Preview

Research in Motion: a Study in International Intellectual Property

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
905 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Research in Motion: a Study in International Intellectual Property
Research In Motion: A Study in International Intellectual Property

by

Paul A. Langfield, M.S.

An Introduction to Research In Motion (RIM)

Canadian-based company Research In Motion (RIM) is an excellent case study in the challenges associated with Intellectual Property rights, especially in light of the company’s need to operate within the Intellectual Property frameworks of countries across the globe. Started by then twenty-three year old, Mike Lazardis in 1984, RIM has been involved on both sides of patent infringement law suits since the year 2000.
RIM began in earnest as a venture capital endeavor with an initial venture of $5 million in 1995 and a total pre-IPO venture of $30 million by 1998. Since the start of the millennium, RIM has been engaged in patent-related legal struggles with Glenayre Electronics, Good Technology, Handspring, NTP, inc., Visto, Xerox and Motorola (Research In Motion Limited (RIM), 2010). Despite the legal troubles, by 2007 RIM became the most valuable company in Canada (Loblaw, 2007). In 2008 RIM was named one of “Canada’s Top 100 Employers (Research In Motion Limited (RIM), 2010), and Fortune Magazine identified RIM as the fastest growing company in the world in August of 2009 (Benner & Cendrowski, 2009).

RIM’s Intellectual Property Challenges

RIM’s challenges with various other firms regarding patents began in 1999 and have been consistent up to the current time. RIM has met these challenges head-on utilizing the US legal system both by initiating lawsuits as well as filing counter claims. Ultimately the law suits were either settled out of court, or resulted in licensing agreements for use of patented technology. The first suit initiated by RIM was in 2001 against a competitor called Glenayre Electronics regarding RIM’s “Single Mailbox Integration” patent. According to Wikipedia, the suit was “partly in response to an earlier infringement suit filed by Glenayre against RIM” and resulted in a settlement



References: Benner, K., & Cendrowski, S. (2009, August 18). Fortune 500. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from CNNMoney.com Web site: http:/​/​money.cnn.com/​galleries/​2009/​technology/​0908/​gallery.fastest_growing_techs.fortune/​index.html BlackBerry wins patent battle with Motorola in Britain. (2010, February 4). The Economic Times. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from The Economic Times Web site: http:/​/​economictimes.indiatimes.com/​news/​international-business/​BlackBerry-wins-patent-battle-with-Motorola-in-Britain/​articleshow/​5533952.cms Carew, S., & Ando, R. (2010, June 11). Motorola, RIM End Patent Battle. Katonda News Network. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Katonda News Network Web site: http:/​/​www.katonda.com/​news/​11/​2010/​1256 Loblaw, R. (2007, April). A History of RIM... From Concept to Canada 's Most Valuable Company. Message July 24, 2010, posted to Crackberry.com: http:/​/​forumes.crackberry.com/​f2/​timeline-history-research-motion-7162/​ Research In Motion Limited (RIM). (2010, July 19). Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Wikipedia: http:/​/​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Research_In_Motion Research In Motion Ltd. Company History (2003). In International Directory of Company Histories (Vol. 54) Retrieved July 25, 2010, from Funding Universe Web site: http:/​/​www.fundinguniverse.com/​company-histories/​Research-in-motion-Ltd-Company-History.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    ACCTG 300 HW

    • 926 Words
    • 3 Pages

    W Inc, “W”, is a competitor of M International, “M”. In 2007, W filed a claim against M for patent infringement. By the end of that year, M estimated a $15-20 million loss, with $17 million being the most likely. On September 2009, a jury determined M has to pay $18.5 million in damages. Two months later, M filed an appeal to overturn the jury’s verdict. In December 2010, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of M and overturned the $18.5 million judgment. W filed a petition for a re-hearing in January 2011, but the matter was closed in February, after the appellate judges declined the petition.…

    • 926 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Mkt100 Textbook - Chapter 1

    • 15926 Words
    • 64 Pages

    Motion (RIM), is creating and delivering value to its consumers and shareholders with its BlackBerry.…

    • 15926 Words
    • 64 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    W Inc and your company have been engaged in litigation over a specific patent infringement matter.…

    • 1331 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Research in Motion - Rim

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Another instance in which RIM was forced to protect its Intellectual Property is RIM vs. Handspring (makers of the Palm Treo). On September 16, 2002, Research in Motion was awarded a patent pertaining to keyboard design on hand-held e-mail devices. Upon receiving the patent, it proceeded to sue Handspring over its Treo device. Handspring eventually agreed to license RIM's patent and avoid further litigation in November of the same year. In recent matters, Research in Motion has acknowledged that it records all employee conversations in the interest of maintaining their intellectual…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    (now Verizon; and a break off AT&T) is brought to court through a class action lawsuit claiming that the business is in violation of §1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act law by not competing with other telecommunications companies and allowing each company to monopolize their own market. The District Court dismissed the case on the basis that the plaintiff did not have enough evidence to prove that Bell Atlantic Corp. was “conspiring” to restrain competition and the plaintiffs needed more evidence that the company was acting in its own self-interest. The Second Court reversed that decision stating that it was enough just that there was no competition, and it was the company’s responsibility to bring forth evidence that they were not conspiring to do so. The case was then brought to the Supreme Court through a writ of…

    • 1564 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bus 508

    • 5882 Words
    • 24 Pages

    Arndt, M., Einhorn, B., & Culpan, T. (2010). The 50 most innovative companies. BusinessWeek, 4174, 34-40.…

    • 5882 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The case about misappropriation of a trade secret that I researched is Best Buy Co. v.…

    • 322 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Congoleum Case

    • 1056 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Stable cash flows with estimated total revenues increasing from 559.9 million in 1978 to 937.8 million in 1984 (Note also its strong intellectual property as shown by its numerous patents and ability to defend its patents against infringement supporting the stable cash flow projections)…

    • 1056 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    References: Forbes. (2010, March 10). Forbes, U. S. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from Forbes lists; World 's…

    • 2300 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Groupon

    • 3596 Words
    • 15 Pages

    Steiner, C.. "Meet the fastest growing company ever."Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 2011. Web. 26 Jun 2012. .…

    • 3596 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Alternative 3: Research in Motion Ltd. penetrates the market by outsourcing its tangential capabilities and promotes the pocket link with both value added resellers and their own sales team to encourage enterprises’ IT managers that the employees need to consume the product. This hybrid model is will encourage adoption at a steady growth. Value added resellers would encourage end users to consume the pocket link once market traction has commenced. Research in Motion’s sales team acts as the catalyst of market…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    MC has brought suit against CIP for supposedly violating patent rights that MC had patented in February of 1979 under the name of Butachlor (when actually they did not do so). MC had gotten a hold of a sample of CIP’s product and analyzed the product; with the analysis coming back that it had the same compounds as in MC’s products. MC has asked the court to find CIP in violation of their patents, while CIP has for MC’s patents be revoked.…

    • 636 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hr in China

    • 4628 Words
    • 19 Pages

    in the technology industry. Seven of the eight companies are headquartered in the United States…

    • 4628 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    * Patents limit new competition: Patents that cover vital technologies make it difficult for new competitors, because the best methods are patented. Patents positively affect Hong Kong Disneyland. ……

    • 532 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Poa Sba

    • 334 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Research in Motion, maker of the Blackberry smartphone and Samsung Inc. The business is open…

    • 334 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays