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
20070202
10-Q
565
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
566
§§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
567
(the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
568
Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
569
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
570
On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
571
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
572
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
573
In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen).
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
574
On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
575
The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
576
The Court scheduled a hearing on March 5, 2007 to determine whether to consolidate this case with Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
577
Plaintiffs Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Technology, Inc. and Cisco-Linksys LLC filed this action on January 10, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company is infringing Cisco’s “iPhone” trademark.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
578
The complaint includes causes of action for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition and other related claims.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
579
Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
580
The Company’s response is not yet due.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
581
Cisco Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
582
Plaintiff Cisco Technology, Inc. filed a claim in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in London on January 12, 2007 alleging that the Company is infringing Cisco’s “iPhone” trademark.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
583
Cisco seeks an injunction, unspecified damages, and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
584
The Company’s response to the complaint is due on February 21, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
585
European Commission Investigation The European Commission has notified the Company it is investigating certain matters relating to the iTunes Store in the European Union (“EU”).
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
586
The European Commission is investigating claims made by Which?, a United Kingdom (“U.K.”) consumer association, that the Company is violating EU competition law by charging more for online music in the U.K. than in Eurozone countries and preventing U.K. consumers from purchasing online music from the iTunes Store for E...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
587
The Which?
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
588
claims were originally lodged with the U.K. Office of Fair Trading, which subsequently referred them to the European Commission.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
589
The European Commission is investigating the charges under Articles 81 and 82 of the European Commission Treaty.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
590
Euro Tec Enterprises, Inc. et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
591
v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
592
This is a purported class action copyright infringement case filed on May 16, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by certain independent music publishers against the Company and several other defendants for allegedly failing to secure a compulsory license for copyrighted musi...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
593
Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks an injunction, damages and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
594
The Company filed an answer on July 28, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
595
The case is in discovery and is set for trial on November 13, 2007 if no class is certified or on June 10, 2008 if a class is certified.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
596
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 23, 2006 and the Company filed an amended answer on November 28, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
597
Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
598
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on August 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of consumers who purchased 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and Powerbooks between November 2002 and the present.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
599
The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter, including fraying, sparking, and premature failure.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
600
Plaintiffs allege violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of warranties.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
601
The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
602
The Company filed an answer on October 20, 2006 denying the material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
603
Mediation is set for March 13, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
604
Greaves v. Apple Computer, Inc. On June 30, 2006 plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of a purported class of California purchasers alleging discoloration of the MacBook case.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
605
Plaintiff asserts claims under California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and misrepresentation.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
606
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
607
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 16, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
608
The Company filed an answer on October 3, 2006 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
609
Honeywell International, Inc., et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
610
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
611
Plaintiffs Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. filed this action on October 6, 2004 in the United States District Court in Delaware alleging infringement by the Company and other defendants of U.S. Patent 5,280,371 entitled “Directional Diffuser for a Liquid Crystal Display.” Plain...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
612
The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
613
The Company has tendered the case to several LCD manufacturer suppliers.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
614
On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
615
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
616
Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
617
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
618
Derivative Litigation (formerly Karant v. Jobs, et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
619
and Related Actions) (Federal Action) On June 30, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Karant v. Jobs, et.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
620
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
621
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
622
Derivative Litigation, Master File No.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
623
C-06-04128-JF before the Hon.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
624
Jeremy Fogel.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
625
A Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed on December 18, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
626
The action purports 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 grants,...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
627
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
628
The consolidated complaint alleges various causes of action under federal and California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, rescission, constructive fraud and waste of corporate assets, as well as c...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
629
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement, restitution and imposition of a constructive trust.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
630
The actions were filed after the Company’s announcement on June 29, 2006 that an internal investigation had discovered irregularities related to the issuance of certain stock option grants made between 1997 and 2001, that a special committee of the Company’s outside directors had retained independent counsel to perform...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
631
The Company’s response to the Consolidated Complaint is not yet due and plaintiffs have indicated that they will seek to file an amended complaint.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
632
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
633
Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
634
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
635
al., was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
636
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
637
Derivative Litigation, No.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
638
1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
639
Joseph Huber.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
640
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
641
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
642
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
643
On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
644
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 County (Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer Inc.).
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
645
The petition seeks to compel the Company to allow inspection of certain corporate records relating to the Company’s option practices and the Special Committee’s investigation.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
646
On January 16, 2007, the Company filed a demurrer to the petition.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
647
Intertainer, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
648
Plaintiff Intertainer, Inc. 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 of U.S. Patent number 6,925,469 entitled “Digital Entertainment Service Platform.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
649
The Company’s response to the complaint is not yet due.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
650
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
651
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
652
Plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action on behalf of Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
653
On February 2, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion for authorization to institute a class action.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
654
Plaintiff has appealed this ruling, and the appeal will be heard on February 22, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
655
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
656
Counsel subsequently amended the complaint, now called Waddell vs. Apple.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
657
The Waddell lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Canadian purchasers other than Quebec purchasers.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
658
On January 17, 2006, the Company filed its statement of defence to the Waddell complaint.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
659
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
660
The complaint was served on September 27, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
661
Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc; Santos v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Santa Clara County Superior Court) Plaintiff filed this action in late 2002 asserting various causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, negligent and intentional interference with economic relationship, negligent misrepresentation, trade libel,...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
662
Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
663
The Company filed an answer on December 3, 2004 denying all allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
664
On October 1, 2003, Macadam was deauthorized as an Apple reseller.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt