In a bit of good news for a change, a judge has ruled that the verdict against RIM in the lawsuit filed by Mformation, does not support what the jury found as patent infringement. A little over a month ago
, we told you that RIM was hit with a $147.2 Million dollar fine from a lawsuit filed in 2008 and the jury in July found in favor of Mformation.
Now that the jury's verdict has been overturned, RIM is vacated from paying the $147.2 Million dollar fine. This gives Mformation the opportunity to appeal the judge's ruling. If Mformation does indeed appeal the ruling and is successful in winning the appeal, a new trial would be started.
This is great news for RIM and with the stock price up 17% in recent trading, things should keep getting better for RIM.
Waterloo, ON – Research In Motion Limited (RIM) (NASDAQ: RIMM; TSX: RIM), a world leader in the mobile communications market, today learned that the Judge in a patent action brought by Mformation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted RIM’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the evidence did not support the Jury's finding of patent infringement.
After considering motions presented by both parties, as well as the jury verdict (which was announced by RIM on July 14, 2012), the Judge determined that RIM had not infringed on Mformation’s patent. In granting RIM’s motion, the Judge also vacated the $147.2 million jury award, which means that RIM is not required to make any payment to Mformation. Mformation has the right to appeal the Judge's ruling; however if Mformation successfully appeals the ruling, the jury verdict would not be reinstated and instead a new trial would occur.
“We appreciate the Judge’s careful consideration of this case. RIM did not infringe on Mformation’s patent and we are pleased with this victory,” said Steve Zipperstein, RIM’s Chief Legal Officer. “The purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation, but the system is still too often exploited in pursuit of other goals. Many policy makers have already recognized the need to address this problem and we call on others to join them as this case clearly highlights the significant need for continuing policy reform to help reduce the amount of resources wasted on unwarranted patent litigation.”