Apple 2005 Annual Report Download - page 26

Tse v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.
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 6,665,797 entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against
Unauthorized Use.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on October 31, 2005 denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. On October 28, 2005, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
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 States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division);
Calado, et al. 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 the Northern District of California, San Jose Division).
These federal and state court complaints allege that the Company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during
normal use which renders the screen unreadable. The Wimmer and Moschella actions were brought on behalf of purported nationwide classes
of iPod nano purchasers, with the exception of California purchasers, and allege violations of the consumer protection, express and implied
warranty statutes of each state covered by the putative class definition, as well as negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under the
common laws of these jurisdictions. The Calado action was brought on behalf of a purported California class of iPod nano purchasers and
asserts claims for alleged violation 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
and unjust enrichment. The Jennings action was filed on behalf of a purported class of all iPod nano purchasers outside of the United States,
based upon alleged violations of the same California statutes as in the Calado complaint. The Kahan action was brought on behalf of a
purported New York class of iPod nano purchasers and alleges claims under the New York unfair competition law, breach of express warranty
and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages and various other remedies. The Company’s responses to these complaints are not yet
due.
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 a class action on behalf
of iPod nano purchasers in Quebec.
Union Federale des Consummateurs—Que Choisir v. Apple Computer France S.A.R.L. and iTunes S.A.R.L.
Plaintiff, a consumer association in France, filed this complaint on February 9, 2005 alleging that the entities above 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 Music Store
and that the music from the iTunes Music Store is only compatible with the iPod and 2) allegedly tying the sales of iPods to the iTunes Music
Store and vice versa. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief. The first hearing on the case took place on May 24, 2005. The
Company’s response to the complaint was served on November 8, 2005.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the Company
’s fiscal year ended September 24, 2005.
24