Netgear 2010 Annual Report Download - page 87

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 87 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
networking devices, including various routers and gateways, infringe upon WIAV’s patents. The Company filed its answer to the lawsuit in
October 2009 and asserted that WIAV’s patents were both invalid and not infringed upon by the Company. In March 2010, the Company and its
co-defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. WIAV opposed the motion. On
June 3, 2010, the Court heard the defendants’
motion to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.
The Court took the motion under consideration, and on July 15, 2010, the Court ruled that it would transfer the case to the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California. Discovery has not commenced. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
ordered WIAV to demonstrate why the Court should not dismiss all but the first named defendant from the lawsuit. The parties briefed and
argued this issue before the Court. In response, the Court dismissed without prejudice all the defendants from the case except Hewlett Packard.
PACid Group, LLC v. NETGEAR
In July 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and thirty other companies by The PACid Group, LLC (“PACid”) in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Texas. PACid alleges that the Company and the other defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,963,646 and
6,049,612. PACid alleges that certain unnamed NETGEAR products that use encryption methods infringe upon PACid’s patents. The Company
filed its answer to the lawsuit in September 2009 and asserted that PACid’s patents were both invalid and not infringed by the Company.
Discovery has not yet commenced. Most of the Company’s chipset suppliers have settled out of the lawsuit and obtained a license to the
plaintiff’s asserted patents. Because most of the accused infringement occurred in the chipset, this settlement by the chipset suppliers limits the
claims the plaintiff has against the Company.
MPH Technologies Oy v. NETGEAR
On February 4, 2010, the Company was sued by MPH Technologies Oy (“MPH”) for infringement of U.S. patent 7,346,926 entitled
“Method for Sending Messages Over Secure Mobile Communication Links.” MPH alleges that the Company’s VPN Client Software, Dual
WAN gigabit SSL VPN Firewall, ProSafe Dual WAN VPN Firewall with 8-port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall with 8-port 10/100
Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall 8 with 8-Port 10/100 Switch, ProSafe VPN Firewall 8 with 4-Port 10/100 Mbps Switch, ProSafe 802 11 g
Wireless ADSL Modem VPN Firewall Router, ProSafe Wireless-N VPN Firewall, and ProSafe 802 11 wireless VPN Firewall 8 with 8-port
10/100 Mbps Switch infringe claims of the ‘926 Patent. On May 17, 2010, the defendants jointly filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California. In addition, the Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims on that day.
On June 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed its answer to the Company’s invalidity counterclaim and its response to the defendants’ motion to transfer.
On June 23, 2010, the defendants filed their joint reply to plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ motion to transfer venue. On July 16, 2010, the
Court issued an order transferring the case to the Northern District of California. On September 10, 2010, the Company amended its answer to
the complaint. The initial scheduling conference occurred on December 2, 2010. In response to this conference, the Court ordered that the
Plaintiff must file its opening claim construction brief no later than May 17, 2011 and that defendants must file their responsive claim
construction briefs no later than May 31, 2011. The Court also ordered that a claim construction hearing take place on June 22, 2011. The parties
are currently participating in the discovery process.
Atwater Partners of Texas LLC v. NETGEAR
On June 1, 2010, the Company, along with 24 other companies, was sued by a non-practicing entity called Atwater Partners of Texas LLC
(“Atwater”) in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that the Company directly or indirectly infringes five patents
based on the use of technology from Sharedband Technologies, LLC. The patents involve bonded DSL technology. No accused products were
named by Atwater in its complaint. The Company moved the Court in August 2010 for an order to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or, in the
alternative, for a more definite statement. Plaintiff submitted a reply brief to the
85