Unwired Planet, (Nasdaq: UPIP), today commented on pending investigation against Apple and Research-in-Motion in the International Trade Commission (ITC). For more information,
please see Unwired Planet’s blog at
On Friday, September 28, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) E. James Gildea issued a Markman (or “claim construction”) order (Order No. 46) which provides the meaning of disputed terms in the claims of the patents at issue. In response to a Motion for Clarification filed by Unwired Planet (the “Company”) on Monday October 1, the ALJ then issued an additional Order (Order No. 51) on Friday October 5.
In these orders, all four patents in the ITC case have been construed in at least one way that significantly weakens the Company’s infringement case. While disappointing, Unwired Planet believes it is important to note that this result has no impact on any patents in the Company’s pending cases in Nevada, no impact on any other patents in the portfolio except possible implications for the patent family members of the patents-in-suit, and is not binding upon the Federal Judge in the pending Delaware equivalent case.
Unwired Planet’s patent portfolio contains 200 patents and 75 applications encompassing foundational contributions to the mobile industry. The pending ITC case is a small part of Unwired Planet’s strategy. The Company has been, nonetheless, fully prepared for the possibility of a negative result, and has been taking actions over the last few months designed to better situate Unwired Planet for its long-term licensing effort.
As such, these events do not materially impact the Company’s long-term plans; as noted, this Markman decision impacted only a small fraction of the Company’s 200 patents. Unwired Planet’s pending Federal court cases in Nevada continue unaffected (containing a collective total of 20 patents) and the ITC has no binding effect upon our Delaware case (containing the 5 patents initially filed in the ITC Matter). The Company also has many valuable patents that are not in pending litigation. Finally, the Company has a strategy to address any adverse impact that the ITC proceeding may have had on the foundational patents at issue and their family members.