LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
−Removed: A lawsuit was filed on December 17, 2015 by SRAM Corporation (“SRAM”) in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, RFE Canada Holding Corp.
−Removed: (“RFE Canada”).
−Removed: The lawsuit alleges patent infringement of U.S.
−Removed: Patent number 9,182,027 ("027 Patent") and violation of the Lanham Act.
−Removed: SRAM filed a second lawsuit in the same court against RFE Canada on May 16, 2016, alleging patent infringement of U.S Patent number 9,291,250 ("'250 Patent").
−Removed: The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends vigorously to defend itself.
−Removed: As such, the Company has filed, before the U.
−Removed: Patent and Trademark Appeals Board ("PTAB"), for Interparties Reviews ("IPR") of the '027 Patent and separately the same for the '250 Patent.
−Removed: In April 2018, the PTAB issued opinions in the ‘027 Patent petition cases stating that the Company has not shown the claims of the ‘027 Patent to be obvious.
−Removed: Regarding the PTAB ‘027 opinions, the Company has filed an Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC").
−Removed: The CAFC found in favor of the Company and has vacated and remanded all of the PTAB findings with the exception of their finding that the ‘027 patent met the prima facia test for obviousness, which was affirmed.
−Removed: The CAFC has declined to rehear the case and has issued the final remand order sending the case back to the PTAB.
−Removed: SRAM filed ‘027 appeal cert before the Supreme Court of the United States, cert was denied and that case is before the PTAB on remand.
−Removed: The PTAB has issued an opinion in the ‘250 Patent case stating that the Company has not shown the claims of the ‘250 Patent to be obvious.
−Removed: The Company has appealed that PTAB opinion to the CAFC and the CAFC has affirmed the PTAB opinion.
+Added: A lawsuit was filed on December 17, 2015 by SRAM in the U.S.
+Added: District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, RFE Canada.
+Added: The lawsuit alleges patent infringement of 027 Patent and violation of the Lanham Act.
+Added: SRAM filed a second lawsuit in the same court against RFE Canada on May 16, 2016, alleging patent infringement of 250 Patent.
+Added: The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.
+Added: As such, the Company has filed, before PTAB, for IPR of the 027 Patent and separately the same for the 250 Patent.
+Added: In February 2021, the PTAB issued opinions in the 027 Patent petition cases stating that the Company has shown all of the claims of the 027 Patent to be obvious.
+Added: The PTAB has also issued an opinion in the 250 Patent case stating that the Company has not shown the claims of the 250 Patent to be obvious.
In a separate action, the Company filed a lawsuit on January 29, 2016 in the U.S.
7 unchanged sentences
District Court, District of Colorado and are otherwise proceeding.
−Removed: District Court, Northern District of Illinois, has again stayed the SRAM lawsuits against the Company pending outcome of the remanded ‘027 PTAB issue.
−Removed: Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company is not able to predict either the outcome or a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, at this time.
+Added: District Court, Northern District of Illinois has, in view of the 027 Patent PTAB process and opinion, stayed the SRAM lawsuits against the Company.
+Added: Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company is not able to predict either the outcomes or a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, at this time.
Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements for the settlement of these matters.
3 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.