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
20080723
10-Q
651
On November 19, 2007, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
652
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
653
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on January 25, 2008.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
654
The motions to dismiss were originally scheduled to be heard on April 4, 2008.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
655
Pursuant to a joint stipulation filed on April 3, 2008, the Court vacated the hearing date.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
656
No new hearing date is currently set.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
657
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
658
Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
659
and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc. On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
660
al., was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
661
A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
662
Derivative Litigation, No.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
663
1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
664
Joseph Huber.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
665
These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grant...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
666
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
667
A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement a...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
668
On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
669
On November 3, 2006, the Boston Retirement Board, a purported shareholder, filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Company in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara (Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer Inc.).
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
670
The petition sought to compel the Company to allow inspection of certain corporate records relating to the Company’s option practices and the Special Committee’s investigation.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
671
Following a trial held on September 24, 2007, the Court granted the petition for inspection but narrowed the scope of the records to be produced.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
672
On April 16, 2008, the Boston Retirement Board filed a derivative action in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
673
In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
674
v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc. Beginning on October 19, 2005, eight complaints w...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
675
The federal actions were coordinated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to the Hon.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
676
Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
677
Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated and Amended Master Complaint on September 21, 2006, alleging violations of California and other states’ consumer protection and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
678
The Master Complaint alleges two putative plaintiff classes: (1) all U.S. residents (excluding California residents) who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal resistance to scratching of the screen; and (2) all iPod nano purchasers other than U.S. reside...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
679
The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
680
The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
681
Carl West in Los Angeles Superior Court.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
682
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
683
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
684
The Company answered the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 6, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
685
The Court has scheduled the class certification hearing on the purported consumer class for September 26, 2008.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
686
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
687
The Royer-Brennan file was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the Carpentier file.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
688
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
689
Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. have served Notices of Intent to Defend.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
690
Individual Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
691
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
692
7,117,516, entitled “Method and System for Providing a Customized Media List.” Plaintiff alleges certain features of the iTunes store infringe the patent.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
693
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
694
The Company filed an answer on July 2, 2007, denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
695
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
696
5,724,567.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
697
The Markman hearing is set for October 8, 2008, and trial is scheduled for November 9, 2009.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
698
The Company has filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
699
7,117,516.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
700
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
701
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
702
Plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action on behalf of Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
703
On February 2, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion for authorization to institute a class action.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
704
Plaintiff appealed this ruling.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
705
The Company has reached a settlement of this matter and the parties have obtained final court approval for the settlement in Quebec.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
706
Settlement of this matter will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
707
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
708
Counsel subsequently amended the complaint, now called Waddell vs. Apple.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
709
The Waddell lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Canadian purchasers other than Quebec purchasers.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
710
On January 17, 2006, the Company filed its statement of defence to the Waddell complaint.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
711
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
712
The complaint was served on September 27, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
713
The Company has reached a settlement of these matters and the parties have obtained final court approval for the settlement in Ontario and Alberta.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
714
Settlement of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
715
Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Santos v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
716
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
717
The complaint requested unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
718
The Company filed an answer on December 3, 2004 denying all allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
719
On October 1, 2003, Macadam was deauthorized as an Apple reseller.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
720
Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
721
The Court denied Macadam’s motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
722
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
723
The Company filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings on February 16, 2005.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
724
The Macadam bankruptcy case was converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation) on April 29, 2005.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
725
The Company has reached a settlement of Macadam’s claims against the Company with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
726
The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement on July 17, 2006 over the objection of Tom Santos, Macadam’s principal.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
727
Santos appealed the ruling approving the settlement, but the District Court denied the appeal.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
728
Santos has appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
729
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
730
The Company filed a demurrer to Santos’ amended complaint and a special motion to strike the defamation cause of action on January 20, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
731
The Court sustained the demurrer in part but denied the special motion to strike.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
732
Santos filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
733
The Company filed a demurrer, which was sustained on September 9, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
734
Santos filed a Seventh Amended Complaint in late September 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
735
The Company filed a motion to strike, which was granted in part and denied in part on December 15, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
736
Santos filed an Eighth Amended Complaint on January 29, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
737
The Company filed a demurrer, which was heard on May 7, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
738
The court sustained the demurrer, and Santos filed a Ninth Amended Complaint on July 11, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
739
The Company filed a demurrer, which was overruled.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
740
The Company’s answer to the Ninth Amended Complaint is not yet due.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
741
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
742
Mediostream, Inc. v. Acer America Corp. et al.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
743
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
744
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
745
The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
746
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
747
OPTi Inc. v. Apple Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
748
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
749
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.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
750
The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt