Very Good...

Research In Motion and Visto Corporation Sign Definitive Agreement to Settle Outstanding Litigation

Press release here:
http://www.good.com/corp/int_news.php?id=pr_090716

Waterloo, ON and Redwood City, CA — Research In Motion Limited ("RIM") (Nasdaq: RIMM; TSX: RIM) and Visto Corporation ("Visto") announced today that they have entered into a definitive agreement to settle all outstanding worldwide patent litigation between the companies.

The key terms of the settlement involve RIM receiving a perpetual and fully-paid license on all Visto patents, a transfer of certain Visto intellectual property, a one-time payment by RIM of US $ 267.5 million and the parties executing full and final releases in respect of all outstanding worldwide litigation.

The settlement is expected to be completed during the week of July 20, 2009 and is subject to certain closing conditions.

Based on preliminary analysis, RIM expects the majority of the payment to be expensed as an unusual item in the second quarter of fiscal 2010, with the remainder being classified as an intangible asset. Based on this analysis, RIM expects to report Q2 results that reflect U.S. GAAP earnings and earnings per share, as well as adjusted earnings and earnings per share, which would exclude the amount expensed as an unusual item.

Further terms and conditions of the agreement are confidential.

Research In Motion Limited is a publicly held company that trades on NASDAQ and the Toronto Stock Exchange (NASDAQ: RIMM; TSX: RIM). Visto Corporation is a privately held firm and the parent company of Good Technology.

This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Canadian securities laws relating to the anticipated timing of completion of the settlement as well as RIM's preliminary analysis of the financial impact of the payment to Visto. The terms "expected" and "expects" are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates and assumptions made by RIM in light of its experience and its perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors that RIM believes are appropriate in the circumstances. Many factors could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation: the parties’ satisfaction of the various terms and conditions of the settlement; delays resulting from factors within or outside the parties' control; risks inherent in matters relating to patent litigation and the settlement thereof; and possible changes to RIM's preliminary analysis of the financial impact of the payment to Visto based on RIM's continuing review of such matters in connection with the completion of the settlement, and the preparation and filing of RIM's interim consolidated financial statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2010. Certain of these risk factors and others relating to RIM are discussed in greater detail in the "Risk Factors" section of RIM's Annual Information Form, which is included in its Annual Report on Form 40-F and RIM's MD&A (copies of which filings may be obtained at www.sedar.com or www.sec.gov). These factors should be considered carefully, and readers should not place undue reliance on RIM's forward-looking statements. RIM has no intention and undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Gilbert's represented Visto in the Canadian litigation.

Damages Calculations in Intellectual Property Cases in Canada (2007)
Norman Siebrasse, Alexander Stack, and the Cole & Partners IP Litigation Support Group
(2008) Vol 24 No. 2 Canadian Intellectual Property Review, pp 153-188

This is an update of an article we (members of Cole & Partners and I) first published in 2001. As with our recent article on accounting of profits, a big change is the addition of Norman Siebrasse as a co-author. Norman certainly bring a new level of vigor and rigorous thinking to these issues, which I think is reflected in the final article.

This is an update - and the fundamental law of damages has not changed since 2001. However, there is a greater emphasis in recent case-law - and in the article - on the remedial basis for the remedy, and on grounding patent law (including remedies) in fundamental common law tort principles. This leads to some interesting questions - for example, is the commonly stated rule from United Horse Shoe (1888, House of Lords) that damages are calculated assuming the infringer had never entered the market, or that it is not relevant that the plaintiff would have been equally hurt had the defendant produced a non-infringing product, good law? My suspicion is that it is not.

As with the Accounting of Profits article, the CIPR version of the article is heavily cut from the version available on the Cole & Partners website .