ITEM 3 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
−Removed: We are party to various legal actions from time to time that are ordinary in nature and incidental to the operation of our business.
+Added: We are party to various legal actions from time to time that are ordinary in nature and incidental to the operation of our business, including ongoing litigation.
While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, we believe that none of the pending proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
−Removed: however, some proceedings, particularly the matters described below, could have a more significant impact than others.
−Removed: On February 3, 2015, we brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Nestlé Purina PetCare Company (“Nestlé”) seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief based on Nestlé’s alleged infringement of a patent held by us.
−Removed: The case was stayed for approximately two years, pending the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) discussed immediately below;
−Removed: the stay was lifted in March 2017, and fact discovery and expert discovery completed.
−Removed: The Court provided the parties with a claim construction decision on September 5, 2018.
−Removed: On February 14, 2015, Nestlé filed a petition for the IPR with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to challenge certain of the claims in our patent.
−Removed: The PTAB agreed to consider Nestlé’s petition, but on June 20, 2016, issued an order stating that Nestlé had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims in our patent are unpatentable.
−Removed: In July 2016, Nestlé filed a motion for reconsideration of the PTAB’s decision, which was denied in February 2017.
−Removed: Nestlé timely filed an appeal of the PTAB’s decision to the U.S.
−Removed: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
−Removed: In November 2017, Nestlé filed a motion in that Court to remand the case to the PTAB for consideration of additional evidence that it claims should have been provided to the PTAB.
−Removed: On June 11, 2018, the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the Board based on the agreement of the parties to consider an expanded record, as well as for the Board to consider the previously non-instituted grounds set forth in Nestle’s IPR Petition.
−Removed: The case was tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in March 2019.
−Removed: The jury returned a verdict in our favor on March 26, 2019 and the parties subsequently came to agreement on the resolution of all post-trial motions including the IPR .
ITEM 4 – MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE
2 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.