WI-LAN INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF LICENSE

AGREEMENTS FROM HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, AND EXEDEA INC.

Wi-LAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) brings this motion to compel production of certain license

agreements that HTC Corporation, HTC America, and Exedea Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) have

not produced on the basis of third-party confidentiality obligations. HTC does not oppose this

motion.

A defendant’s relevant patent licenses may be relevant to damages issues in this case.

Defendant HTC has produced some, but not all, such licenses to which it is a party. On June 28,

2012, the parties conducted a meet-and-confer to discuss the status of HTC’s production of

licenses related to cellular communications technology (“HTC licenses”). Counsel for HTC

informed Wi-LAN that some HTC licenses contain provisions prohibiting disclosure to third

parties without either (1) consent of the other party or (2) a specific court order. Counsel for

HTC further explained that HTC had requested consent from the relevant parties for all licenses

that require consent, but that consent had not been obtained for all such licenses. In a July 6,

2012 letter to Wi-LAN, HTC’s counsel identified seventeen licenses (or groups of related

licenses) for which consent had not been obtained and confirmed that HTC will not produce

those license agreements “without third-party consent or an appropriate court order.” (

See

Exhibit A to Declaration of Ajeet P. Pai, attached hereto.) Consent was later obtained by HTC to

produce two of the seventeen licenses or groups of licenses, leaving approximately fifteen

withheld licenses or groups of licenses at issue.

Given the stage of discovery and impending deadlines set by the Court’s Docket Control

Order—including the August 24, 2012 deadline for expert disclosures and upcoming depositions

concerning licensing and damages topics—Wi-LAN cannot continue to wait for additional third

parties to provide consent. Moreover, HTC cannot guarantee that third parties who have thus far

failed to consent to production of relevant licenses will provide consent in the near future, if

ever. Such licenses may be produced subject to the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 145) entered in

this case, which will provide adequate protection of any third-party confidential information.

Wi-LAN therefore respectfully requests that the Court order HTC to promptly produce

each license agreement identified in HTC’s July 6, 2012 letter to Wi-LAN that has not already

been produced.

Finally, Counsel for HTC informed Wi-LAN that HTC is determining whether it has

entered into any additional patent licenses relevant to cellular communications technology since

the date of its previous collection of licenses. Counsel for HTC was unable to confirm that, to

the extent consent is required to produce any such additional licenses, such consent would be

granted. Accordingly, to avoid the need for a subsequent Motion to Compel on same issue

currently before the Court, Wi-LAN respectfully requests that the Court also order HTC to

produce such any such potentially relevant patent license which HTC locates but cannot produce

absent a court order or third-party consent.

Dated: July 12, 2012