Adeia Inc. 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings 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 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. We cannot predict the outcome of any of the proceedings described below, other than to the extent such proceedings have concluded. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm our business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Patent Infringement Litigation 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 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. Videotron Patent Infringement Litigation On June 23, 2017, Adeia Guides Inc. (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” platform. Specifically, the Court found invalid each of the asserted claims related to 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. Accordingly, we paid $2.5 million for expense reimbursement in the fourth quarter of 2022. On September 12, 2022, Adeia Media filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada appealing the decision of the Federal Court of Canada. On January 30, 2023, Adeia Media filed its opening memorandum of fact and law. Videotron filed its memorandum of fact and law on April 17, 2023. 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. 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. Specifically, the Court found invalid each of the asserted claims of the four remaining patents involved in the case. In Canada, the 43 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. On November 7, 2022, Adeia Media filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada appealing the decision of the Federal Court of Canada. On June 2, 2023, Adeia Media filed its opening memorandum of fact and law. Bell and Telus filed a combined memorandum of fact and law on August 18, 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’ appeal. On September 30, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for bifurcation, asking the Federal Court of Canada to bifurcate the case into two phases: a first phase related to liability and injunction and second phase addressing damages if liability is found. The Court held a hearing on the motion for bifurcation on December 12, 2022. On February 15, 2023, the Court issued an order granting the motion for bifurcation in which the Court bifurcated the liability and injunction phase from the damages quantification phase of the case. Discovery in the case began in November 2022. The trial is scheduled to start on April 28, 2025. 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. 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. X Corp. (f.k.a. 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. 44 Item 1A. Ri sk Factors There were no material changes to the risk factors previously disclosed in Part 1, Item 1A. of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, which is incorporated by reference herein. Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities, Use of Proceeds , and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities Not applicable. Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities Not applicable. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures Not applicable.