Apple 2009 Annual Report Download - page 32

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 32 of the 2009 Apple annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 106

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106

Table of Contents
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses and also filed a motion to transfer the case to the
Northern District of California, which the Court denied. The Markman hearing is set for August 4, 2010 and trial is scheduled for January 4,
2011.
Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.
Plaintiff Nokia Corporation filed this action against the Company on October 22, 2009 in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,802,465, U.S. Patent No. 5,862,178, U.S. Patent No. 5,946,651, U.S. Patent No. 6,359,904,
U.S. Patent No. 6,694,135, U.S. Patent No. 6,755,548, U.S. Patent No. 6,882,727, U.S. Patent No. 7,009,940, U.S. Patent No. 7,092,672, and
U.S. Patent No. 7,403,621. The complaint alleges that these patents are essential to one or more of the GSM, UMTS and 802.11 wireless
communications standards, and that the Company has the right to license these patents from plaintiff on fair, reasonable, and non-
discriminatory
(“FRAND”) terms and conditions. Plaintiff seeks unspecified FRAND compensation and other relief. The Company’
s response to the complaint
is not yet due. The Company intends to defend the case vigorously.
OPTi Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Plaintiff filed this action against the Company on January 16, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,710,906, 5,813,036 and 6,405,291, all entitled “
Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for
Master-Initiated Accesses.”
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2007 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 took place on November 26, 2008 and the Court issued its Markman ruling on December 5,
2008. On April 3, 2009, the Court ruled that the accused computers sold between 2005 and 2007 infringed the ’
291 patent. A trial regarding
validity, damages and willfulness commenced on April 17, 2009. On April 23, 2009, the jury returned a verdict that the patent was valid and
willfully infringed, and awarded $19 million in damages. On May 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment, including a request for
enhanced damages based on the willfulness finding, seeking a total of $31 million plus attorneys’
fees. The Company has opposed that motion
and has filed its own motions for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial and/or remittitur, on the issues of validity,
willfulness and damages. The Court has not entered a judgment and has not set hearing dates for any of the pending motions.
Saito Shigeru Kenchiku Kenkyusho (Shigeru Saito Architecture Institute) v. iPod; Apple Japan Inc. v. Shigeru Saito Architecture Institute
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. 3852854, entitled “Touch Operation Input Device and Electronic Parts Thereof.”
The petition sought an order barring the
importation into Japan of fifth generation iPods and second generation iPod nanos. The Customs Office held a hearing on March 22, 2007. The
Customs Office rejected the petition to bar importation and dismissed plaintiff’s case.
Apple Japan, Inc. filed a Declaratory Judgment action against Saito on February 6, 2007 in the Tokyo District Court, seeking a declaration that
the ‘
854 patent is invalid and not infringed. Saito filed a Counter Complaint for infringement seeking damages. Plaintiff filed a motion to add
new accused products into the case, which the Court granted at a hearing on June 30, 2009.
St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.
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
29