Netgear 2011 Annual Report Download - page 94

Table of Contents
infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,358,912 (‘912 Patent) and 7,193,562 (‘562 Patent) in the course of deploying Wi-Fi antenna array technology in its
WPN824 RangeMax wireless router. Ruckus also sued Rayspan Corporation alleging similar claims of patent infringement. The Company filed
its answer to the lawsuit in the third quarter of 2008. The Company and Rayspan Corporation jointly filed a request for inter partes
reexamination of the Ruckus patents with the USPTO on September 4, 2008. The Court issued a stay of the litigation while the reexaminations
proceeded in the USPTO. On November 28, 2008, a reexamination was ordered with respect to claims 11-17 of the ‘562 Patent, but denied with
respect to claims 1-10 and 18-36. On December 17, 2008, the defendants jointly filed a petition to challenge the denial of reexamination of
claims 1-10 and 18-36 of the ‘562 Patent. In July 2009, the petition was denied, and the remaining claims 11-17 were confirmed. The Company
is appealing the confirmation of claims 11-17. On December 2, 2008, reexamination was granted with regard to the ‘
912 Patent. In early October
2009, the Company received an Action Closing Prosecution in the reexamination of the ‘912 Patent. All the claims of the ‘912 Patent, with the
exception of the unchallenged claims 7 and 8, were finally rejected by the USPTO. On October 30, 2009, Ruckus submitted an “after-final”
amendment in the ‘912 Patent reexamination proceeding. The Company’s comments to Ruckus’ “after-final” amendment were submitted on
November 30, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the Court found that bifurcating the
‘562 Patent from the ‘912 Patent and commencing litigation on
the ‘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 should remain 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
January 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. On May 13, 2011, the USPTO indicated that the Company was successful in its
appeal of the examiner’s previous decision to allow claims 11-17 in the ‘562 reexamination, and the USPTO Board of Appeals reversed the
examiner’s decision and declared those claims invalid. On June 13, 2011, Ruckus submitted a request for rehearing by the Board of Appeals of
its decision to reject claims 11-17 of the ‘562 Patent. On September 28, 2011, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences denied Ruckus’s
request for a rehearing in the ‘562 Patent reexamination case. Ruckus did not timely file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit appealing the USPTO’s cancellation of claims 11-17 of the ‘562 patent. Therefore, a reexamination certificate will issue with
claims 11-17 cancelled and claims 1-10 and 18-36 confirmed.
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 six 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. The case remains stayed.
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
90