cik
stringclasses
1 value
date
stringlengths
8
8
form
stringclasses
4 values
sentenceCount
int64
0
2.33k
sentence
stringlengths
2
5.25k
filename
stringlengths
40
40
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
669
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of California state consumer protection, unfair competition, false advertising and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
670
The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class of all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible to excessive scratching.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
671
The Company answered the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 6, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
672
Two similar complaints, Carpentier v. Apple Canada, Inc., and Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc. were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on October 27, 2005 and November 9, 2005, respectively, seeking authorization to institute class actions on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Quebec.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
673
The Royer-Brennan file was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the Carpentier file.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
674
A similar complaint, Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc., was filed in Ontario, Canada on January 9, 2006 seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Canada.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
675
Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. have served Notices of Intent to Defend.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
676
Individual Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
677
Plaintiff filed this action against the Company on April 24, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
678
7,117,516, entitled “Method and System for Providing a Customized Media List.” Plaintiff alleges certain features of the iTunes store infringe the patent.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
679
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
680
The Company filed an answer on July 2, 2007, denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
681
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, as well as a counterclaim against Individual Networks LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
682
5,724,567.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
683
The Markman hearing is set for October 8, 2008, and trial is scheduled for November 9, 2009.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
684
Intertainer, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
685
Plaintiff filed this action on December 29, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement by the Company and others of U.S. Patent number 6,925,469 entitled “Digital Entertainment Service Platform.” The complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
686
The Company filed an answer on February 21, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
687
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
688
The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
689
Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
690
Lenzi v. Apple Canada, Inc.; Wolfe v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.; Hirst v. Apple Canada, Inc.; Hamilton v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
691
Plaintiff filed a purported class action on June 7, 2005, in Superior Court, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada allegedly on behalf of Quebec customers claiming false advertising and breach of warranty relating to iPod battery life.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
692
Plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action on behalf of Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
693
On February 2, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion for authorization to institute a class action.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
694
Plaintiff has appealed this ruling.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
695
Two similar complaints relative to iPod battery life, Wolfe v. Apple and Hirst v. Apple, were filed in Toronto, Ontario, Canada on August 15, 2005 and September 12, 2005, respectively.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
696
Counsel subsequently amended the complaint, now called Waddell vs. Apple.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
697
The Waddell lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Canadian purchasers other than Quebec purchasers.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
698
On January 17, 2006, the Company filed its statement of defence to the Waddell complaint.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
699
In addition, a similar complaint regarding iPod battery life, Hamilton v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc. was filed in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on October 5, 2005, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of iPods in Alberta, Canada.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
700
The complaint was served on September 27, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
701
The Company has reached a settlement of this matter and the parties have requested preliminary court approval for the settlement.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
702
Settlement of this matter will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
703
Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Santos v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
704
The Macadam action was filed in late 2002 in Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting various causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, negligent and intentional interference with economic relationship, negligent misrepresentation, trade libel, unfair competition and false advertising.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
705
The complaint requested unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
706
The Company filed an answer on December 3, 2004 denying all allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
707
On October 1, 2003, Macadam was deauthorized as an Apple reseller.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
708
Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
709
The Court denied Macadam’s motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
710
On December 6, 2004, Macadam filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Northern District of California, which placed a stay on the litigation as to Macadam.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
711
The Company filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings on February 16, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
712
The Macadam bankruptcy case was converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation) on April 29, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
713
The Company has reached a settlement of Macadam’s claims against the Company with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
714
The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement on July 17, 2006 over the objection of Tom Santos, Macadam’s principal.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
715
Santos appealed the ruling approving the settlement, but the District Court denied the appeal.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
716
Santos has appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
717
On December 19, 2005, Tom Santos filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on his own behalf (not on behalf of Macadam) alleging fraud, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
718
The Company filed a demurrer to Santos’ amended complaint and a special motion to strike the defamation cause of action on January 20, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
719
The Court sustained the demurrer in part but denied the special motion to strike.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
720
Santos filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
721
The Company filed a demurrer, which was sustained on September 9, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
722
Santos filed a Seventh Amended Complaint in late September 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
723
The Company filed a motion to strike, which was granted in part and denied in part on December 15, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
724
Santos filed an Eighth Amended Complaint on January 29, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
725
The Company filed a demurrer, which was heard on May 7, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
726
The court sustained the demurrer, and Santos filed a Ninth Amended Complaint on July 11, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
727
The Company filed a demurrer, which was overruled.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
728
The Company’s answer to the Ninth Amended Complaint is not yet due.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
729
The Company also filed a cross complaint against Santos on January 20, 2006 alleging violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 and California Penal Code §502, fraud and deceit and breach of contract.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
730
Mediostream, Inc. v. Acer America Corp. et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
731
Plaintiff filed this action against the Company, Acer America Corp., Dell, Inc. and Gateway, Inc. on August 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
732
7,009,655, entitled “Method and System for Direct Recording of Video Information onto a Disk Medium.” An amended complaint was served on November 7, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
733
The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
734
On January 25, 2008, the Company filed an answer to the complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses and also filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
735
OPTi Inc. v. Apple Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
736
Plaintiff filed this action against the Company on January 16, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
737
5,710,906, 5,813,036 and 6,405,291, all entitled “Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
738
The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
739
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
740
The Markman hearing is set for November 26, 2008, and trial is scheduled for April 6, 2009.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
741
Quantum Technology Management, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
742
Plaintiff filed this action on December 21, 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and Fingerworks, Ltd., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
743
5,730,165 entitled “Time Domain Capacitive Field Detector.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
744
On May 11, 2006, Quantum filed an amended complaint adding Cypress Semiconductor/MicroSystems, Inc. as a defendant.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
745
On July 31, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses and also filed counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
746
On November 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a reply to the Company’s counterclaims and a More Definite Statement.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
747
A Markman hearing was held on May 16, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
748
On June 7, 2007, the Court issued a claim construction ruling, and also issued an order invalidating six of plaintiff’s asserted patent claims in response to the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
749
On November 28, 2007, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment for non-infringement and invalidity, and a motion for summary judgment related to Quantum’s state-law claims.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
750
On December 27, 2007, Quantum filed a motion for summary judgment for infringement on one patent claim.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
751
Trial is scheduled for May 19, 2008.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
752
Saito Shigeru Kenchiku Kenkyusho (Shigeru Saito Architecture Institute) v. iPod; Apple Japan Inc. v. Shigeru Saito Architecture Institute Plaintiff Saito filed a petition in the Japan Customs Office in Tokyo on January 23, 2007 alleging infringement by the Company of Japanese Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
753
3852854, entitled “Touch Operation Input Device and Electronic Parts Thereof.” The petition sought an order barring the importation into Japan of fifth generation iPods and second generation iPod nanos.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
754
The Customs Office held a hearing on March 22, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
755
The Customs Office rejected the petition to bar importation and dismissed plaintiff’s case.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
756
Apple Japan, Inc. filed a Declaratory Judgment action against Saito on February 6, 2007 in the Tokyo District Court, seeking a declaration that the ‘854 patent is invalid and not infringed.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
757
Saito filed a Counter Complaint for infringement seeking damages.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
758
SP Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
759
Plaintiff filed this action against the Company on August 2, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
760
6,784,873 entitled “Method and Medium for Computer Readable Keyboard Display Incapable of User Termination.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
761
The Company filed an answer on October 23, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
762
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
763
The Markman hearing is set for September 18, 2008, and trial is scheduled for June 1, 2009.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
764
St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
765
Plaintiff filed this case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on August 5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action for the refund by the Company of the Canadian Private Copying Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec between December 12, 2003 and December 14, 2004 but later declared invalid by the Canadian Court.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
766
The Company has completed a refund program for this levy.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
767
A class certification hearing took place January 13, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
768
On February 24, 2006, the Court granted class certification and notice was published during the last week of March 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt