Apple 2009 Annual Report Download - page 34

Table of Contents
tying claim. On July 17, 2009, the Court invited the Company to file a motion for reconsideration of the certification of an injunctive-
relief class
or a motion to strike plaintiffs’
prayer for the type of injunctive relief sought. On August 3, 2009, the Company filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings as to the plaintiffs’
Rule of Reason tying claim. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration and
denial of an injunctive relief class. The Company also filed a motion seeking decertification of the Rule 23(b)(3) damages class or alternatively
for leave to move for reconsideration. A hearing on the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs’
Rule of Reason tying
claim took place on October 5, 2009.
A related complaint, Somers v. Apple Inc
., was filed on December 31, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers, 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 maintenance of monopoly market power.
The complaint alleges violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.
(the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On February 21, 2008, the Company filed an answer
denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses. On February 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on
April 20, 2009, the Company filed its opposition to that motion. An evidentiary hearing on the class certification motion took place on June 30,
2009. On July 17, 2009, the Court denied certification of plaintiff’s damage claims and deferred ruling on certification of plaintiff’
s injunctive
claims pending resolution of the additional briefing requested by the Court, which is described above.
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 of U.S. Patent No. 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, which was granted on August 31, 2006. On July 24, 2007, the Company filed a petition for
reexamination of the patent, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted. On July 25, 2007, the Company filed a motion to stay the
litigation pending the outcome of the reexamination, which the Court granted on October 4, 2007. On July 21, 2009, the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office issued a final Office Action rejecting all asserted claims except for claim 16. On September 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a Notice
of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences from the final Office Action. The Court action remains stayed pending plaintiff’
s
appeal.
Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.
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. The
complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions
Code §17500 (false advertising). Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 19,
2007, which the Court granted on March 13, 2007. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2007. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss on August 16, 2007, which was heard on October 4, 2007. The Court has not yet issued a ruling.
Vogel v. Jobs et al. (2006 Action)
Plaintiffs 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
31