Netgear 2010 Annual Report Download - page 86

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 86 of the 2010 Netgear 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 116

  • 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

Table of Contents
that bifurcating the 7,193,562 patent from the 7,358,912 patent and commencing litigation on the 7,193,562 patent while the USPTO
reexamination process and appeals are still pending would be an inefficient use of the Court’s resources. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the
litigation stay remains in effect. On September 12, 2010, the Company filed the Rebuttal Brief in its appeals of the USPTO’s rulings during the
reexamination of the ‘562 patent, and the Company requested an oral hearing with the Board of Appeals at the USPTO to discuss this brief. On
September 13, 2010, Ruckus filed a Notice of Appeal of the ‘912 Patent to appeal the adverse rulings it received from the USPTO in the
reexamination of this patent. The Company filed a respondent’s brief in the ‘912 patent case on Jan. 24, 2011. An oral hearing in the ‘562 case
was set for February 1, 2011, but the Company decided to cancel it and let the USPTO decide the ‘562 case based solely on the previously
submitted papers. Thus, the reexaminations and related appeals are currently proceeding in the USPTO.
On November 4, 2009, Ruckus filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging the Company and
Rayspan Corporation infringe a patent that is related to the patents previously asserted against the Company and Rayspan Corporation by
Ruckus, as discussed above. This newly asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,525,486 entitled “Increased wireless coverage patterns.”
As with the
previous Ruckus action, the WPN824 RangeMax wireless router is the alleged infringing device. The Company challenged the sufficiency of
Ruckus’s complaint in this new action and moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruckus opposed this motion. The Court partially agreed with the
Company’s motion and ordered Ruckus to submit a new complaint, which Ruckus did. The initial case management conference occurred on
February 11, 2010. On March 25, 2010, the Court ordered a stay until the completion of the ‘562 Patent’s reexamination proceedings in the first
Ruckus lawsuit against the Company and Rayspan. The Court instructed the parties to submit status reports to the Court every 6 months,
apprising the Court of the status of the pending reexamination proceedings in the USPTO. Upon final exhaustion of all pending reexamination
proceedings of the ‘562 Patent, including any appeals, the Court ordered the parties to jointly submit to the Court a letter indicating that all
appeals have been exhausted and requesting a further case management conference.
On November 19, 2010, the Company filed suit against Ruckus in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware for infringement of four of
the Company’s patents. The Company alleges that Ruckus’
s manufacture, use, sale, or offers for sale within the United States or importation into
the United States of products, including wireless communication products, infringe United States Patent Nos. 5,812,531, 6,621,454, 7,263,143,
and 5,507,035, all owned by the Company. The Company granted Ruckus an extension to file its answer to the Company’s suit, and on
January 11, 2011, Ruckus filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s suit based on insufficient pleadings. The Company filed its response to
Ruckus’s motion on January 31, 2011.
Northpeak Wireless, LLC v. NETGEAR
In October 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and thirty other companies by Northpeak Wireless, LLC (“Northpeak”) in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Northpeak alleges that the Company’s 802.11b compatible products infringe certain claims of
U.S. Patent Nos. 4,977,577 and 5,987,058. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in the fourth quarter of 2008. On January 21, 2009, the
District Court granted a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. In August 2009, the parties
stipulated to a litigation stay pending a reexamination request to the USPTO on the asserted patents. The reexaminations of the patents are
proceeding. Thus far, all asserted claims of the ‘058 patent have been rejected on multiple grounds, and all asserted claims of the ‘577 patent
have been rejected because they are not sufficiently inventive, i.e. they are obvious. The case remains stayed by stipulation, and no trial date has
been set.
WIAV Networks, LLC v. NETGEAR
In July 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and over fifty other companies by WIAV Networks, LLC (“WIAV”) in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Texas. WIAV alleges that the Company and the other defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,480,497 and
5,400,338. WIAV alleges that the Company’s wireless
84