Wallace, who was representing NTP at the demonstration in 2003, said NTP attorneys were able to show that the demonstration was using software from 1993, which they noticed because the file directory's size was far too large to be from an earlier SAM software from 1988.

RIM's appeal of the initial case argued that the judge's decision to throw out the demonstration was "an abuse of discretion" since TekNow clearly had software for SAM from the 1980s and that the post-1991 directory dates of the demonstration software "occurred merely because TekNow's license-protection software automatically updates the directory dates with each new installation of the SAM software."

Long, who was not at the 2003 trial, said there was "nothing fraudulent, and it was simply a mistake in copying over the file." He said RIM was able to successfully run the demonstration after the trial with 1980s software and provide evidence of prior art.

Yet Wallace retorted in a separate interview, "How does Long's statement square with RIM appealing, and losing, this issue?"

It is against this backdrop that RIM and NTP present oral arguments in federal court, yet again, on Feb. 24.