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
20061229
10-Q
850
A demurrer that the Company filed to the third amended complaint as well as a motion to disqualify the Company’s lawyers will be heard on January 30, 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
851
Baghdasarian, et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
852
v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
853
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
854
The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented the transmission rates of these products.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
855
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).
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
856
The complaint seeks damages and equitable remedies.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
857
On December 15, 2005, the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
858
The parties have reached a tentative settlement, which is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
859
Barry et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
860
v. Apple Computer, Inc. Two Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on May 16, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on behalf of a nationwide class of iPod purchasers between May 2002 and the present.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
861
The complaint alleged various problems with the iPod hard drive, including skipping and limited lifespan.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
862
Plaintiffs alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of warranties.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
863
The complaint sought damages and equitable relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
864
The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case, without prejudice, on September 18, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
865
Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
866
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
867
The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District 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...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
868
The Patterson action was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District 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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
869
That action alleged 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...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
870
The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
871
An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
872
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
873
Plaintiffs will not oppose the motion but instead will file a second amended complaint by January 15, 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
874
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
875
A hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for February 8 and 9, 2007, although Plaintiff counsel has now requested that the hearing be delayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the U.S. case.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
876
Branning et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
877
v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
878
Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on February 17, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
879
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...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
880
Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
881
Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
882
On May 9, 2005, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
883
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.)
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
884
and a claim for false advertising.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
885
The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the Court sustained in its entirety on November 10, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
886
The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on December 29, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
887
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...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
888
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
889
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
890
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
891
The Company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on September 9, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
892
Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on September 21, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
893
On October 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
894
The case is in discovery.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
895
Butzer, et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
896
v. Apple Computer, Inc.;Wirges v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Blackwell v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
897
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
898
The complaint alleged defects in the memory of the computers.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
899
The complaint alleged that this purported defect extends to other series of the Company’s portables and stated that plaintiffs reserved the right to amend the complaint to include these other series.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
900
Plaintiffs asserted 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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
901
The complaint sought remedies including restitution and/or damages and injunctive relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
902
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 made similar allegations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
903
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, strict products liability and unjust enrichment.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
904
The complaint sought restitution, damages and other remedies.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
905
The Blackwell action was filed on February 10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and made identical allegations to those made in the Butzer case.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
906
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the CLRA, violation of the Song-Beverly Act, false advertising and unfair competition.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
907
The complaint sought restitution, an injunction and other remedies.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
908
The Company filed an answer to the Butzer complaint on October 19, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
909
The Company filed an answer to the Wirges action on February 28, 2006, and also filed a motion to transfer the Wirges case to the Northern District of California.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
910
The Company filed an answer to the Blackwell complaint on March 15, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
911
The Company has reached a settlement with the named plaintiffs in all three cases and these matters are concluded.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
912
Settlement of these matters did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
913
Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.) The original Plaintiff (Slattery) filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
914
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
915
§§1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
916
(the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
917
Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
918
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
919
On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
920
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
921
On May 8, 2006, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for Slattery.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
922
In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen).
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
923
On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
924
The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
925
Contois Music Technology LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
926
Plaintiff Contois Music Technology 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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
927
5,864,868, entitled “Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices.” The complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
928
The Company filed an answer on November 23, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
929
A Markman hearing was held on June 13, 2006 and the court issued a claim construction ruling on July 24, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
930
The parties agreed to a settlement and the case was dismissed on August 18, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
931
This matter is now concluded.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
932
Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
933
Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on May 15, 2006, International Trade Comission), Creative Technology Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on May 15, 2006, United States District Court for the Northern District of California), Apple Computer, Inc. v. Creative Technology Ltd...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
934
On May 15, 2006, Creative also brought suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, also alleging that the iPod infringed the ‘433 patent.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
935
The District Court action was stayed pending resolution of the Creative ITC Action.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
936
On May 15, 2006, the Company brought suit against Creative in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (“Wisconsin Action”), alleging that Creative infringed U.S. patent number 5,479,602 (“‘602 patent”), U.S. patent number 5,586,237 (“‘237 patent”), U.S. patent number 5,898,434 (“‘434 pate...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
937
On May 17, 2006, the Company filed an amended complaint in the Wisconsin Action alleging that Creative also infringed U.S. patent number 5,341,293 (“‘293 patent”), U.S. patent number 6,047,342 (“‘342 patent”), and U.S. patent number 5,799,280 (“‘280 patent”).
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
938
On June 1, 2006, the Company brought suit against Creative in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, (“Texas Action”), alleging that Creative infringed U.S. patent number 6,157,363 (“‘363 patent”), U.S. patent number 5,640,566 (“‘566 patent”), and U.S. patent number 5,504,852 (“‘852 patent”...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
939
On June 27, 2006, the Company filed an amended complaint in the Texas Action alleging that Creative also infringed U.S. patent number 7,046,230 (“‘230 patent”) and U.S. patent number 6,282,646 (“‘646 patent”).
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
940
At the suggestion of the District Court, the Company filed separate actions in the Eastern District of Texas regarding the Company’s allegations relating to the ‘230 patent and the ‘646 patent.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
941
On June 1, 2006, the Company filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that Creative infringed the ‘230 patent, the ‘293 patent, and the ‘434 patent.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
942
On June 5, 2006, the Company filed an amended complaint with the ITC alleging that Creative also infringed the ‘646 patent.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
943
The parties reached a settlement of all of the above matters and all cases were dismissed as of October 13, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
944
These matters are concluded.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
945
Settlement of these matters did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
946
Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
947
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
948
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
949
Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt