Q. On December 11, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (the "CAFC") issued a decision that affirmed a lower court ruling that
granted, to LG, Summary Judgment of non-infringement of WiLAN's V-Chip patent
(the "V-Chip Patent"). What is WiLAN's initial reaction to the decision by the
CAFC?
WiLAN disagrees with the decision reached by the CAFC. WiLAN has discussed this
patent with the inventor Professor Tim Collings and with its own legal experts
and continues to steadfastly believe that LG televisions infringe the method
taught in the patent. Accordingly WiLAN is extremely surprised and
disappointed with this decision.


Q. Can WiLAN appeal the CAFC's decision?

WiLAN has a number of possible avenues for addressing this decision and is
considering its options at this point. WiLAN does plan to take some form of
action. Investors should understand that disclosure of certain information
related to the strategies and tactics that WiLAN may use to address certain
matters in our licensing programs could telegraph our next steps to third
parties. Telegraphing our next steps could negatively impact the company and
its shareholders. To protect our ability to act in the best interests of the
company and its shareholders, we cannot comment on all of the options that we
are considering, or planning to implement.



Q. Will the CAFC ruling impact the revenue that WiLAN is currently receiving
from V-Chip licensees?

WiLAN does not expect revenue from these agreements to be impacted by the CAFC
ruling.



Q. Does the CAFC decision impact the validity of WiLAN's V-Chip Patent?

No. The CAFC decision does not impact the validity of the WiLAN's V-Chip
Patent.



Q. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") completed a
re-examination of WiLAN's V-Chip Patent. The re-exam confirmed the validity of
all the claims in the patent along with more than 30 new claims (the
"Re-examined Patent"). How is the CAFC decision relevant to the Re-examined
Patent?
As the original summary judgment ruling by the lower court considered only the
original form of the V-Chip patent and the re-examination of the V-Chip patent
by the USPTO was not completed until after WiLAN filed its appeal, there was no
way to get the Re-examined Patent before the CAFC. We believe these new claims
in the Re-examined Patent make it even more clear that suppliers' TVs infringe
the V-Chip Patent, regardless of whether a ratings table is pre-loaded or not.
We are now actively licensing the Re-examined Patent.


Q. Was WiLAN satisfied with its counsel's work in this case?

WiLAN has a lot of experience with this type of litigation and believes its
counsel did a very good job in this case.



Q. Any final comments related to the CAFC decision?

In a nutshell WiLAN views this decision as a surprising setback but also
believes the V-Chip program and moreover the TV and Display program are still
very viable licensing programs. Regardless of the ruling, licensees should
still see significant value in taking licenses to WiLAN's TV and Display
portfolio.

Q. What do you think the effect of the CAFC ruling will be on the overall TV and
Display licensing program?

WiLAN does not believe that this ruling should have a serious impact on its TV
licensing program. WiLAN now has over 1000 issued and pending patents in its TV
program, a number of which it believes are infringed by TVs sold throughout the
world including by LG. WiLAN is not dependent on any one patent. WiLAN has
recently initiated litigation on two patent families unrelated to the V-Chip
patent family against Toshiba and LG. Moreover, WiLAN's V-Chip Patent is far
from finished. Because WiLAN now has a Re-examined Patent that has new stronger
claims, WiLAN is focusing and will continue to focus on that patent in the
future. It is also important to remember that the lower court in this case
suggested that if and when U.S. ratings tables are updated, if ever, LG TVs may
infringe the patent regardless of his ruling. The ruling by the lower court said
"This additional information would not be pre-programmed into any device,
including LG's, and the method described in the '402 patent therefore would have
to be employed to "update" the device with the new information, of which the
device necessarily would have "no advanced knowledge." Accordingly, any such
addition could very well fall within claim 7's method, and might infringe if it
were not otherwise appropriately licensed."


http://www.wilan.com/investors/investor-faqs/default.aspx