COMS » Topics » Xerox Corporation v. 3Com Corporation, U.S. Robotics Corporation, U.S. Robotics Access Corporation, Palm Computing, Inc., and Palm, Inc.

This excerpt taken from the COMS 10-Q filed Apr 5, 2005.
Xerox Corporation v. 3Com Corporation, U.S. Robotics Corporation, U.S. Robotics Access Corporation, Palm Computing, Inc., and Palm, Inc. (Civil Action Number 97-CV-6182T).  Xerox alleged willful infringement of one of its United States patents.  Xerox sought to recover damages and to permanently enjoin the defendants from infringing the patent in the future.  In 2000, the District Court dismissed the case, ruling that there was no infringement.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded the case to the District Court for further action.  On December 20, 2001, the District Court granted Xerox’s motion for summary judgment ruling that the patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed.  The defendants filed a Notice of Appeal.  On February 22, 2002, the District Court denied Xerox’s motion for an injunction seeking to prohibit further alleged infringement during the appeal and ordered the defendants to post a bond in the amount of $50 million.  Xerox appealed the denial of the injunction.  On February 20, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the order of the trial court.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment of infringement, reversed the grant of summary judgment of validity and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a complete validity analysis.  In connection with the separation of Palm from 3Com, pursuant to the terms of the Indemnification and Insurance Matters Agreement dated February 26, 2000 between 3Com and Palm, Palm (since renamed palmOne) agreed to indemnify and hold 3Com harmless for any damages or losses that might arise out of the Xerox litigation.  On May 21, 2004, the District Court awarded summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Xerox’s patent was invalid, and dismissed the remaining claims.  On February 16, 2005, the District Court denied Xerox’s motion for reconsideration.

 

On December 5, 2001, TippingPoint and two of its current and former officers and directors, as well as the managing underwriters in TippingPoint’s initial public offering were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, which is part of a consolidated action that includes over 300 similar actions, is captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Brian Levey vs. TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 01 CV 10976. The principal allegation in the lawsuit is that the defendants participated in a scheme to manipulate the initial public offering and subsequent market price of TippingPoint’s stock by knowingly assisting the underwriters’ requirement that certain of their customers had to purchase stock in a specific initial public offering as a condition to being allocated shares in the initial public offerings of other companies. The purported plaintiff class for the lawsuit is comprised of all persons who purchased TippingPoint stock from March 17, 2000 through December 6, 2000. The suit seeks rescission of the purchase prices paid by purchasers of shares of TippingPoint common stock. On September 10, 2002, TippingPoint’s counsel and counsel for plaintiffs entered into an agreement pursuant to which the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, TippingPoint’s former and current officers and directors from the lawsuit. In May 2003, a memorandum of understanding was executed by counsel for plaintiffs, issuer-defendants and their insurers setting forth terms of a settlement that would result in the termination of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the issuer-defendants and individual defendants named in the lawsuit. In August 2003, TippingPoint’s Board of Directors approved the settlement terms described in the memorandum of understanding. In May 2004, TippingPoint signed a settlement agreement on behalf of itself and its current and former directors and officers with the plaintiffs. This settlement agreement formalizes the previously approved terms of the memorandum of understanding and, subject to certain conditions, provides for the complete dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims against TippingPoint and its current and former directors and officers. Any direct financial impact of the settlement is expected to be borne by TippingPoint’s insurers. The settlement is subject to numerous conditions, including final approval by the court. There can be no assurance that such conditions will be met or that the court will approve the terms of the settlement agreement. If the court

 

18



 

rejects the settlement agreement, in whole or in part, or the settlement does not occur for any other reason and the litigation against TippingPoint continues, we intend to defend this action vigorously, and to the extent necessary, to seek indemnification and/or contribution from the underwriters in TippingPoint’s initial public offering pursuant to its underwriting agreement with the underwriters. However, there can be no assurance that indemnification or contribution will be available to TippingPoint or enforceable against the underwriters.

 

This excerpt taken from the COMS 10-Q filed Jan 5, 2005.
Xerox Corporation v. 3Com Corporation, U.S. Robotics Corporation, U.S. Robotics Access Corporation, Palm Computing, Inc., and Palm, Inc. (Civil Action Number 97-CV-6182T).  Xerox

 

16



 

alleged willful infringement of one of its United States patents.  Xerox sought to recover damages and to permanently enjoin the defendants from infringing the patent in the future.  In 2000, the District Court dismissed the case, ruling that there was no infringement.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded the case to the District Court for further action.  On December 20, 2001, the District Court granted Xerox’s motion for summary judgment that the patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed.  The defendants then filed a Notice of Appeal.  On February 22, 2002, the District Court denied Xerox’s motion for an injunction prohibiting further alleged infringement during the appeal and ordered the defendants to post a bond in the amount of $50 million.  Xerox then appealed the denial of the injunction.  On February 20, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the order of the trial court.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment of infringement, reversed the grant of summary judgment of validity and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a complete validity analysis.  In connection with the separation of Palm from 3Com, pursuant to the terms of the Indemnification and Insurance Matters Agreement dated February 26, 2000 between 3Com and Palm, Palm agreed to indemnify and hold 3Com harmless for any damages or losses that might arise out of the Xerox litigation.  On May 21, 2004, the District Court awarded summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Xerox’s patent was invalid, and dismissed the remaining claims.  Xerox has appealed the decision.

 

EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:

10-Q
Apr 5, 2005
10-Q
Jan 5, 2005
Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki