Apple 2010 Annual Report Download - page 26

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 26 of the 2010 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 118

  • 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
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118

Table of Contents
three patents, and awarding damages of $208 million per patent. The jury also found the infringement had been willful. The court has
scheduled post verdict motions, and has set a hearing date of December 9, 2010. The Company is challenging the verdict, and will be filing a
request for judgment as a matter of law, remittitur, and in the alternative, a request for a new trial.
Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Motorola Mobility Inc. (“Motorola”)
filed complaints against the Company in the United States District Court for the Districts of Florida,
Illinois, Delaware and in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).
These complaints include claims of patent infringement related to certain
of the Company’
s products. Motorola alleges that certain of its asserted patents are essential to one or more of the GSM, UMTS, 802.16e and
802.11 wireless communications standards, and acknowledges its commitment to license these patents on fair, reasonable, and non-
discriminatory (“FRAND”)
terms and conditions. Motorola seeks unspecified FRAND compensation, damages and other declaratory and
injunctive relief in these pending district court actions as well as an exclusion order from the ITC. These cases are currently pending.
Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.; Apple Inc. v. Nokia Corporation
Nokia Corporation (
“Nokia”)
and the Company have asserted multiple claims against one another in lawsuits pending in the United States
District Courts for the Districts of Delaware and Wisconsin, in the ITC, in the United Kingdom High Court of Justice and the German Patent
Court in Dusseldorf. These cases include claims and counterclaims by Nokia and the Company of patent infringement related to iPhones, iPods,
iPads and Apple computers, and Nokia’
s mobile computing devices. Nokia alleges that certain of its asserted patents are essential to one or more
of the GSM, UMTS and 802.11 wireless communications standards, and acknowledges its commitment to license them on FRAND terms and
conditions. Nokia seeks unspecified FRAND compensation, damages and other declaratory and injunctive relief in these pending District Court
actions as well as an exclusion order from the ITC. The Company also has asserted claims and counterclaims for declaratory judgments of non-
infringement and invalidity of Nokia’s asserted patents as well as for breach of contract, promissory estoppel and antitrust violations.
The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.); Somers v. Apple
Inc.
The first-
listed action is a consolidated case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California combining two cases
previously pending under the names Charoensak v. Apple Computer Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc ., filed on January 3, 2005
)
and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc . (filed on July 21, 2006). The second listed action is a related complaint, Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
which was
filed on December 31, 2007, also in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These cases have been filed on behalf
of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying
of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market
power and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California
Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California monopolization law.
The cases are currently pending.
Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al.
On August 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a purported shareholder class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors, alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to
maximize certain defendants’
profits, failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false financial statements. On June 27, 2008,
plaintiffs filed another, similar purported shareholder class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
parties have reached a settlement and have obtained preliminary court approval.
23