Nokia 2006 Annual Report Download - page 114

In October 2006, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nokia in France. This lawsuit
involves two European patents (FR) that Qualcomm apparently contends apply to the manufacture
and sale of certain GPRS phones. Nokia is currently set to file a defense in March 2007. Nokia will
vigorously defend itself against these claims.
In addition, in October 2006, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nokia in Italy.
This lawsuit involves two European patents (IT) that Qualcomm apparently contends apply to the
manufacture and sale of certain GPRS phones. Nokia’s defense and counterclaims were filed in
December 2006. Nokia will vigorously defend itself against these claims.
Securities litigation
On April 6, 2004, Irving Greenfeld filed suit against Nokia Corporation, Jorma Ollila, Pekka AlaPietil¨a,
Matti Alahuhta and Richard Simonson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of Nokia’s stock between January 8, 2004 and April 6, 2004.
Subsequently, six individuals filed related actions and on January 7, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint (the ‘‘Consolidated Complaint’’) on behalf of all purchasers
‘‘worldwide’’ of Nokia securities during a revised class period of October 16, 2003 through April 15,
2004. The Consolidated Complaint also added two new defendants, OlliPekka Kallasvuo and Anssi
Vanjoki. As previously reported, the initial complaints and the Consolidated Complaint alleged,
among other things, various material misstatements and omissions in relation to Nokia’s product
portfolio, as well as that Nokia employed accounting and inventory techniques that were allegedly
used to improperly manipulate sales figures. On March 31, 2006, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted Nokia’s Motion to Dismiss all claims made in this class
action securities litigation filed against Nokia Corporation and several of its executives. Each and
every claim against Nokia and the individual defendants was dismissed with prejudice. By dismissing
the claims with prejudice the court denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to raise them again and
also denied the plaintiffs the right to file an amended complaint, finding that continued pursuit of
the case would be futile.
In August 2006, Nokia entered into a merger agreement with Loudeye Corporation, a company in the
business of facilitating and providing digital media services. On October 6, 2006, Nokia was named
as a defendant in a Washington state court securities case involving activities associated with the
acquisition of Loudeye Corporation. The suit claims that Loudeye directors breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders by not obtaining maximum value for the company. Nokia is alleged to have
aided and abetted the directors by limiting their ability to seek a higher sales price after the Nokia
merger agreement was executed. Nokia does not believe that the case has merit and will vigorously
defend the matter.
On October 4, 2006, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Loudeye Corporation alleging
that Loudeye management had materially misled the investing public between May 19, 2003 and
November 9, 2005. Two nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed. The suits generally claim
that the Loudeye executives made overly optimistic statements about the success of a
reorganization, provided overly optimistic business projections, issued incomplete and misleading
financial statements and were in possession of material adverse information that was not disclosed
to the investing public. Loudeye does not believe that the allegations have any substance and will
vigorously defend those matters. Loudeye Corporation was acquired by Nokia in October 2006 and is
a whollyowned subsidiary of Nokia.
Based upon the information currently available, management does not expect the resolution of any
of the matters discussed above to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results
of operations.
We are also party to routine litigation incidental to the normal conduct of our business. Based upon
the information currently available, our management does not believe that liabilities related to these
113