|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
| |||||||||
This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Dec 11, 2008. CSIRO Litigation. As of January 2007, Australia’s
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) was
involved in three patent litigations in the Eastern District of Texas in which
it has accused a number of wireless LAN system manufacturers, including some of
the Company’s customers, of infringing CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069
(the “‘069 Patent”). CSIRO’s claims of
infringement relate to IEEE 802.11a, 802.11g and 802.11n wireless standards. As
a result of CSIRO’s claims for patent infringement, a number of the Company’s
customers have sought indemnification from the Company. In response to these demands for
indemnification, the Company has acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in
response to them.
19
On May 4, 2007, the Company filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the ‘069 Patent is invalid and unenforceable and that the Company and its customers do not infringe the ‘069 Patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for the Company and its customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event the Company’s 802.11a/g/n wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the ‘069 Patent is found to be valid and enforceable.
On July 3, 2007, the Company moved to intervene in two of the actions described in the first paragraph above pending in the Eastern District of Texas, for the purposes of staying the actions as to products incorporating the Company’s parts in favor of the separate action that the Company filed as described in the second paragraph above. Alternatively the Company moved to disqualify the firm of Townsend, Townsend and Crew from continuing to represent CSIRO because of a conflict of interest. CSIRO opposed these motions on August 3, 2007.
On August 3, 2007, CSIRO moved to dismiss the Company’s complaint for lack of case or controversy and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending the resolution of the pending lawsuits described in the first paragraph above. On October 24, 2007, the Court issued an order denying CSIRO’s motion to dismiss. The Court also denied the Company’s motions to stay/intervene/disqualify. The Company appealed the Court’s denial of the motions to stay/intervene/disqualify to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”). On October 23, 2008, the CAFC affirmed the Court’s decision in a nonprecedential opinion.
On December 5, 2007, CSIRO filed its answer to the Company’s complaint, as well as counterclaims against the Company for willful and deliberate infringement of the ‘069 Patent. CSIRO’s counterclaims included a claim for monetary damages, including triple damages based on its allegation of willful and deliberate infringement, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. On April 10, 2008, the Company filed a First Amended Complaint and First Amended Reply to CSIRO’s Answer and Counterclaims. On April 23, 2008, CSIRO filed its Answer and Counterclaims to the First Amended Complaint. On May 12, 2008, the Company filed a Reply and Affirmative Defenses to CSIRO’s amended counterclaims.
On May 22, 2008, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to invalidate the ‘069 Patent on indefiniteness grounds. The motion was denied on August 14, 2008.
The claim construction hearing was held on June 26, 2008 and the claim construction order was issued on August 14, 2008. Trial for the three actions described in the first paragraph is currently set to begin on April 13, 2009. Trial for the Company’s declaratory judgment action is set to begin on May 10, 2010. CSIRO and the Company are currently engaging in discovery and motion practice. The Court has set a Case Management Conference for December 16, 2008 for the Marvell action and related CSIRO actions, including those actions involving the Company’s customers. At the December 16 Case Management Conference, the Court may take some action that would affect the schedules and/or other aspects of the various CSIRO litigations.
This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Sep 10, 2008. CSIRO Litigation.
As of January 2007, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) is involved in three patent
litigations in the Eastern District of Texas in which it has accused a number
of wireless LAN system manufacturers, including some of our customers, of infringing CSIRO’s patent,
U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 (the “‘069 Patent”). CSIRO’s claims of infringement relate to IEEE
802.11a, 802.11g and 802.11n wireless standards. As a result of CSIRO’s claims
for patent infringement, a number of our customers have sought indemnification from us.
In response to these demands for indemnification, we have acknowledged
the demands and incurred costs in response to them.
On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the ‘069 Patent is invalid and unenforceable and that we and our customers do not infringe the ‘069
41
Patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event our 802.11a/g/n wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the ‘069 Patent is found to be valid and enforceable.
On July 3, 2007, we moved to intervene in the two actions described in the first paragraph above pending in the Eastern District of Texas, for the purposes of staying the actions as to products incorporating our parts in favor of the separate action that we filed as described in the second paragraph above. Alternatively we moved to disqualify the firm of Townsend, Townsend and Crew from continuing to represent CSIRO because of a conflict of interest. CSIRO opposed these motions on August 3, 2007.
On August 3, 2007, CSIRO moved to dismiss our complaint for lack of case or controversy and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending the resolution of the pending lawsuits described in the first paragraph above. On October 24, 2007, the Court issued an order denying CSIRO’s motion to dismiss. The Court also denied our motions to stay/intervene/disqualify. We appealed the Court’s denial of the motions to stay/intervene/disqualify to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The hearing on our appeal was held on September 3, 2008. The Court has not yet rendered a decision.
On December 5, 2007, CSIRO filed its answer to our complaint, as well as counterclaims against us for willful and deliberate infringement of the ‘069 Patent. CSIRO’s counterclaims included a claim for monetary damages, including triple damages based on its allegation of willful and deliberate infringement, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. On April 10, 2008, we filed a First Amended Complaint and First Amended Reply to CSIRO’s Answer and Counterclaims. On April 23, 2008, CSIRO filed its Answer and Counterclaims to the First Amended Complaint. On May 12, 2008, we filed a Reply and Affirmative Defenses to CSIRO’s amended counterclaims.
On May 22, 2008, we filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to invalidate the ‘069 Patent on indefiniteness grounds. The motion was denied on August 14, 2008.
The claim construction hearing occurred on June 26, 2008 and the claim construction order was issued on August 14, 2008. On August 1, 2008, the Company moved to disqualify the firm of Townsend, Townsend and Crew from representing CSIRO in the Marvell v. CSIRO case because of a conflict of interest. CSIRO opposed the motion on August 18, 2008. The Court has not yet rendered a decision. Trial for our declaratory judgment action is set to begin on May 10, 2010. CSIRO and we are currently engaging in discovery and motion practice.
This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Jun 6, 2008. CSIRO Litigation. As of January 2007, Australia’s
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) is
involved in three patent litigations in the Eastern District of Texas in which
it has accused a number of wireless LAN system manufacturers, including some of
our customers, of infringing CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069
(the “‘069 Patent”). CSIRO’s claims of
infringement relate to IEEE 802.11a, 802.11g and 802.11n wireless standards. As
a result of CSIRO’s claims for patent infringement, a number of our customers
have sought indemnification from us. In
response to these demands for indemnification, we have acknowledged the demands
and incurred costs in response to them.
On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the ‘069 Patent is invalid and unenforceable and we and our customers do not infringe the ‘069 Patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event that our 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the ‘069 Patent is found to be valid and enforceable.
On July 3, 2007, we moved to intervene in the two actions described in the first paragraph above pending in the Eastern District of Texas, for the purposes of staying the actions as to products incorporating Marvell parts in favor of the separate action that we filed as described in the second paragraph above. Alternatively we moved to disqualify the firm of Townsend, Townsend and Crew from continuing to represent CSIRO because of a conflict of interest. CSIRO opposed these motions on August 3, 2007.
41
On August 3, 2007, CSIRO moved to dismiss our complaint for lack of case or controversy and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending the resolution of the pending lawsuits described in the first paragraph above. On October 24, 2007, the Court issued an order denying CSIRO’s motion to dismiss. The Court also denied our motions to stay/intervene/disqualify. We appealed the Court’s denial of the motions to stay/intervene/disqualify to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The hearing on our appeal is expected to be heard in the summer/fall of 2008.
On December 5, 2007, CSIRO filed its answer to our complaint, as well as counterclaims against us for willful and deliberate infringement of the ‘069 Patent. CSIRO’s counterclaims included a claim for monetary damages, including triple damages based on its allegation of willful and deliberate infringement, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. On April 10, 2008, we filed a First Amended Complaint and First Amended Reply to CSIRO’s Answer and Counterclaims. On April 23, 2008, CSIRO filed its Answer and Counterclaims to the First Amended Complaint. On May 12, 2008, we filed a Reply and Affirmative Defenses to CSIRO’s amended counterclaims.
On May 22, 2008, Marvell filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to invalidate the ‘069 Patent on indefiniteness grounds. The Court has not yet rendered a decision on Marvell’s motion.
The Claim Construction hearing is set for June 26, 2008. Trial for our declaratory judgment action is set to begin on May 10, 2010. CSIRO and we are currently engaging in discovery and motion practice.
This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Dec 6, 2007. CSIRO
Litigation. In
2004, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(“CSIRO”) sent notice letters to a number of Wi-Fi System manufacturers
regarding CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 as it relates to IEEE
802.11a and 802.11g wireless standards.
In May 2005, a group of system manufacturers, including customers of our
802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products, filed an action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory
judgment against CSIRO that the plaintiff manufacturers’ products employing the
IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless standards do not infringe CSIRO’s patent, U.S.
Patent No. 5,487,069. In September 2006,
CSIRO filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that plaintiffs’ products that
employ those wireless standards infringe the CSIRO patent and seeking damages,
including enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction
against sales of infringing products. In
December 2006, the district court granted CSIRO’s motion to transfer the case
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where
CSIRO had brought a similar lawsuit against another company. As a result of CSIRO’s counterclaims for
patent infringement, a customer of ours has sought indemnification from
us. Also in December 2006, CSIRO filed
suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
against several manufacturers and suppliers of wireless products, including
customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products. The complaint alleges that the manufacture,
use and sale of wireless products compliant with the IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g
wireless standards infringes on the CSIRO patent. As a result of CSIRO’s claim for patent
infringement, another customer of ours has sought indemnification from us. In response to these demands for indemnification,
we have acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in response to them.
On July 3, 2007, we moved to intervene in the two actions described above pending in the Eastern District of Texas, for the purposes of staying the actions as to products incorporating Marvell parts in favor of the separate action that we filed as described in the next paragraph. Alternatively we moved to disqualify the firm of Townsend, Townsend and Crew from continuing to represent CSIRO because of a conflict of interest. CSIRO opposed these motions on August 3, 2007. On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the CSIRO patent is invalid and unenforceable and that we and our customers do not infringe the CSIRO patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event our 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the CSIRO patent is found to be valid and enforceable. On August 3, 2007, CSIRO moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of case or controversy and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending the resolution of the pending lawsuits described in the preceding paragraph. On October 24, 2007, the Court issued an order denying CSIRO’s motion to dismiss. The Court also denied our motions to stay/intervene/disqualify. The Claim Construction hearing is set for June 26, 2008. Trial in our action is set to begin on May 10, 2010. This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Sep 6, 2007. CSIRO Litigation. In 2004, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) sent notice letters to a number of
Wi-Fi System manufacturers regarding CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069
as it relates to IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g wireless standards. In May 2005, a group of system manufacturers,
including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products, filed an
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the plaintiff
manufacturers’ products employing the IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless
standards do not infringe CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069. In September 2006, CSIRO filed an answer and
counterclaims alleging that plaintiffs’ products that employ those wireless
standards infringe the CSIRO patent and seeking damages, including enhanced
damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction against sales of
infringing products. In December 2006,
the district court granted CSIRO’s motion to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had brought a
similar lawsuit against another company.
As a result of CSIRO’s counterclaims for patent infringement, a customer
of ours has sought indemnification from us.
Also in December 2006, CSIRO filed suit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas against several manufacturers and
suppliers of wireless products, including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g
wireless LAN products. The complaint
alleges that the manufacture, use and sale of wireless products compliant with
the IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless standards infringes on the CSIRO
patent. As a result of CSIRO’s claim for
patent infringement, another customer of ours has sought indemnification from
us. In response to these demands for
indemnification, we have acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in
response to them. On July 3, 2007, we moved to intervene in the two actions
described above pending in the Eastern District of Texas, for the purposes of
staying the actions as to products incorporating Marvell parts in favor of the
separate action that we filed as described in the next paragraph. Alternatively
we moved to disqualify the firm of Townsend, Townsend and Crew from continuing
to represent CSIRO because of a conflict of interest. CSIRO opposed these
motions on August 3, 2007.
On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the CSIRO patent is invalid and unenforceable and that we and our customers do not infringe the CSIRO patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event our 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the CSIRO patent is found to be valid and enforceable. On August 3, 2007, CSIRO moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of case or controversy and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending the resolution of the pending lawsuits described in the preceding paragraph. Marvell will oppose that motion. This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Jul 9, 2007. CSIRO
Litigation. In
2004, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(“CSIRO”) sent notice letters to a number of Wi-Fi System manufacturers
regarding CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 as it relates to IEEE
802.11a and 802.11g wireless standards.
In May 2005, a group of system manufacturers, including customers of our
802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products, filed an action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory
judgment against CSIRO that the plaintiff manufacturers’ products employing the
IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless standards do not infringe CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069. In September 2006, CSIRO filed an answer and
counterclaims alleging that plaintiffs’ products that employ those wireless
standards infringe the CSIRO patent and seeking damages, including enhanced
39 damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction against sales of infringing products. In December 2006, the district court granted CSIRO’s motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had brought a similar lawsuit against another company. As a result of CSIRO’s counterclaims for patent infringement, a customer of ours has sought indemnification from us. Also in December 2006, CSIRO filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against several manufacturers and suppliers of wireless products, including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products. The complaint alleges that the manufacture, use and sale of wireless products compliant with the IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless standards infringes on the CSIRO patent. As a result of CSIRO’s claim for patent infringement, another customer of ours has sought indemnification from us. In response to these demands for indemnification, we have acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in response to them. On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the CSIRO patent is invalid and unenforceable and that we and our customers do not infringe the CSIRO patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event our 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the CSIRO patent is found to be valid and enforceable. CSIRO has not yet responded to the complaint. This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Jul 2, 2007. CSIRO Litigation. In 2004, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) sent notice letters to a number of
Wi-Fi System manufacturers regarding CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069
as it relates to IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g wireless standards. In May 2005, a group of system manufacturers,
including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products, filed an
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the plaintiff
manufacturers’ products employing the IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless
standards do not infringe CSIRO’s
patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069.
In September 2006, CSIRO filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that
plaintiffs’ products that employ those wireless standards infringe the CSIRO
patent and seeking damages, including enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees and
costs, and an injunction against sales of infringing products. In December 2006, the district court granted
CSIRO’s motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had brought a similar lawsuit against
another company. As a result of CSIRO’s
counterclaims for patent infringement, a customer of ours has sought
indemnification from us. Also in
December 2006, CSIRO filed suit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas against several manufacturers and suppliers of
wireless products, including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN
products. The complaint alleges that the
manufacture, use and sale of wireless products compliant with the IEEE 802.11a
or 802.11g wireless standards infringes on the CSIRO patent. As a result of CSIRO’s claim for patent
infringement, another customer of ours has sought indemnification from us. In response to these demands for
indemnification, we have acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in
response to them.
65 On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the CSIRO patent is invalid and unenforceable and that we and our customers do not infringe the CSIRO patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event our 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the CSIRO patent is found to be valid and enforceable. CSIRO has not yet responded to the complaint. This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Jul 2, 2007. CSIRO
Litigation. In
2004, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(“CSIRO”) sent notice letters to a number of Wi-Fi System manufacturers
regarding CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 as it relates to IEEE
802.11a and 802.11g wireless standards.
In May 2005, a group of system manufacturers, including customers of our
802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products, filed an action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory
judgment against CSIRO that the plaintiff manufacturers’ products employing the
IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless standards do not infringe CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069. In September 2006, CSIRO filed an answer and
counterclaims alleging that plaintiffs’ products that employ those wireless
standards infringe the CSIRO patent and seeking damages, including enhanced
damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction against sales of
infringing products. In December 2006,
the district court granted CSIRO’s motion to transfer the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had
brought a similar lawsuit against another company. As a result of CSIRO’s counterclaims for
patent infringement, a customer of ours has sought indemnification from
us. Also in December 2006, CSIRO filed
suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
against several manufacturers and suppliers of wireless products, including
customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products. The complaint alleges that the manufacture,
use and sale of wireless products compliant with the IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g
wireless standards infringes on the CSIRO patent. As a result of CSIRO’s claim for patent
infringement, another
68 customer of ours has sought indemnification from us. In response to these demands for indemnification, we have acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in response to them. On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the CSIRO patent is invalid and unenforceable and that we and our customers do not infringe the CSIRO patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event our 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the CSIRO patent is found to be valid and enforceable. CSIRO has not yet responded to the complaint. This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Jul 2, 2007. CSIRO Litigation. In 2004, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) sent notice letters to a number of
Wi-Fi System manufacturers regarding CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069
as it relates to IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g wireless standards. In May 2005, a group of system manufacturers,
including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products, filed an
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the plaintiff
manufacturers’ products employing the IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g wireless
standards do not infringe CSIRO’s
patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069.
In September 2006, CSIRO filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that
plaintiffs’ products that employ those wireless standards infringe the CSIRO
patent and seeking damages, including enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees and
costs, and an injunction against sales of infringing products. In December 2006, the district court granted
CSIRO’s motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had brought a similar lawsuit against
another company. As a result of CSIRO’s
counterclaims for patent infringement, a customer of ours has sought
indemnification from us. Also in
December 2006, CSIRO filed suit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas against several manufacturers and suppliers of
wireless products, including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN
products. The complaint alleges that the
manufacture, use and sale of wireless products compliant with the IEEE 802.11a
or 802.11g wireless standards infringes on the CSIRO patent. As a result of CSIRO’s claim for patent
infringement, another customer of ours has sought indemnification from us. In response to these demands for
indemnification, we have acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in
response to them.
67 On May 4, 2007, we filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the CSIRO patent is invalid and unenforceable and that we and our customers do not infringe the CSIRO patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for us and our customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event our 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the CSIRO patent is found to be valid and enforceable. CSIRO has not yet responded to the complaint. This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-K filed Jul 2, 2007. CSIRO Litigation. In 2004, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) sent notice letters to a number of
Wi-Fi System manufacturers regarding CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069
as it relates to IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g wireless standards. In May 2005,
a group of system manufacturers, including customers of our 802.11a or 802.11g
wireless LAN products, filed an action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment against
CSIRO that the plaintiff manufacturers’ products employing the IEEE 802.11a
or 802.11g wireless standards do not infringe CSIRO’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069.
In September 2006, CSIRO filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that
plaintiffs’ products that employ those wireless standards infringe the CSIRO
patent and seeking damages, including enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees and
costs, and an injunction against sales of infringing products. In December 2006,
the district court granted CSIRO’s motion to transfer the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where CSIRO had
brought a similar lawsuit against another company. As a result of CSIRO’s
counterclaims for patent infringement, a customer of ours has sought
indemnification from us. Also in December 2006, CSIRO filed suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against several
manufacturers and suppliers of wireless products, including customers of our
802.11a or 802.11g wireless LAN products. The complaint alleges that the
manufacture, use and sale of wireless products compliant with the IEEE 802.11a
or 802.11g wireless standards infringes on the CSIRO patent. As a result of
CSIRO’s claim for patent infringement, another customer of ours has sought
indemnification from us. In response to these demands for indemnification, the
Company has acknowledged the demands and incurred costs in response to them.
On May 4, 2007, the Company filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment against CSIRO that the CSIRO patent is invalid and unenforceable and that the Company and its customers do not infringe the CSIRO patent. The complaint also seeks damages and a license for the Company and its customers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in the event the Company’s 802.11a/g wireless LAN products are found to infringe and the CSIRO patent is found to be valid and enforceable. CSIRO has not yet responded to the complaint. | EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
RELATED TOPICS for MRVL: |
| |||||||
