What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2024-05-08 compared with 2023-11-06 · 40 added, 42 removed, 47 unchanged (64% of the section changed)

1 unchanged sentence

In the normal course of our business, we are involved in legal proceedings.

In the past, we have litigated to enforce our patents and other intellectual property (“IP”) rights, to enforce the terms of license agreements and to defend ourselves against claims of invalidity.

In the past, we have litigated to enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights (“IP”), to enforce the terms of license agreements, to protect trade secrets and to defend ourselves against claims of invalidity.

We expect to continue to be involved in similar legal proceedings in the future, including proceedings regarding infringement of our patents and proceedings to ensure proper and full payment of royalties by licensees under the terms of our license agreements.

2 unchanged sentences

Patent Infringement Litigation

In the ordinary course of our IP licensing business, we are required to engage in litigation to protect our IP from infringement.

In the ordinary course of our IP licensing business, we engage in litigation to protect our IP from infringement.

While litigation is never our preference, and we prefer to reach mutually agreeable commercial licensing arrangements with third parties, it is sometimes a necessary step to effectively protect our investment in our IP.

As a result of these lawsuits, defendants have often filed Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions with the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (and other similar post-grant proceedings outside of the U.S.) seeking to invalidate one or more of our patents.

As a result of these lawsuits, defendants have often filed Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions with the U.S.

Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (and other similar post-grant proceedings outside of the U.S.) seeking to invalidate one or more of our patents.

We are currently engaged in multiple lawsuits with several third parties.

2 unchanged sentences

(formerly known as Rovi Guides, Inc.) and Adeia Media Solutions Inc.

(formerly known as TiVo Solutions Inc.) (together, “Adeia Media”) filed a patent infringement complaint against Videotron Ltd.

and Videotron G.P.

(together, “Videotron”) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of six patents (“Videotron 1”).

On June 10, 2022, the Federal Court of Canada issued its decision in the case finding in favor of Videotron and its legacy “illico”

(together, “Videotron”) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of six patents (“Videotron 1”).

On June 10, 2022, the Federal Court of Canada issued its decision in the case finding in favor of Videotron and its legacy “illico” platform.

Specifically, the Court found invalid each of the asserted claims related to the four remaining patents involved in the case.

4 unchanged sentences

Videotron filed its memorandum of fact and law on April 17, 2023.

The Federal Court of Appeal of Canada has scheduled a hearing on the appeal for November 28, 2023.

On May 21, 2021, Adeia Media filed a patent infringement complaint against Videotron in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of four patents (“Videotron 2”).

On November 28, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada held a hearing on the appeal and took the matter under reserve.

There is no set date for the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada to issue its decision.

On May 21, 2021, Adeia Media filed a patent infringement complaint against Videotron in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of four patents (“Videotron 2”).

On July 21, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada held a case management conference in Videotron 2, shortly before which Videotron filed a motion to strike various portions of the statement of claim.

On March 22, 2022, the Court issued an order on Videotron’s motion to strike, dismissing the motion in its entirety.

On April 1, 2022, Videotron filed an appeal of the Court’s order dismissing Videotron’s motion to strike.

On June 30, 2022, the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Videotron’s appeal in which it ruled in Adeia Media’s favor and dismissed Videotron’s appeal.

Discovery in the case began in August 2022.

On March 22, 2022, the Court issued an order on Videotron’s motion to strike, dismissing the motion in its entirety.

On April 1, 2022, Videotron filed an appeal of the Court’s order dismissing Videotron’s motion to strike.

On June 30, 2022, the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Videotron’s appeal in which it ruled in Adeia Media’s favor and dismissed Videotron’s appeal.

The trial is scheduled to start on January 13, 2025.

Bell and Telus Patent Infringement Litigation

On January 19, 2018, Adeia Media filed a patent infringement complaint against Bell Canada (and four of its affiliates) (collectively, “Bell”) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of six patents (“Bell 1”).

On February 2, 2018, Adeia Media filed a patent infringement complaint against Telus Corporation (and two of its affiliates) (collectively, “Telus”) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of the same six patents (“Telus 1”).

Bell 1 and Telus 1 were heard together for purposes of pre-trial and trial proceedings.

On October 7, 2022, the Federal Court of Canada issued its decision in the two cases finding in favor of Bell and Telus and their respective IPTV services,

Bell Fibe TV and Telus Optik TV.

On October 7, 2022, the Federal Court of Canada issued its decision in the two cases finding in favor of Bell and Telus and their respective IPTV services, Bell Fibe TV and Telus Optik TV.

Specifically, the Court found invalid each of the asserted claims of the four remaining patents involved in the case.

In Canada, the prevailing party in patent litigation is entitled to reimbursement of certain of its costs and expenses.

In Canada, the

prevailing party in patent litigation is entitled to reimbursement of certain of its costs and expenses.

Accordingly, we paid $2.8 million for expense reimbursement in the second quarter of 2023.

2 unchanged sentences

Bell and Telus filed a combined memorandum of fact and law on August 18, 2023.

The Federal Court of Appeal of Canada has scheduled a hearing on the appeal for November 29, 2023.

On November 29, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada held a hearing on the appeal and took the matter under reserve.

There is no set date for the Federal Court of Appeal to issue its decision.

On July 27, 2021, Adeia Media filed a patent infringement complaint against Bell Canada and four of its affiliates, Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson, Ericsson Canada Inc., and MK Systems USA Inc.

and MK Mediatech Canada Inc.

(collectively, “Defendants”) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of four patents (“Bell 2”).

The Defendants filed a motion to strike various portions of the statement of claim in Bell 2.

On March 22, 2022, the Court issued an order on Defendants’

motion to strike, dismissing-in-part and granting-in-part.

On April 1, 2022, the Defendants filed a Notice of Motion to Appeal the Court’s order on Defendants’

motion to strike.

On June 30, 2022, the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Defendants' appeal in which it ruled in Adeia Media's favor and dismissed Defendants’

On March 22, 2022, the Court issued an order on Defendants’ motion to strike, dismissing-in-part and granting-in-part.

On April 1, 2022, the Defendants filed a Notice of Motion to Appeal the Court’s order on Defendants’ motion to strike.

On June 30, 2022, the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Defendants' appeal in which it ruled in Adeia Media's favor and dismissed Defendants’ appeal.

On September 30, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for bifurcation, asking the Federal Court of Canada to bifurcate the case into two phases:

4 unchanged sentences

The trial is scheduled to start on April 28, 2025.

NVIDIA Patent Infringement Litigation

On May 8, 2019, Adeia Semiconductor Technologies LLC (formerly known as Invensas Corporation) and Adeia Semiconductor Advanced Technologies, Inc.

(formerly known as Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc.) (together, "Adeia Semiconductor") filed a complaint against NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of five patents, and requesting, among other things, that NVIDIA be ordered to pay compensatory damages in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty.

NVIDIA answered the complaint on July 1, 2019, and subsequently moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Court denied NVIDIA’s motion to transfer on September 17, 2019.

In September 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted IPRs of several patents-in-suit.

The parties stipulated to an order staying the litigation pending resolution of the IPR proceedings and to dismissal of claims relating to two patents.

As a result, there are three patents-in-suit remaining.

One patent has no IPRs pending against it and two patents are subject to IPRs.

On June 9, 2021, the PTAB held oral arguments in the IPRs.

On September 1, 2021, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPRs in which it found all challenged claims of the two patents invalid.

On November 1, 2021, Adeia Semiconductor filed appeals of each of the IPR decisions with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On March 22, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision in both IPRs.

The parties reached a settlement and all remaining claims were dismissed pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties on September 11, 2023.

Shaw Breach of Contract Litigation

On October 2, 2023, Adeia Guides Inc., Adeia Media Solutions Inc., and Adeia Media Holdings LLC (collectively, “Adeia Media”) filed a complaint against Shaw Cablesystems G.P.

and Shaw Satellite G.P.

(together “Shaw”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract by Shaw for failure to pay royalties owed to Adeia Media under the license agreement between the parties.

No dates have been set.

On January 16, 2024, Shaw submitted a pre-motion letter to the Court requesting leave of the Court to file a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On January 19, 2024, Adeia Media submitted a letter to the Court in response to Shaw’s pre-motion letter.

The Court has yet to rule on Shaw’s pre-motion letter.

The trial date has not been set.

Twitter) Litigation

On August 7, 2023, Adeia Media LLC (“Adeia Media”) filed a complaint against X Corporation (“X Corp.”) in California Superior Court for Santa Clara County alleging breach of contract by X Corp.

for failure to pay royalties owed to Adeia Media under the patent license agreement between the parties.

On October 2, 2023, X Corp.

filed its answer to the complaint, asserting a general denial of the allegations and causes of action in the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses.

The trial date has not been set.

On November 28, 2023, X Corp.

filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement (“DJ Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Adeia Inc., Adeia Media LLC and Adeia Guides Inc.

(collectively, “Adeia Media”) alleging that it had terminated the patent license agreement between the companies and seeking a finding that it does not infringe four Adeia Media patents.

On January 16, 2024, Adeia Media filed a motion to dismiss the DJ Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ri sk Factors

8 unchanged sentences

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings