Kodak 2011 Annual Report Download - page 19

The Company has been named by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) with potential liability
for the study and remediation of the Lower Passaic River Study Area (“LPRSA”) portion of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, based on releases from
the former Hilton Davis site in Newark and Lehn & Fink operations in Bloomfield, New Jersey. Based on currently available information, the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss pertaining to this matter at this time.
The Company has been named as third-party defendant (along with approximately 300 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 300 entities, which have been identified as potentially contributing to the
contamination in the Passaic, were filed on February 5, 2009. Refer to Note 11, “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 pretrial hearing known as a Markman hearing was held on March 23, 2010. The Court has not yet issued
its Markman decision. The Court has rescheduled to March 2012 a trial on merits which was originally scheduled for December 2010. On January 19,
2012 the Judge issued an order to stay the case. On February 10, 2012, RIM filed a motion to lift the stay. Kodak and the Unsecured Creditors
Committee did not oppose this motion.
On January 14, 2010 the Company filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Apple Inc. and RIM for infringement of a
patent 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. A hearing on the
merits occurred in September 2010. In December 2010, as a result of re-examination proceedings 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 ITC 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 petitioned the Commission to review the initial determination of the ALJ. On March 25, 2011, the ITC issued a notice
of its decision to review the ALJ’s initial determination in its entirety. On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in
part and remanding the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. On October 24, 2011 the investigation was permanently reassigned to a newly appointed
ALJ, following the retirement of the ALJ to whom the case was previously assigned. On December 15, 2011, the ALJ issued an order setting new dates
for the initial determination and target date as May 21, 2012 and September 21, 2012, respectively. On December 27, 2011, the ALJ issued an order
setting forth the remand schedule and the scope of discovery on remand.
On January 14, 2010 the Company filed two suits against Apple Inc. in the Federal District Court in the Western District of New York (Eastman Kodak
Company v. Apple Inc.) claiming infringement of patents related to digital cameras and certain computer processes. The Company is seeking unspecified
damages and other relief. The case related to digital cameras has been stayed pending the ITC action referenced above. On April 15, 2010, Apple Inc.
filed a counterclaim against Kodak in the case related to certain computer processes, claiming infringement of patents related to digital cameras and all-
in-one printers.
On April 15, 2010, Apple Inc. filed a complaint in the ITC against Kodak asserting infringement of patents related to digital cameras. In the Matter of
Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, Apple is seeking a limited exclusion order preventing importation of infringing devices. A
hearing on the merits before an ALJ was concluded on February 2, 2011. The ALJ issued an initial determination on May 18, 2011, finding that Kodak
did not infringe Apple’s patents and finding one Apple patent invalid. Apple petitioned to the ITC for a review of the ALJ’s initial determination. On
July 18, 2011, the ITC determined not to review the ALJ’s determination. On September 16, 2011, Apple appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
18