annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 235

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 171
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • 180
  • 181
  • 182
  • 183
  • 184
  • 185
  • 186
  • 187
  • 188
  • 189
  • 190
  • 191
  • 192
  • 193
  • 194
  • 195
  • 196
  • 197
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200
  • 201
  • 202
  • 203
  • 204
  • 205
  • 206
  • 207
  • 208
  • 209
  • 210
  • 211
  • 212
  • 213
  • 214
  • 215
  • 216
  • 217
  • 218
  • 219
  • 220
  • 221
  • 222
  • 223
  • 224
  • 225
  • 226
  • 227
  • 228
  • 229
  • 230
  • 231
  • 232
  • 233
  • 234
  • 235

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. 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 Koda
k
’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
36