Clearwire 2008 Annual Report Download - page 57

Th
e
f
o
ll
ow
i
ng ta
bl
e
li
sts our s
i
gn
ifi
cant propert
i
es an
d
t
h
e
i
ns
id
e square
f
ootage o
f
t
h
ose propert
i
es
:
City, State
(
Function
)
A
pproximate Siz
e
(
Square Feet
)
H
ern
d
on, VA
(
a
d
m
i
n
i
strat
i
ve an
d
W
i
MAX
l
a
b)
.
..........................
.
1
30
,
000
K
irkland, WA (head
q
uarters and administrative) . . . .......................
.
68
,5
00
Milton, FL (call center
)
.............................................
4
0,000
Las Ve
g
as, NV (call center)
..........................................
30
,
000
H
enderson, NV (administrative and warehouse s
p
ace
)
.......................
29
,
000
D
u
bli
n, Ire
l
an
d(
s
h
are
d
serv
i
ce center
)
..................................
16
,000
We
l
ease a
ddi
t
i
ona
l
o
ffi
ce space
i
n man
y
o
f
our current an
d
p
l
anne
d
mar
k
ets. We a
l
so
l
ease approx
i
mate
ly
8
0
r
etail stores and mall kiosks. Our retail stores, excludin
g
mall kiosks, ran
g
e in size from approximatel
y
480 squar
e
feet to 1,500 square feet, with leases having terms typically from three to seven years. Internationally we also have
o
ffi
ces
i
n Buc
h
arest, Roman
i
a; Brusse
l
s, Be
l
g
i
um; Ma
d
r
id
, Spa
i
nan
d
Warsaw, Po
l
an
d
.
Th
e Hern
d
on, VA
l
ocat
i
on
h
as su
b
-
l
et a sma
ll
port
i
on o
f
t
h
e
f
ac
ili
t
y
to certa
i
no
fi
ts
k
e
y
W
i
MAX
i
n
f
rastructure
vendors, includin
g
Intel, Motorola and Samsun
g
, for the purpose of ensurin
g
close collaboration on WiMAX
develo
p
ment with those vendors.
ITEM
3
.
L
e
g
al Proceedin
g
s
O
n Decem
b
er 1, 2008, A
d
apt
i
x
fil
e
d
su
i
t
f
or patent
i
n
f
r
i
n
g
ement a
g
a
i
nst us an
d
Spr
i
nt
i
nt
h
e U.S. D
i
str
i
c
t
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that we and Sprint infringed six patents purportedly owned b
y
A
daptix. On February 10, 2009, Adaptix filed an Amended Complaint alleging infringement of a seventh patent
.
A
daptix alle
g
es that b
y
offerin
g
mobile WiMAX services to customers in compliance with the 802.1
6
and 802.1
6
e
W
iMAX standards, and b
y
makin
g
, usin
g
and/or sellin
g
the supportin
g
WiMAX network used to provide such
W
iMAX services, we and Sprint infringed the seven patents. Adaptix is seeking monetary damages, attorneys’ fee
s
and a permanent in
j
unction en
j
oinin
g
us from further acts of alle
g
ed infrin
g
ement. On Februar
y
25, 2009, we file
d
an Answer to the Amended Complaint, den
y
in
g
infrin
g
ement and assertin
g
several affirmative defenses, includin
g
t
hat the asserted
p
atents are invalid. A trial is scheduled for December 2010, and the
p
arties are ex
p
ected t
o
c
ommence
di
scovery
i
n ear
l
y 2009.
O
n May 7, 2008, Spr
i
nt
fil
e
d
an act
i
on
i
nt
h
eDe
l
aware Court o
f
C
h
ancery aga
i
nst
i
PCS, Inc., w
hi
c
h
we re
f
er t
o
as
i
PCS, an
d
certa
i
nsu
b
s
idi
ar
i
es o
fi
PCS, w
hi
c
h
we re
f
er to as t
h
e
i
PCS Su
b
s
idi
ar
i
es, see
ki
n
g
a
d
ec
l
arator
y
judgment that, among other things, the Transactions do not violate iPCS’ and the iPCS Subsidiaries’ rights unde
r
t
heir separate agreements with Sprint to operate and manage portions of Sprint’s PCS network in certain geographi
c
areas. T
h
eDe
l
aware case was
l
ater sta
y
e
dby
t
h
eDe
l
aware court. On Ma
y
12, 2008,
i
PCS an
d
t
h
e
i
PCS Su
b
s
idi
ar
i
e
s
filed a competin
g
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook Count
y
, Illinois, alle
g
in
g
that the Transactions would breac
h
t
he exclusivity provisions in their management agreements with Sprint. On January 30, 2009, iPCS and the iPCS
S
u
b
s
idi
ar
i
es
fil
e
d
an Amen
d
e
d
Comp
l
a
i
nt see
ki
n
g
a
d
ec
l
arator
yj
u
dg
ment t
h
at t
h
e consummat
i
on o
f
t
h
e Trans-
actions violates their mana
g
ement a
g
reements with Sprint, a permanent in
j
unction preventin
g
Sprint and its relate
d
p
art
i
es, w
hi
c
hi
PCS a
ll
eges
i
nc
l
u
d
eC
l
earw
i
re,
f
rom
i
mp
l
ement
i
ng t
h
e Transact
i
ons an
d
compet
i
ng w
i
t
h
t
he
pl
a
i
nt
iff
s,
d
amages aga
i
nst Spr
i
nt
f
or un
l
aw
f
u
l
compet
i
t
i
on an
d
costs an
dl
ega
lf
ees. No tr
i
a
ld
ate
i
ne
i
t
h
er case
i
s
c
urrentl
y
scheduled. We are not named as a part
y
in either liti
g
ation, but have received a subpoena from iPCS and
th
e
i
PCS Su
b
s
idi
ar
i
es see
ki
ng
d
ocuments an
d
test
i
mony. I
fi
PCS preva
il
san
d
o
b
ta
i
ns a permanent
i
n
j
unct
i
on an
d
th
e court
d
eems C
l
earw
i
re to
b
eare
l
ate
d
party un
d
er t
h
e management agreements, t
h
en we may
b
e restr
i
cte
df
ro
m
c
ompetin
g
with iPCS and the iPCS Subsidiaries. We do not believe that the inabilit
y
to offer services in iPCS
’
c
overage areas would have a material adverse effect on our business.
C
learwire is a part
y
to various other pendin
g
le
g
al proceedin
g
s, claims, investi
g
ations and administrative
p
rocee
di
ngs. Our management an
dl
ega
l
counse
lh
ave rev
i
ewe
d
t
h
e pro
b
a
bl
e outcome o
f
t
h
ese procee
di
ngs, t
he
c
osts an
d
expenses reasona
bly
expecte
d
to
b
e
i
ncurre
d
,t
h
eava
il
a
bili
t
y
an
dli
m
i
ts o
f
our
i
nsurance covera
g
e
,
e
xistin
g
contractual indemnification provisions and each of our established liabilities. While the outcome of these
ot
h
er pen
di
ng procee
di
ngs cannot
b
e pre
di
cte
d
w
i
t
h
certa
i
nty,
b
ase
d
on our rev
i
ew, we
b
e
li
eve t
h
at any unrecor
d
e
d
li
a
bili
ty t
h
at may resu
l
tw
ill
not
h
ave a mater
i
a
l
a
d
verse e
ff
ect on our
li
qu
idi
ty,
fi
nanc
i
a
l
con
di
t
i
on or resu
l
ts o
f
o
p
erations
.
45