24 unchanged sentences
No date is set by the Court to issue its judgement.
−Removed: On May 21, 2021, Rovi filed a patent infringement complaint against Videotron Ltd.
−Removed: in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of four patents.
−Removed: On July 21, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada held a case management conference, shortly before which Videotron Ltd.
−Removed: filed a motion to strike various portions of the statement of claim.
−Removed: During the case management conference, the court set a briefing schedule for the motion to strike and set the motion hearing for August 9, 2021.
+Added: On May 21, 2021, Rovi filed a patent infringement complaint against Videotron in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of four patents.
+Added: On July 21, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada held a case management conference, shortly before which Videotron filed a motion to strike various portions of the statement of claim.
+Added: On October 22, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Videotron’s motion to strike.
+Added: To date, the Court has not ruled on the motion.
No further dates have been set.
4 unchanged sentences
The Bell Canada and Telus Corporation cases are being heard together for purposes of pre-trial and trial proceedings.
−Removed: On August 27, 2019, the court issued an order bifurcating the liability phase from the damages phase of the case.
+Added: On August 27, 2019, the Federal Court of Canada 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.
4 unchanged sentences
and MK Mediatech Canada Inc.
−Removed: in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of four patents.
−Removed: No dates have been set yet.
+Added: (collectively, “Defendants”) in Toronto, Canada, alleging infringement of four patents.
+Added: The Defendants filed a motion to strike various portions of the statement of claim.
+Added: On October 22, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada held a hearing on the Defendants motion to strike.
+Added: To date, the Court has not ruled on the motion.
+Added: No further dates have been set.
NVIDIA Patent Infringement Litigation
On May 8, 2019, Invensas Corporation and Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc.
−Removed: filed a complaint against NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of five patents,
−Removed: and requesting, among other things, that NVIDIA be ordered to pay compensatory damages in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty.
+Added: 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.
2 unchanged sentences
The parties stipulated to an order staying the litigation pending resolution of the IPR proceedings, and to dismissal of claims relating to two patents.
−Removed: For the remaining IPRs, oral arguments were held June 9, 2021, and final decisions are expected in September 2021.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, which is incorporated by reference herein.
+Added: As a result, there are three patents-in-suit remaining.
+Added: One patent has no IPRs pending against it.
+Added: Two patents are subject to IPRs.
+Added: On June 9, 2021, the PTAB held oral arguments in the IPRs.
+Added: 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.
+Added: On November 1, 2021, Invensas filed appeals of each of the IPR decisions with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
+Added: No dates in the appeals have been set yet.
+Added: The district Court litigation will remain stayed pending the outcome of the IPR appeals.
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.