VIII. RELATED LITIGATION

A. Pending and Ongoing Litigation

134. Concurrent with the filing of this complaint, Complainant is filing civil actions in

the United States District for the Northern District of California accusing Respondents (other than Acer and HTC; see paragraphs 135, 136, 151 and 152 infia) of infringing the Asserted Patent.

135. On February 8, 2008, Acer, lnc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, lnc.,

(collectively “Acer et al.”) filed an action for declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement

against TPL, PTSC, and Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”) in the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:08-cv-00877). Among other patents not asserted

here, Acer’s complaint included a request for a declaratory judgment involving the ’336 Patent.

An amended complaint was filed on February 9, 2008. Counterclaims for infringement of the

‘336 patent, among others not asserted here, were filed in the Acer action.

136. On February 8, 2008, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively

“HTC et al.”) filed an action for declaratoryjudgment of patent noninfiingement against TPL,

PTSC, and Alliacense in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

(Case No. 3:08-cv~00882). Among other patents not asserted here, HTC’s complaint included a

request for a declaratory judgment involving the ’336 Patent. An amended complaint Wasfiled

on July 10, 2008. Counterclaims for infringement of the ‘336 patent, among others not asserted

here, were filed in the HTC action.

137. On December 1, 2008, Barco NV (“Barco”) filed an action for declaratory

judgment of patent noninfringement against TPL, PTSC, and Alliacense in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:08-cv-05398). Counterclaims

for infringement of the ‘336 patent, among others not asserted here, were filed in the Barco

action.

138. On December 18, 2008, the Acer et al., HTC et al. and Barco cases were ordered related (the “Related Actions”).

139. On June 17, 2009, the Court stayed the Related Actions until September 18, 2009,

to allow then-pending reexamination proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office to

advance. On February 22, 2010, the Court dissolved the stay and adopted a scheduling order.

140. On September 1, 2011, the Related Actions were reassigned to Judge James Ware

for all further proceedings. On October 5, 2011, the Court adopted a scheduling order for claim construction briefing and a Markman hearing for January 27, 2012.

141. On January 27, 2012, the Court held the Markman hearing and, on June 12, 2012, the Court issued its First Claim Construction Order. The Related Actions remain pending.

B. Terminated Litigation

142. On December 22, 2003, PTSC filed a complaint against Sony Corporation of

America in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:03-cv10142)

alleging infringement of the ’336 Patent. The case was voluntarily dismissed without

prejudice on October 14, 2004.

143. On December 23, 2003, PTSC filed a complaint against Toshiba America, inc. in

the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:03-cv-10180) alleging infringement of the ’336 Patent The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 14, 2004.

144. On December 23, 2003, PTSC filed a complaint against NEC USA, Inc. in the

United States District Court, Eastern District of New York (Case No. 2:03-cv-06432) alleging infringement of the ’336 Patent. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on February 27, 2004. ~ 4 ' .

145. On December 23, 2003, PTSC filed a complaint against Fujitsu Microelectronics

America, Inc. in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 4:03cv-05787) alleging infringement of the ’336 Patent. PTSC amended its complaint on February l8, 2004 to include defendants Moore, TPL, and Daniel E. Leekrone for damages and injunctive relief and for declaratory judgment for determination and correction of inventorship and ownership of the ’336 patent. Then on March l 1, 2004, PTSC filed a consolidated amended complaint against defendants Fujitsu Computers Systems Corporation, Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, NEC Solutions (America), lnc., Sony Electronics lnc., Toshiba America, lnc., Moore, TPL, and Daniel E. Leckrone for damages and injunctive relief and for declaratoryjudgment for determination and correction of inventorship and ownership of the ’336 patent. The ease was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 24, 2005.

146. On December 30, 2003, PTSC filed a complaint against Matsushita Electric

Corporation of America in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:03-cv-06210) alleging infringement of the ’336 Patent. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on March 26, 2004.

147. On February 2, 2004, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed an action for declaratory

judgment of patent noninfringement against PTSC in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 4:04-cv-00439). Intel’s complaint included a declaratory judgment claim involving the ’336 Patent. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on July 7, 2005.

148. On February l3, 2004, PTSC filed a complaint in the United States District Court,

Northern District of California against Moore, TPL, and Daniel E. Leckrone for declaratory

judgment for determination and correction of inventorship and ownership of the ’336 Patent

(Case N0. 5:04-cv-00618-JP). PTSC filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2004, and again November 29, 2004. All claims were dismissed on June 9, 2005 based on settlement.

149. On October 24, 2005, TPL filed a complaint in th.eUnited States District Court,

Eastern District of Texas against Fujitsu Limited, Fujitsu General America, Inc., Fujitsu

Computer Products of America, Inc., Fujitsu Computer Systems Corp, Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc., Fujitsu Ten Corporation of America (collectively “Fujitsu et al.”), Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corporation of North America, JVC Americas Corporation (collectively “Matsushita et al.”), NEC Corporation, NEC America, Inc., NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., NEC Solutions America, Inc., NEC Unified Solutions, Inc. (collectively “NEC et al.”), NEC Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC Electronics”), Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba America information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC (collectively “Toshiba et al.”) (Case No. 2:05-cv-00494), alleging infringement of the ’336 Patent (among another patent not asserted here). Amended complaints were filed by TPL and PTSC on September l2, 2006 and February 2, 2007. All claims between Plaintiffs TPL and PTSC and Defendants Fujitsu et al. were dismissed on March 1, 2006 based on settlement. All claims between Plaintiffs TPL and PTSC and Defendants NEC et al. were dismissed on February 21, 2007 based on settlement. All claims between Plaintiffs TPL and PTSC and Defendants Matsushita et al., NEC Electronics, and Toshiba et al. were dismissed on December 20, 2007 based on settlement.

l50. On February 8, 2008, iASUSTek Computer, inc. (“ASUSTek”) filed an action for

declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement against TPL, PTSC, and Alliacense in the

United States District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 5:08-cv-00884). Among other patents not asserted here, ASUSTek’s complaint included a request for a declaratory judgment involving the ’336 Patent. The complaint was amended twice, on July l0, 2008 and again on September 23, 2008. All claims were dismissed on February 25, 2009 based on settlement.

151. On April 25, 2008, TPL and PTSC filed a complaint against HTC et al. in the

United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:08~cv-00172)alleging

infringement of the ’336 Patent (among other patents not asserted here). The case was dismissed without prejudice on February 23, 2009.

152. On April 25, 2008, TPL and PTSC filed a complaint against Acer et al. in the

United States District Court, Eastern District ofTexas (Case No. 2:08-cv-00176) alleging

infringement of the ’336 Patent (among other patents not asserted here). The case was dismissed without prejudice on February 13, 2009.

153. On April 25, 2008, TPL, PTSC, and MCM filed a complaint against ASUSTek in

the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:08-cv-00177) alleging infringement of the ’336 Patent (among other patents not asserted here). The case was dismissed on March 6, 2009 based on settlement.

154. On April 24, 2009, Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Sirius XM”) filed an action for

declaratory judgment of patent noninfringernent against TPL, PTSC, and Alliacense in the

United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:09-cv-04083). Among other patents not asserted here, Sirius XM’s complaint included a request for a declaratory judgment involving the ’336 Patent. The case was transferred to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Case No. 3:10-cv-00816) on or about February 26, 2010. The case was dismissed on July 26, 2010 based on settlement.

155. There have been no other court or agency actions, domestic or foreign, involving

the Asserted Patent.