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
1,050
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,051
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,052
Plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action on behalf of Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,053
On February 2, 2006, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s motion for authorization to institute a class action.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,054
Plaintiff has appealed this ruling, and the appeal will be heard on February 22, 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,055
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,056
Both actions define the purported class as a national class consisting of all persons in Canada who have purchased or who own an iPod.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,057
Counsel has proposed an amended complaint to which the Company has not consented.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,058
In addition, a similar complaint regarding iPod battery life, Hamilton v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc. was filed in Alberta, Calgary, Canada on October 5, 2005, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of iPods in Alberta, Canada.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,059
That complaint has not been served.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,060
MacTech Systems v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Elite Computers and Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc.; MacAccessory Center, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Creative Online Computer...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,061
Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,062
The Company answered the Computer International complaint on November 12, 2003, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,063
The Company filed an answer in the Macadam case on December 3, 2004 denying all allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,064
Three of the other Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on February 7, 2005, and on March 16, 2005 the Company filed answers to these claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,065
A sixth Plaintiff, MacAccessory Center, filed a complaint on February 23, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,066
The Company filed an answer to this complaint on April 20, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,067
On February 28, 2006, MacGuys and Creative Online filed complaints against the Company.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,068
All of these cases with the exception of Macadam were coordinated for discovery (along with the Branning class action) in Santa Clara Superior Court.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,069
The Elite, Neighborhood Computer Store, MacTech and MacAccessory cases were set for trial on November 27, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,070
The Company has reached settlements with Computer International, MacTech Systems, Elite Computers and Software, Inc., MacAccessory Center, Inc., The Neighborhood Computer Store, Creative Online Computer Services, Inc., and MacGuys, Inc. and these matters are concluded.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,071
These settlements 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
1,072
On October 1, 2003, one of the reseller Plaintiffs, Macadam, was deauthorized as an Apple reseller.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,073
Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,074
The Court denied Macadam’s motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,075
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 only.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,076
The Company filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings on February 16, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,077
The Macadam bankruptcy case was converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation) on April 29, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,078
The Company has reached a settlement of the Macadam case with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,079
The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement on July 17, 2006 over the objection of Tom Santos, MacAdam’s principal.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,080
Santos has appealed the ruling approving the settlement.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,081
On December 19, 2005, Tom Santos, who was an original plaintiff in the Macadam case, 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 adverti...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,082
The Company filed a demurrer to Santos’ amended complaint and a special motion to strike the defamation cause of action on January 20, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,083
Those motions were heard on February 17, 2006, and the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to one cause of action, overruled the demurrer as to one cause of action and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to two causes of action.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,084
The Court also denied the special motion to strike.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,085
Santos filed a further amended complaint on July 14, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,086
The Company filed a demurrer, which was granted on September 9, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,087
Santos filed an amended complaint.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,088
The Company filed a motion to strike, which was granted in part and denied in part on December 15, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,089
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.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,090
Macsolutions, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,091
Plaintiff Macsolutions, Inc., a former Apple authorized reseller, filed this lawsuit against the Company on January 20, 2006 alleging breach of contract, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with economic advantage, violation of the Cartwright Act, violation of California Business & Profes...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,092
The factual allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the eight other reseller cases and the Branning class action.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,093
Principally, Plaintiffs allege that the Company treated Macsolutions unfairly compared to other resellers, that the Company has competed unfairly in opening the Apple retail stores, and has allegedly sold used goods as new.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,094
Macsolutions filed an amended complaint on June 5, 2006, adding Tech Data Corporation as a defendant.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,095
The Company filed an answer on July 5, 2006 generally denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,096
The case is in discovery.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,097
The case is set for trial on June 18, 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,098
PhatRat Technology LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,099
Plaintiff PhatRat Technology LLC filed this action on October 24, 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging infringement of U.S. Patent number 6,499,000 entitled “System and Method for Determining Loft Time, Speed, Height and Distance,” U.S. Patent number 6,885,971 entitled “Methods...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,100
The Company’s response to the complaint is not yet due.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,101
Premier International Associates LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,102
Plaintiff Premier International Associates LLC filed this action on November 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent numbers 6,243,725 and 6,763,345 both entitled “List Building System.” The complaint seeks uns...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,103
The Company filed an answer on January 13, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,104
The Company also asserted counter claims for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,105
A Markman hearing is set for May 17, 2007 and trial is scheduled for December 3, 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,106
Quantum Technology Management, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,107
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 number 5,730,165 entitled “Time Domain Capacitive Field Detector.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,108
On May 11, 2006, Quantum filed an amended complaint adding Cypress Semiconductor/MicroSystems, Inc. as a defendant.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,109
On July 31, 2006 the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses and also filed counterclaims for non-infringment and invalidity.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,110
On November 30, 2006 Plaintiff filed a reply to the Company’s counterclaims and a More Definite Statement.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,111
St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,112
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 ...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,113
The Company has completed a refund program for this levy.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,114
A class certification hearing took place January 13, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,115
On February 24, 2006, the Court granted class certification and notice was published during the last week of March 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,116
Discovery is closed and the case is prepared for trial, which the Company anticipates will take place in 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,117
Tse v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,118
Plaintiff Ho Keung Tse filed this action against the Company and other defendants on August 5, 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland alleging infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent number 6,665,797 entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” The complaint ...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,119
The Company filed an answer on October 31, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,120
On October 28, 2005, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which was granted on August 31, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,121
Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,122
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on July 21, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or mainte...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,123
The complaint alleges violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,124
§§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,125
(the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,126
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,127
On November 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was heard on November 20, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,128
On December 20, 2006, the court denied the motion to dismiss.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,129
Union Federale des Consummateurs - - Que Choisir v. Apple Computer France s.à.r.l.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,130
and iTunes s.à.r.l.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,131
Plaintiff, a consumer association in France, filed this complaint on February 9, 2005 alleging that the above-listed entities are violating consumer law by (1) omitting to mention that the iPod is allegedly not compatible with music from online music services other than the iTunes Store and that the music from the iTun...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,132
Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,133
The first hearing on the case took place on May 24, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,134
The Company’s response to the complaint was served on November 8, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,135
Plaintiff’s responsive pleading was filed on February 10, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,136
The Company filed a reply on June 6, 2006 and UFC filed a response on September 19, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,137
Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,138
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on November 7, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer’s logic board fails at an abnormally high rate.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,139
The complaint alleges violations of 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
1,140
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,141
The Company’s response to the complaint is not yet due.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,142
Vogel v. Jobs et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,143
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on August 24, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profit...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,144
The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock from December 1, 2005 through August 11, 2006, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,145
A motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel was scheduled to be heard on December 4, 2006 but was taken off calendar when the case was re-assigned to the Hon.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,146
Jeremy Fogel.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,147
The motion therefore is still pending.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,148
Defendants’ responses to the complaint are not yet due.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,149
Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc. (originally filed as Tomczak v. Apple Computer, Inc. on October 19, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division; amended complaint filed October 26, 2005); Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed October 26, 2005 United Sta...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt