AAPL » Topics » Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed May 5, 2006.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672 (the ‘672 patent). Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

 

On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc. and two other companies, requesting a declaratory

 

37



 

judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, implied license and unenforceability with respect to the ‘672 patent. Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. On February 16, 2005, the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) granted a petition filed by certain defendants seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings. The MDL Panel has transferred all of the cases to the Northern District of California. The defendants in the Texas and Delaware actions had filed motions to dismiss prior to the transfer and both motions are still pending. A Markman hearing took place on March 9, 2006 and the parties await a ruling.

 

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Feb 3, 2006.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672 (the ‘672 patent). Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

 

On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc. and two other companies, requesting a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, implied license, and unenforceability with respect to the ‘672 patent.  Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. On February 16, 2005, the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) granted a petition filed by certain defendants, seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings. The MDL Panel has transferred all of the cases to the Northern District of California. The defendants in the Texas and Delaware actions had filed motions to dismiss prior to the transfer and both motions are still pending. A Markman hearing is set for February 13, 2006.

 

These excerpts taken from the AAPL 10-K filed Dec 1, 2005.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672 (the ‘672 patent). Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc. and two other companies, requesting a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, implied license, and unenforceability with respect to the ‘672 patent. Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. On February 16, 2005, the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) granted a petition filed by certain defendants, seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings. The MDL Panel has transferred all of the cases to the Northern District of California. The defendants in the Texas and Delaware actions had filed motions to dismiss prior to the transfer and both motions are still pending. A Markman hearing is set for February 13, 2006.

Compression Labs, Inc.
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et
al.



Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this
patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and
twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S.
patent 4,698,672 (the ‘672 patent). Plaintiff alleges that the Company
infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT
Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology—Digital Compression and
Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff
seeks unspecified damages and other relief.



On July 2, 2004, the
Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc.
and two other companies, requesting a declaratory judgment of noninfringement,
invalidity, implied license, and unenforceability with respect to the ‘672
patent. Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other
jurisdictions. On February 16, 2005, the Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) granted a petition filed by certain defendants, seeking
coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial
proceedings. The MDL Panel has transferred all of the cases to the Northern
District of California. The defendants in the Texas and Delaware actions had
filed motions to dismiss prior to the transfer and both motions are still
pending. A Markman hearing is set for February 13, 2006.



This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Aug 3, 2005.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672. Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

 

47



 

On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc. and two other companies, requesting a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, implied license and unenforceability with respect to the ‘672 patent.  Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. On February 16, 2005, the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) granted a petition filed by certain defendants, seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings. The MDL Panel has transferred all of the cases to the Northern District of California.  Following the transfer, the assigned judge recused herself and the parties are awaiting the assignment of a new judge. The defendants in the Texas and Delaware actions had filed motions to dismiss prior to the transfer and both motions are still pending. A Markman hearing is set for February 13, 2006.

 

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed May 4, 2005.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672. Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

 

On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc. and two other companies, requesting a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, implied license and unenforceability with respect to the ‘672 patent.  Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. On February 16, 2005, the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) granted a petition filed by certain defendants, seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings. The MDL Panel has transferred all of the cases to the Northern District of California. The defendants in the Texas and Delaware actions had filed a motion to dismiss prior to the transfer and both motions are still pending.

 

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Feb 1, 2005.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672. Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled “Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines.” Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to Delaware. The motion was heard on January 31, 2005 and the Court has not yet issued its ruling. The case is in discovery and trial is expected to be held in October 2005 at the earliest.

 

On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against Compression Labs, Inc. and two other companies, requesting declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, implied license and unenforceability with respect to the ‘672 patent.  Defendants in the Delaware action have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the motion is not yet set for hearing.  Discovery is stayed in the Delaware case.  Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. A petition has been filed with the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL), seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings.  A hearing on the MDL petition took place on January 27, 2005 and the Court has not yet issued its ruling.

 

These excerpts taken from the AAPL 10-K filed Dec 3, 2004.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672. Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT Recommendation T.81 entitled "Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines." Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company is investigating this claim. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to Delaware. The case is in discovery and trial is expected in October 2005. On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware requesting declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, implied license and unenforceability with respect to the '672 patent. Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other jurisdictions. A petition has been filed with the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL), seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings.

Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23, 2003, San Mateo County Superior Court); Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 26, 2003, San Francisco County Superior Court); Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 30, 2003, Alameda County Superior Court); Wagya v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed February 19, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court); Yamin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed February 24, 2004, Los Angeles County Superior Court); Kieta v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed July 8, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court)

Eight separate plaintiffs filed purported class action cases in various California courts alleging misrepresentations by the Company relative to iPod battery life. The complaints include causes of action

18



for violation of California Civil Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Action ("CLRA") and claims for false advertising, fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company is investigating these claims. The cases have been consolidated in San Mateo County and Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint.

In addition, a similar complaint relative to iPod battery life, Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc. was filed in Westchester County, New York on June 23, 2004 alleging violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 (unfair competition) and 350 (false advertising). The Company removed the case to Federal Court and Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which the Court has not yet decided.

Compression Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.; Apple v. Compression Labs, Inc., et al.



Plaintiff Compression Labs, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 22, 2004 against the Company and twenty-seven other defendants in the United
States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 4,698,672. Plaintiff alleges that the Company infringes the patent by complying with the JPEG standard as defined by CCITT
Recommendation T.81 entitled "Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous Tone Still Images—Requirements and Guidelines." Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and other relief. The Company is investigating this claim. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to Delaware. The case is in discovery and
trial is expected in October 2005. On July 2, 2004, the Company and several other defendants in the Texas action filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware
requesting declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, implied license and unenforceability with respect to the '672 patent. Additional actions regarding this patent have been filed in other
jurisdictions. A petition has been filed with the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL), seeking coordination and transfer of all of these cases to one court for pre-trial proceedings.



Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Chin v.
Apple Computer, Inc.
(filed December 23, 2003, San Mateo County Superior Court); Hughes v. Apple
Computer, Inc.
(filed December 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Westley v. Apple
Computer, Inc.
(filed December 26, 2003, San Francisco County Superior Court); Keegan v. Apple
Computer, Inc.
(filed December 30, 2003, Alameda County Superior Court); Wagya v. Apple
Computer, Inc.
(filed February 19, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court); Yamin v. Apple
Computer, Inc.
(filed February 24, 2004, Los Angeles County Superior Court); Kieta v. Apple
Computer, Inc.
(filed July 8, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court)



Eight
separate plaintiffs filed purported class action cases in various California courts alleging misrepresentations by the Company relative to iPod battery life. The complaints include causes of
action



18











for
violation of California Civil Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Action ("CLRA") and claims for false advertising, fraudulent concealment and breach of
warranty. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company is investigating these claims. The cases have been consolidated in San Mateo County and Plaintiffs have filed a
consolidated complaint.



In
addition, a similar complaint relative to iPod battery life,
Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc. was filed in Westchester County, New York
on June 23, 2004 alleging violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 (unfair competition) and 350 (false advertising). The Company removed the case to Federal Court and Plaintiff
filed a motion for remand, which the Court has not yet decided.




Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki