Apple 2008 Annual Report Download - page 30

Table of Contents
pleadings, which the Court denied. Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19, 2008 and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on
April 1, 2008. The Company filed an answer to the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 18, 2008. The Company filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings for an order dismissing plaintiffs
’ fraud claim based upon the statute of limitations, which was granted by the Court
on June 24, 2008, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2008 and a Seventh Amended Complaint on
August 22, 2008, adding three new reseller plaintiffs. On September 22, 2008, the Company filed its answer to the consumer-related claims
denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses, and also filed a demurrer to the new reseller claims. The Company has filed
motions for summary adjudication of two named plaintiffs’ claims, which were heard on October 14, 2008. The Court requested further briefing
on the motions for summary adjudication. On August 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the consumer class and on October 10, 2008,
the Company filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. The class certification hearing is set for December 19, 2008.
Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.
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. The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter, including fraying, sparking, and premature
failure. Plaintiff alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of warranties. The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief. The Company filed an
answer on October 20, 2006 denying the material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has reached a
settlement of this matter and the parties have received preliminary court approval for the settlement. The parties await final court approval for the
settlement.
Harvey v. Apple Inc.
Plaintiff filed this action on August 6, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging
infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent No. 6,753,671 entitled “Recharger for use with a portable electronic device and which includes a
proximally located light emitting device” and U.S. Patent No. 6,762,584 entitled “Recharger for use with a portable electronic device and which
includes a connector terminus for communicating with rechargeable batteries contained within the device.” The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on October 12, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative
defenses. The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. On April 7, 2008, plaintiff
filed an amended complaint further alleging infringement of the reissue patent of U.S. Patent No. 6,753,671. On April 28, 2008, the Company
filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company also asserted counterclaims for
declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The Markman hearing is set for October 28, 2009, and trial is scheduled for April 5,
2010.
Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
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.” Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004
denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal
display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. The
Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due. On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether
the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent. On
October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-
infringement based on the contention that its suppliers are licensed
under the ‘371 patent. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for December 19, 2008.
27