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.

.. TPL has made extensive use of the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patent to develop microprocessor products that, when integrated into systems with relevant features such as an external memory bus and an input/output interface, enable products to

practice the Asserted Patent.

169, OnSpec has made extensive use of the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patent in several products. It has sold and continues to sell its SoC microprocessors to manufacturers of consumer electronics products, such as computers, tablets, cell phones, video game players, and navigation devices. Hannah Decl., 1]7. OnSpec’s product line of controller chips was used in products similar to those sold by Respondents to provide compatibility with various flash card

standards (CompactFlash, MemoryStick, SecureDigital, XD,and Smart Media). Hannah Decl., 118 & Confidential Exhibit 39-I (showing sales of OnSpec microprocessors that make use of

inventions claimed in Asserted Patent).

l7 l . OnSpec microprocessors chips are used in products that practice the Asserted Patent, including the OnSpec xSil 271 G microprocessor. Hannah Decl., 1]6 & Confidential

Exhibit 39-E (claim chart showing the xSil 271 G). This product practices the ’336 Patent. In addition, OnSpec chips are used in a range of other microprocessor products that practice the

’336 Patent. Hannah Decl., ‘ll6 & Confidential Exhibits 39-C, 39-D, 39-F and 39-G (claim charts showing, for example, the xSil 248, xSil 269-G, xSil 212 and xSil 251 microprocessors).

OnSpec microprocessors are also used in several other products that practice the ’336 patent. Hannah Decl., ll 6; see also Confidential Exhibit 39-H (list of OnSpec products used in

practicing the ’336 Asserted Patent).