Item 1. Legal Proceedings
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 respective patents and other intellectual property rights, to enforce the terms of license agreements, to protect trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others and to defend ourselves or our customers against claims of infringement or 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.
Other than to the extent the proceedings described below have concluded, we cannot predict the outcome of any of the proceedings described below. 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
From time-to-time in the ordinary course of our patent licensing business, we are required to engage in litigation to protect our intellectual property 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 patented technology. 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 the patents-in-suit. We are currently engaged in multiple lawsuits with several third parties.
Videotron Patent Infringement Litigation
On June 23, 2017, Rovi Guides, Inc. and TiVo Solutions Inc. (together, “TiVo”) filed a patent infringement complaint against Videotron Ltd. and Videotron G.P. (together, “Videotron”) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of six patents. Videotron was a prior licensee under the Rovi patent portfolio. The first week of trial on four patents was held the week of March 9, 2020. The Federal Court of Canada closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic on March 16, 2020, and the trial was temporarily stayed. The trial resumed on May 25, 2020, conducted remotely by video, and concluded on June 17, 2020. The parties filed their written closing submissions on September 30, 2020. The closing arguments were held in January 2021. No date is set by the court to issue its judgement.
Bell and Telus Patent Infringement Litigation
On January 19, 2018, TiVo filed a patent infringement complaint against Bell Canada (and four of its affiliates) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of six patents. On February 2, 2018, TiVo filed a patent infringement complaint against Telus Corporation (and two of its affiliates) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of the same six patents. Bell Canada and Telus Corporation were previously indirectly licensed to some of Rovi’s patents through a prior agreement between Rovi and one of their suppliers. The Bell Canada and Telus Corporation cases are being heard together for purposes of pre-trial and trial proceedings. On August 27, 2019, the court issued an order bifurcating the liability phase from the damages phase of the case. There is no set trial date or procedural schedule for the damages phase of the cases. The liability and injunction trial on four patents was held from July 13 – August 6, 2020. The closing arguments were held in January 2021. No date is set by the court to issue its judgement.
NVIDIA Patent Infringement Litigation
On May 8, 2019, Invensas Corporation and Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. 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. For the remaining IPRs, oral arguments are scheduled for June 2021, and final decisions are expected in September 2021.
48
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Management believes that there have been no significant changes to the risk factors associated with our business as compared to those disclosed in Part 1, Item 1A. of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.