The parties file a joint Stipulation Regarding Wi-LAN’s Motion to Compel filed June 2, 2009.

U.S. District Judge Ward issues his Opinion and Order regarding the Protective Order

U.S. District Judge Ward orders that all claims and counterclaims asserted by Wi-LAN and by Infineon Technologies North America Corp. and Infineon Technologies AG are dismissed with prejudice to the right to assert such claims in the future, and that each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees in connection with this action.

The Parties file Joint Motion to Amend September 23, 2008 Discovery and Docket Control Orders relating to Wi-LAN U.S. patent ‘759 and the WiMAX, VDSL and Bluetooth standards.

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.

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

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

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

D-Link Systems, 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 files Motion for Leave to File Supplementary First Amended Complaint.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Best Buy Without Prejudice

Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Circuit City Without Prejudice 

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.

The parties file a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to September 12, 2008 to File Proposed Discovery and Docket Control Orders.

Judge T. John Ward orders that the deadline for Plaintiff and Defendants to file their proposed Discovery Order and Docket Control Order shall be extended to and including August 22, 2008.

Wi-LAN moves to dismiss all claims against Texas Instruments, Incorporated without prejudice to assert such claims in the future, with each party bearing its own costs and attorney’s fees. The motion is not opposed.

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.

The Defendants bring Motion for Consolidation of Co-pending Related Cases and Entry of Docket Control Order.

Judge Ward orders that Wi-LAN’s Complaint against D-Link Corporation, Melco Holdings Inc. and Infineon Technologies AG be dismissed on certain terms, on a joint motion by Wi-LAN and various subsidiary corporations of these parties which will remain Defendants in this action.