TeleNav 2011 Annual Report Download - page 44

Table of Contents
complaint to add a new defendant, and we subsequently answered, repeating our assertions that the patent-in-suit is not infringed and is invalid
and unenforceable. On April 27, 2010, we filed a reexamination request for all of the claims of the asserted patent before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. On April 29, 2010, we filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the reexamination. On May 3, 2010, WRE-Hol filed a
motion for leave to amend the complaint against us, seeking to add claims for misappropriation of trade secrets against us and our founders, Y.C.
Chao, HP Jin and Robert Rennard. WRE-Hol’s motion for leave to amend also seeks to add a breach of contract claim against us and a claim for
wrongful inventorship involving two of our patents, requesting a declaratory judgment that a WRE-Hol inventor be named as an inventor on
these patents. On July 19, 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an order granting inter partes reexamination of all 51 claims of the
WRE-Hol ‘625 patent. On July 23, 2010, the district court issued an order granting WRE-Hol’s motion for leave to amend its complaint, but at
the same time stayed the entire litigation pending completion of the reexamination. The stay of the litigation extends to the new claims the court
allowed. On September 13, 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected 44 of the 51 WRE-Hol patent claims in a non-final first office
action and confirmed seven of the 51 claims. On November 15, 2010, WRE-Hol responded to the office action, canceling some claims and
adding others. On December 15, 2010, TeleNav responded to the office action and WRE-Hol’s response. On April 4, 2011, the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office rejected WRE-Hol’s November 15, 2010 office action response, and gave WRE-Hol 30 days to file a corrected response.
WRE-Hol filed its corrected response on May 4, 2011. TeleNav responded to WRE-Hol’s filing on June 2, 2011. The next step will be a second
office action from the Patent Office, which is expected within the next four months. Due to the preliminary status of the lawsuit and uncertainties
related to litigation, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. We cannot currently estimate a range
of any possible losses we may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of this
lawsuit on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
On December 31, 2009, Vehicle IP, LLC, or Vehicle IP, filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Case No. 1:09-cv-01007-JJF). The plaintiff alleges that certain of our services, including our GPS Navigator and TeleNav Track, infringe U.S.
Patent No. 5,987,377, and that we induce infringement and contribute to the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,987,377 by others. According to
the patent, the invention generally relates to a navigation system that determines an expected time of arrival. The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, fees and expenses and injunctive relief against us. Verizon Wireless was named as a co-
defendant in the Vehicle IP litigation
based on the VZ Navigator product and has demanded that we indemnify and defend Verizon against Vehicle IP. AT&T was also named as a co-
defendant in the Vehicle IP litigation based on the AT&T Navigator product. AT&T has tendered the defense of the litigation to us and we are
defending the case on behalf of AT&T. The court conducted a scheduling conference for the litigation on February 7, 2011 and set a jury trial
date for November 5, 2012. The parties are engaged in fact discovery, which has a cutoff date of April 5, 2012. The court will hold a claim
construction hearing on October 24, 2011. We are developing our non-infringement and invalidity defenses in preparation for the case
dispositive motions. The parties are to submit case dispositive motions by May 18, 2012. Due to the uncertainties related to litigation, we are
unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. We cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses we
may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on our financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
On April 30, 2010, Traffic Information, LLC filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case
No. 2:10
-cv-00145-
TJW). The lawsuit alleges that certain of our products and/or services infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,785,606, and that we induce
infringement and contribute to the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,785,606 by others. According to the patent, the invention generally relates
to a system for providing traffic information to a plurality of mobile users connected to a network. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages, fees and expenses and injunctive relief against us. On May 28, 2010, Traffic Information, LLC filed an amended complaint, adding a
new claim that certain of our products and/or services infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,466,862, and that we induce infringement and contribute to the
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,862 by others. According to the patent, the invention generally relates to a system for providing
40