Apple 2009 Annual Report Download - page 30

Table of Contents
demurrer to the new reseller claims, which the Court heard on January 30, 2009. The Court sustained the demurrer as to all plaintiffs except one,
with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an Eighth Amended Complaint further amending the reseller claims on February 24, 2009, and on March 26,
2009, the Company filed a demurrer which was overruled, and a motion to strike which was denied. The Company filed motions for summary
adjudication for certain claims of two named plaintiffs, which the Court granted on November 10, 2008. Plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeal
for a writ of certiorari from the summary adjudication ruling and a motion to stay the class certification hearing, which the Court of Appeal
denied on December 17, 2008. On December 19, 2008, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs’
class certification motion. The Court requested
further briefing and an additional hearing, which did not take place because on February 23, 2009, Hon. Jamie A. Jacobs-
May disqualified
herself from the case. The Company filed a petition for a writ of mandate from this order, which the Court of Appeal denied on May 19, 2009.
The case has been reassigned to Hon. Joseph H. Huber. The class certification hearing on the consumer-
related claims took place on July 14,
2009. The Company has filed two additional motions for summary adjudication as to all of the named plaintiffs’
claims. The Company has also
filed a motion to sever the consumer class and the reseller class for the purpose of trial. Plaintiffs’
motion for class certification of the reseller
class is due November 16, 2009.
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. On February 3, 2009, the Court stayed the proceedings pending the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s allowance of the ‘
671 reissue
patent. On July 7, 2009, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. On September 19, 2009, the
Company filed a motion to vacate the Markman hearing set for October 28, 2009, given the still pending reissue proceeding regarding U.S.
Patent No. 6,753,671.
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 No. 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 has been postponed and has not been rescheduled.
27