6 unchanged sentences
Merger Litigation
−Removed: On March 3, 2020, a lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of TiVo in connection with the proposed merger between TiVo and Xperi.
−Removed: The lawsuit was brought as a putative class action and is captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v.
−Removed: TiVo Corporation, et al., No.
−Removed: 1:20-cv-00327 (D.
−Removed: The complaint named as defendants Xperi, XRAY-TWOLF HoldCo Corporation, XRAY Merger Sub Corporation, TWOLF Merger Sub Corporation, TiVo, and the TiVo Board.
−Removed: The complaint alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the individual defendants and TiVo, and alleged a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants and Xperi, because the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on February 18, 2020 purportedly omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the proposed merger between TiVo and Xperi.
−Removed: The complaint sought injunctive relief, rescission or rescissory damages, and an award of plaintiffs’ costs, including attorneys’ fees and expenses.
−Removed: The complaint also sought dissemination of a registration statement that does not contain any untrue or misleading statements of material fact and a declaration that defendants violated the Exchange Act.
−Removed: On May 20, 2020, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint.
−Removed: This matter is now concluded.
On May 15, 2020, a lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Xperi in connection with the merger between TiVo and Xperi.
8 unchanged sentences
The complaint seeks a judgment declaring that the Xperi Board members breached their fiduciary duties, awarding equitable relief that deprives the Xperi Board members of all benefits they would realize as a result of the merger between TiVo and Xperi, awarding class damages, awarding plaintiff's attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, and awarding any further relief the court deems just and proper.
−Removed: Xperi believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
+Added: On September 11, 2020, the Court granted the plaintiff’s and Xperi’s stipulation to dismiss the complaint.
Patent Infringement Litigation
7 unchanged sentences
The lawsuits arose when Comcast’s twelve-year patent license with Rovi (and its predecessors) expired on March 31, 2016.
−Removed: After being unable to agree on terms for a renewal before the license
−Removed: expired, Rovi initially filed multiple lawsuits against Comcast, and has since filed additional lawsuits against Comcast in various venues in the United States.
+Added: After being unable to agree on terms for a renewal before the license expired, Rovi initially filed multiple lawsuits against Comcast, and has since filed additional lawsuits against Comcast in various venues in the United States.
To date, Rovi has filed three ITC investigations (along with four companion district court cases asserting the same patents) and two standalone cases in various United States District Courts involving a total of 37 patents.
7 unchanged sentences
In the third ITC investigation, the Administrative Law Judge issued her Final Initial Determination in which she found that Comcast’s X1 platform infringes two Rovi patents and recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order.
−Removed: The deadline for the parties to file petitions for review with the ITC, seeking review of the ALJ’s Final Initial Determination, is August 10, 2020.
+Added: On October 13, 2020, the ITC issued its notice of its decision to review in part the Final Initial Determination and requesting written submissions on various issues.
+Added: The ITC determined to review certain issues.
The ITC’s Final Determination is currently due on November 30, 2020.
1 unchanged sentence
A trial date has not been set yet in that case.
+Added: On November 9, 2020, we announced that we entered into a license agreement with Comcast.
+Added: In connection with the license agreement, the parties settled all outstanding litigation.
+Added: This matter is now concluded.
Videotron Patent Infringement Litigation
8 unchanged sentences
The trial resumed on May 25, 2020, conducted remotely by video, and concluded on June 17, 2020.
−Removed: Written closing submissions are due September 21, 2020.
−Removed: Closing oral argument is scheduled for October 14-16, 2020.
+Added: The parties filed their written closing submissions on September 30, 2020.
+Added: The closing oral arguments are now scheduled for January 20-22, 2021.
There is no set date for the court to issue its verdict.
7 unchanged sentences
The liability and injunction trial on four patents was held from July 13 – August 6, 2020.
−Removed: Written closing submissions are due October 13, 2020.
−Removed: Closing oral argument is scheduled for October 29-30, 2020.
+Added: The written closing submissions are due November 30, 2020 and the closing oral arguments are scheduled for January 14 – 15, 2021.
There is no set date for the court to issue its verdict.
4 unchanged sentences
The court denied NVIDIA’s motion to transfer on September 17, 2019.
−Removed: A Markman hearing is scheduled for September 14, 2020.
−Removed: A jury trial is scheduled to begin on September 20, 2021.
−Removed: NVIDIA has filed IPRs against several of the patents-in-suit.
+Added: In September 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted IPRs of several patents-in-suit.
+Added: The parties stipulated to an order staying the litigation pending resolution of the IPR proceedings, and to dismissal of claims relating to the two patents.
+Added: For the remaining IPRs, oral arguments are scheduled for June 2021, and final decisions are expected in September 2021.
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.