The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issues a Notice of Hearing rescheduling the hearing of Wi-LAN’s Motion to Compel from July 30th to August 10th at 2:00 pm.

Wi-LAN files Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery of Related Products from Defendants.

The Defendants file Unopposed Motion to Extend Time until July 2, 2009 for Defendants to Respond to Wi-LAN’s Sealed Motion to Compel Production of Related Products filed on June 2, 2009.

Wi-LAN files unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion to Compel Discovery of Related Products.

U.S. District Judge Ward issues an Order Amending certain provisions and deadlines in the Discovery and Docket Control Orders pertaining to the addition of the ‘759 patent to this case.

Wi-LAN delivers its Answer to Counterclaims of Intel, Dell, Gateway and Broadcom in Response to Wi-LAN’s Supplemental First Amended Complaint

Defendants Acer America Corporation, Apple, Inc., Atheros Communications, Inc., Broadcom Corporation, Dell Inc., Intel Corporation and Gateway, Inc. deliver their Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims in Response to the Supplemental First Amended Complaint of Wi-LAN, Inc.

U.S. District Judge Ward grants Wi-LAN’s motion and issues Order permitting Wi-LAN to supplement its Complaint to add U.S. Patent # 6,549,759 to this action.

Management Comment
This is intended to provide a brief update on recent developments concerning Wi-LAN’s U.S. patent litigation cases.

Approximately 14 months ago on October 31, 2007 Wi-LAN commenced 2 actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (the “Wi-LAN Cases”). The Wi-LAN Cases involve 19 remaining defendants including several manufacturers of Wi-Fi-enabled computer and router equipment as well as semiconductor chip vendors Intel Corporation (“Intel”), Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”), Atheros Communications, Inc. (“Atheros”) and Marvell Semiconductor Inc. (“Marvell”).

On September 30, 2008, without prior notice to Wi-LAN, Intel filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Intel Case”) relating to certain Wi-LAN patents not then involved in the Wi-LAN Cases. One of the patents in the Intel Case is U.S. patent no. 6,549,759 (the “759 patent”). The Intel Case also introduced some new dual-mode Wi-Fi/WiMAX products. Wi-LAN claims that these new products are also implicated in the Wi-LAN Cases.

On October 30, 2008, in response to the new dual-mode Wi-Fi/WiMAX products introduced by Intel and other manufacturers, Wi-LAN filed a First Amended Complaint in the Wi-LAN Cases. This Complaint informed Intel and the other defendants that the Company’s patent infringement assertions in those cases now involve these new Wi-Fi and WiMAX-enabled products.

As a result of these developments, Wi-LAN decided to further amend its Complaint in the Wi-LAN Cases to add the ‘759 which applies to Wi-MAX as well as to Bluetooth technologies. Court rules required Wi-LAN to bring a motion to do this, and to discuss its intended motion with Intel and the other defendants. Wi-LAN agreed to delay its motion until December 12^th to facilitate that process.

However, Wi-LAN believes that during this period of discussion, but without warning to Wi-LAN, Broadcom jointly with Atheros and Marvell filed separate claims on December 10, 2009 against Wi-LAN in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, requesting declaratory judgments that the 759 patent is invalid and has not been infringed.

On December 12, 2008, Wi-LAN filed its motion to deliver a Supplemental First Amended Complaint, to add the 759 patent to the Wi-LAN Cases. In its proposed amendments, Wi-LAN asserts that the 759 patent is infringed by those products of the defendants which are enabled by WiMAX and certain Bluetooth technologies. By taking this step, Wi-LAN also seeks to ensure that all allegations of infringement by defendants products, whether for Wi-Fi or WiMAX capability, or both, be heard in a single suit, rather than in different jurisdictions.

After filing its December 12^th motion to add the 759 to the Wi-LAN Cases, Wi-LAN learned that on December 17th Acer, Apple, Dell and Gateway filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California on the 759 patent similar to the Broadcom/Atheros and Marvell actions. On December 23rd, Sony, Toshiba, HP and Lenovo together started yet another such action on the 759 patent in the Northern District of California. Not all of these new claims have been served on Wi-LAN. If and when service occurs, Wi-LAN will evaluate the claims and take appropriate steps to respond.

Wi-LAN has now responded to the Intel Case by bringing a motion on January 15, 2009 to dismiss that case or have it transferred from California to the Eastern District of Texas. Wi-LAN has also filed a motion on January 21^st to extend the time to respond to the Broadcom/Atheros action until 10 days after the Court rules on Wi-LAN’s motion to dismiss/transfer the Intel Case.

Apple Inc. files its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Wi-LAN’s First Amended Complaint.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc files its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Wi-LAN’s First Amended Complaint.

Dell Inc. files its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Wi-LAN’s First Amended Complaint.

Atheros Communications, Inc. files its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Wi-LAN’s First Amended Complaint.

Gateway, Inc. files its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Wi-LAN’s First Amended Complaint.

Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. files its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Wi-LAN’s First Amended Complaint.

Intel Corporation files its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Wi-LAN’s First Amended Complaint.

Wi-LAN and Best Buy Co., Inc. bring joint Unopposed Motion to Dismiss any and all claims and counterclaims against one another Without Prejudice to their right to assert such claims in the future. Wi-LAN and Circuit City Stores, Inc. bring joint Unopposed Motion to Dismiss any and all claims and counterclaims against one another Without Prejudice to their right to assert such claims in the future.

Management Comment
Wi-LAN views the removal of Best Buy and Circuit City as positive developments.  Wi-LAN expects that these developments should reduce the overall expense to Wi-LAN of conducting this litigation since two defendants are eliminated. With the dismissal of Best Buy and Circuit City from this litigation, the equipment vendors, who remain as defendants, become the last single point in the sales chain which can be found liable for any damages awarded in this litigation. This position of the equipment vendors is consistent with their positioning in Wi-LAN’s licensing program which seeks to negotiate license agreements at a single point in the sales chain and focuses efforts on licensing equipment vendors as they are believed to be the most appropriate point in the sales chain to license the patents at issue in this litigation. Wi-LAN also retains the right to seek damages from, or bring a future lawsuit against, both Best Buy and Circuit City, for infringement of the patents at issue, should it choose to do so.

Wi-LAN and the Defendants file Agreed Motion for Entry of the Docket Control Order and the Discovery Order. The proposed Docket Control Order sets out a number of due dates, including the dates which have been already been fixed by the Court of September 1, 2010 for the Claims Construction (Markman) hearing and of January 4, 2011 for the trial.

U.S. District Judge Ward issues an Order denying without prejudice the Defendant’s motion seeking a Docket Control Order whereby only a subset of the defendants – the “supplier defendants” – participate in the claims construction process and seeking that the case proceed to trial with only those defendants.

Judge Ward also ordered that case nos. 2:07-cv-473 (Acer et al) and 2:07-CV-474 (Westell et al) be consolidated for discovery and claims construction purposes, as agreed by Wi-LAN and the Defendants.

The parties file a joint motion to extend the time to file their Proposed Discovery and Docket Control Orders to September 4, 2008.

Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Discovery and Docket Control Orders  

The Defendants file an Unopposed Motion for an oral hearing on their Motion for Consolidation of Co-Pending Related Cases and Entry of Docket Control Order.

Wi-LAN files an Unopposed Motion for Extension to file its Sur-Reply on July 16, 2008 in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Consolidation of Co-Pending Related Cases.

Wi-LAN files Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Consolidation to June 18, 2008.

Wi-LAN delivers its Answers to the Counterclaims of Toshiba, Acer, Atheros, Apple, Best Buy, Broadcom, Circuit City, Dell, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Lenovo.

Defendants Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. and Sony Electronics, Inc. are granted an extension of time until March 21, 2008 to deliver their Answers to Wi-LAN’s Complaint.