RIM Loses Patent Lawsuit, Ordered To Pay $147.2 Million

Research in Motion has lost an expensive patent battle against Mformation Technologies. Jurors found that the Canadian cellular manufacturer infringed on remote device management software patent held by the New Jersey based information technologies firm.

The patent judge overseeing the case has ordered RIM to pay $147.2 million however the company will file an appeal to reverse the verdict.

The remote device management software in question is used to power RIM’s BlackBerry Enterprise Server, allowing companies to remotely manage their employees’ Blackberry Devices.

Mformation sued RIM in 2008 after the company claims to have met with RIM and disclosed its technology during the course of licensing negotiations. RIM denies stealing the technology and denies any wrongdoing.

After being found guilty Research In Motion was ordered to pay a royalty of $8 per device sold, with 18.4 million units old the cost to date is $147.2 million. Analysts expect that the costs of the royalty payments to double or even triple over the coming years.

Following the lawsuit Mformation founder Rakesh Kushwaha said in a statement:

“Mformation created the mobile device management category in the late 1990s and was innovating in this area well before most of the market understood the fundamental importance of wireless mobility management. Our patents are a core part of our innovative products, and are fundamental to the methods used for device management in the market today.”

RIM responded to the jury’s verdict by noting that it “is disappointed by the outcome and is evaluating all legal options. Additionally, the trial judge has yet to decide certain legal issues that might impact the verdict. RIM will await those rulings before deciding whether to pursue an appeal.”

RIM continued:

“RIM has worked hard for many years to independently develop its leading-edge BlackBerry technology and industry-leading intellectual property portfolio, and RIM does not believe that the Mformation patent in question is valid.”