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 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 644 | Trial took place from March 29, 2006 through April 5, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 645 | The parties await a ruling. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 646 | On October 8, 2003, the Company filed a lawsuit against Apple Corps in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California requesting a declaratory judgment that the Company has not breached the 1991 agreement. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 647 | Apple Corps challenged jurisdiction in the California case but the Court denied that challenge on March 25, 2004. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 648 | Apple Corps subsequently prevailed on a motion to stay the California case during the pendency of the U.K. action. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 649 | The Company has dismissed the California lawsuit without prejudice. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 650 | Bader v. Anderson; Bader v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 651 | Plaintiff filed this purported shareholder derivative action against the Company and each of its current executive officers and members of its Board of Directors on May 19, 2005 in Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, material misstatements and omissions, and violations of Ca... | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 652 | Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s March 14, 2005, proxy statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 653 | Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 654 | Plaintiff, who ostensibly brings suit on the Company’s behalf, has made no demand on the Board of Directors and alleges that such demand is excused. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 655 | Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other relief for purported injury to the Company. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 656 | On July 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that, in addition to the purported derivative claims, adoption of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy statement describing that plan also inflicted injury on her directly as an individual shareholder. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 657 | On January 10, 2006, the Court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the amended complaint, with leave to amend. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 658 | Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on February 7, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 659 | The Company filed a demurrer to that complaint on April 20, 2006 and a hearing is scheduled for June 13, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 660 | Baghdasarian, et al. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 661 | v. Apple Computer, Inc. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 662 | Plaintiffs filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on October 31, 2005, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of all Apple wireless products (router, modem, or adaptor) sold at any time. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 663 | The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented the transmission rates of these products. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 664 | The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of express warranty and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising). | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 665 | The complaint seeks damages and equitable remedies. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 666 | The Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses to the complaint on December 15, 2005. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 667 | Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 668 | These federal court complaints allege that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 669 | The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States Antitrust Court for the Western District of Louisiana on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers and alleges violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, breaches of implied warranties, unjust enrichment and neglige... | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 670 | The Patterson action was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States Antitrust Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 671 | That action alleges breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breaches of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation an... | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 672 | The Birdsong action has been transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to the same judge as in Patterson. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 673 | The Company’s responses to the Birdsong and Patterson complaints are not yet due. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 674 | A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 675 | Preliminary motions must be filed by May 5, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 676 | Branning et al. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 677 | v. Apple Computer, Inc. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 678 | Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on February 17, 2005. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 679 | The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to hono... | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 680 | Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song-Beverly Act. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 681 | Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 682 | On May 9, 2005, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 683 | On May 2, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.) | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 684 | and a claim for false advertising. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 685 | The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the Court sustained in its entirety on November 10, 2005. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 686 | The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on December 29, 2005. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 687 | Plaintiffs’ amended complaint added three plaintiffs and alleged many of the same factual claims as the previous complaints, such as alleged selling of used equipment as new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the opening of the Apple Reta... | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 688 | Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action for unfair competition (§17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and alleged new causes of action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 689 | The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on January 31, 2006, which the Court sustained on March 3, 2006 on sixteen of seventeen causes of action. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 690 | Butzer, et al. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 691 | v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Wirges v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Blackwell v. Apple Computer, Inc. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 692 | Plaintiffs filed the Butzer action on August 23, 2005, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the Company’s PowerBook G4 portable computers. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 693 | The complaint alleges defects in the memory of the computers. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 694 | The complaint alleges that this purported defect extends to other series of the Company’s portables and states that plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the complaint to include these other series. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 695 | Plaintiffs assert claims for alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 696 | The complaint seeks remedies including restitution and/or damages and injunctive relief. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 697 | The Wirges action was filed on January 20, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, also on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and makes similar allegations. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 698 | Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, strict products liability and unjust enrichment. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 699 | The complaint seeks restitution, damages and other remedies. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 700 | The Blackwell action was filed on February 10, 2006, on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and makes identical allegations to those made in the Butzer case. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 701 | Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the California CLRA, violation of the California Song-Beverly Act, false advertising and unfair competition. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 702 | The complaint seeks restitution, an injunction and other remedies. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 703 | The Company filed an answer to the Butzer complaint on October 19, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 704 | The case is in discovery. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 705 | The Company filed an answer to the Wirges action on February 28, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 706 | The Company has filed a motion to transfer the Wirges case to the Northern District of California. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 707 | The Company filed an answer to the Blackwell complaint on March 15, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 708 | Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 709 | ; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 710 | Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672 (the ‘672 patent). | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 711 | Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology-Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images-Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 712 | On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc. and two other companies, requesting a declaratory
judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, implied license and unenforceability with respect to th... | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 713 | Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 714 | On February 16, 2005, the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) granted a petition filed by certain defendants seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 715 | The MDL Panel has transferred all of the cases to the Northern District of California. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 716 | The defendants in the Texas and Delaware actions had filed motions to dismiss prior to the transfer and both motions are still pending. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 717 | A Markman hearing took place on March 9, 2006 and the parties await a ruling. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 718 | Contois Music Technology LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 719 | Plaintiff Contois Music Technology (“Contois”) filed this action on June 13, 2005 in the United States District Court for Vermont, alleging infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent No. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 720 | 5,864,868, entitled “Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices.” The complaint, which was served on October 4, 2005, seeks unspecified damages and other relief. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 721 | The Company filed an answer on November 23, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 722 | A Markman hearing is scheduled for June 13, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 723 | 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. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 724 | Both actions define the purported class as a national class consisting of all persons in Canada who have purchased or who own an iPod. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 725 | In addition, a similar complaint regarding iPod battery life, Hamiliton 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. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 726 | That complaint has not been served. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 727 | A motion for certification is set for June 9, 2006. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 728 | Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 729 | Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 730 | Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 731 | Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 732 | The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 733 | The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 734 | Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 735 | On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 736 | The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 737 | Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 738 | The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 739 | The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 740 | The Company appealed the ruling and the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 741 | The Court of Appeals denied the appeal on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 742 | The Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 23, 2005. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
0000320193 | 20060505 | 10-Q | 743 | The case has been remanded back to the trial court. | 0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.