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
665
Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
666
The Court denied Macadam’s motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
667
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
668
The Company filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings on February 16, 2005.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
669
The Macadam bankruptcy case was converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation) on April 29, 2005.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
670
The Company has reached a settlement of Macadam’s claims against the Company with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
671
The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement on July 17, 2006 over the objection of Tom Santos, MacAdam’s principal.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
672
Santos has appealed the ruling approving the settlement.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
673
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
674
The Company filed a demurrer to Santos’ amended complaint and a special motion to strike the defamation cause of action on January 20, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
675
The Court sustained the demurrer in part but denied the special motion to strike.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
676
Santos filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
677
The Company filed a demurrer, which was granted on September 9, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
678
Santos filed a Seventh Amended Complaint in late September 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
679
The Company filed a motion to strike, which was granted in part and denied in part on December 15, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
680
The Company awaits an amended complaint.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
681
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
682
Macsolutions, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
683
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
684
The factual allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the Macadam case and the Branning class action.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
685
Principally, plaintiffs allege that the Company treated Macsolutions unfairly compared to other resellers, competed unfairly in opening the Apple retail stores and sold used goods as new.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
686
Macsolutions filed an amended complaint on June 5, 2006, adding Tech Data Corporation as a defendant.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
687
The Company filed an answer on July 5, 2006 generally denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
688
The case is in discovery.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
689
The case is set for trial on June 18, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
690
PhatRat Technology LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
691
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
692
The Company filed an answer on January 22, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
693
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
694
Premier International Associates LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
695
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 Nos.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
696
6,243,725 and 6,763,345 both entitled “List Building System.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
697
The Company filed an answer on January 13, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
698
The Company also asserted counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
699
A Markman hearing is set for May 17, 2007 and trial is scheduled for December 3, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
700
Quantum Technology Management, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
701
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
702
On May 11, 2006, Quantum filed an amended complaint adding Cypress Semiconductor/MicroSystems, Inc. as a defendant.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
703
On July 31, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses and also filed counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
704
On November 30, 2006 plaintiff filed a reply to the Company’s counterclaims and a More Definite Statement.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
705
A Markman hearing is set for May 16, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
706
Saito Shigeru Kenchiku Kenkyusho (Shigeru Saito Architecture Institute) v. iPod Plaintiff Saito filed a petition in the Japan Customs Office in Tokyo on January 23, 2007 alleging infringement by the Company of Japanese Patent No.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
707
3852854, entitled “Touch Operation Input Device and Electronic Parts Thereof.” The petition seeks an order barring the importation into Japan of fifth generation iPods and second generation iPod nanos.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
708
The Company’s responsive pleading is due February 6, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
709
St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
710
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 ...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
711
The Company has completed a refund program for this levy.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
712
A class certification hearing took place January 13, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
713
On February 24, 2006, the Court granted class certification and notice was published during the last week of March 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
714
Discovery is closed and the case is prepared for trial which the Company anticipates will take place in 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
715
Tse v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
716
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 of U.S. Patent number 6,665,797 entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” The complaint seeks unspecifi...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
717
The Company filed an answer on October 31, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
718
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
719
A Markman hearing has been scheduled for September 6, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
720
Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
721
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
722
The complaint alleges violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
723
§§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
724
(the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
725
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
726
On November 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
727
On December 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
728
On January 11, 2007, Apple filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
729
The Court scheduled a hearing on March 5, 2007 to determine whether to consolidate this case with Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. Union Fédérale des Consummateurs - - Que Choisir v. Apple Computer France S.à.r.l.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
730
and iTunes S.à.r.l.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
731
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
732
Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
733
The first hearing on the case took place on May 24, 2005.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
734
The Company’s response to the complaint was served on November 8, 2005.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
735
Plaintiff’s responsive pleading was filed on February 10, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
736
The Company filed a reply on June 6, 2006 and UFC filed a response on September 19, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
737
Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
738
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
739
The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising).
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
740
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
741
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 19, 2007.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
742
Vogel v. Jobs et al.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
743
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’ profi...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
744
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
745
On January 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
746
Defendants’ responses to the complaint are not yet due.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
747
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
748
v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed October 26, 2005, Los Angeles County Superior Court); Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed October 31, 2005, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York); Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed November 4, 2005, United States District Court for th...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
749
The federal actions were coordinated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to the Hon.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
750
Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
751
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
752
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...
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
753
Pursuant to stipulation, the Wimmer, Valencia, and Rappel federal complaints were dismissed without prejudice and the Mayo and Williamson complaints were administratively closed without prejudice.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
754
The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
755
The two California state actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
756
Carl West in Los Angeles Superior Court.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
757
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
758
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
759
The Company answered the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 6, 2006.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
760
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
761
The Royer-Brennan file was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the Carpentier file.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
762
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.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
763
Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. have served Notices of Intent to Defend.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20070202
10-Q
764
Item 1A.
0001104659-07-006648/full-submission.txt