Kodak 2010 Annual Report Download - page 16

14
such dispositions to satisfy all current debt service obligations. In addition, if we incur additional debt, the risks associated with our
substantial leverage, including the risk that we will be unable to service our debt or generate enough cash flow to fund our liquidity
needs, could intensify.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
The Company's worldwide headquarters is located in Rochester, New York.
Operations of the CDG segment are located in Rochester, New York; Atlanta, Georgia; Emeryville, California; San Diego, California;
China; and Singapore. Many of CDG’s businesses rely on manufacturing assets, company-owned or through relationships with
design and manufacturing partners, which are located close to end markets and/or supplier networks.
Products in the GCG segment are manufactured in the United States, primarily in Rochester, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Columbus,
Georgia; and Weatherford, Oklahoma. Key manufacturing facilities outside the United States, either company-owned or through
relationships with manufacturing partners, are located in the United Kingdom, Germany, Bulgaria, Mexico, China, and Japan.
The FPEG segment of Kodak’s business is centered in Rochester, New York, where film and photographic chemicals and related
materials are manufactured. A manufacturing facility in the United Kingdom produces photographic paper. Additional manufacturing
facilities supporting the business are located in Windsor, Colorado; China; Mexico; India; Brazil; and Russia. Entertainment Imaging
has business operations in Hollywood, California and Rochester, New York.
Properties within a country may be shared by all segments operating within that country.
Regional distribution centers are located in various places within and outside of the United States. The Company owns or leases
administrative, research and development, manufacturing, marketing, and processing facilities in various parts of the world. The
leases are for various periods and are generally renewable.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Company has been named as third-party defendant (along with approximately 200 other entities) in an action initially brought by
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Essex County against
Occidental Chemical Corporation and several other companies that are successors in interest to Diamond Shamrock Corporation.
The NJDEP seeks recovery of all costs associated with the investigation, removal, cleanup and damage to natural resources
occasioned by Diamond Shamrock's disposal of various forms of chemicals in the Passaic River. The damages are alleged to
potentially range "from hundreds of millions to several billions of dollars." Pursuant to New Jersey's Court Rules, the defendants
were required to identify all other parties which could be subject to permissive joinder in the litigation based on common questions of
law or fact. Third-party complaints seeking contribution from more than 200 entities, which have been identified as potentially
contributing to the contamination in the Passaic, were filed on February 5, 2009. Based on currently available information, the
potential monetary exposure is likely to be in excess of $100,000. Refer to Note 10, “Commitments and Contingencies,” in the Notes
to Financial Statements for additional information.
On November 20, 2008, Research in Motion Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively “RIM”) filed a declaratory judgment
action against the Company in Federal District Court in the Northern District of Texas. The suit, Research in Motion Limited and
Research in Motion Corporation v. Eastman Kodak Company, seeks to invalidate certain Company patents related to digital camera
technology and software object linking, and seeks a determination that RIM handheld devices do not infringe such patents. On
February 17, 2009, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims for infringement of each of these same patents. A Markman
Hearing was held on March 23, 2010. The Court has not yet issued its Markman decision. The Court rescheduled to August 2011 a
trial on merits which was originally scheduled for December 2010. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.
On January 14, 2010 the Company filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) against Apple Inc. and Research
in Motion Limited (RIM) for infringement of patents related to digital camera technology. In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones
and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras and Components Thereof, the Company is seeking a limited
exclusion order preventing importation of infringing devices including iPHONES and camera enabled BLACKBERRY devices. On
February 16, 2010, the ITC ordered that an investigation be instituted to determine whether importation or sale of the accused Apple
and RIM devices constitutes violation of the Tariff Act of 1930. A Markman Hearing was held in May 2010 and an initial
determination was issued by the Administrative Law Judge in June 2010, which determination is being reviewed by the Commission.
A hearing on the merits occurred in September 2010. In December 2010, as a result of a re-examination proceeding initiated by RIM
and other parties, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the validity of the same patent claim at issue in the ITC
investigation. On January 24, 2011, the Company received notice that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had issued an initial
determination recommending that the Commission find the patent claim at issue invalid and not infringed. The Company has
petitioned the Commission to review the initial determination of the ALJ. A final determination by the Commission is expected by
May 23, 2011.