Nokia 2008 Annual Report Download - page 126

Product Related Litigation
Nokia and several other mobile device manufacturers, distributors and network operators were
named as defendants in a series of class action suits filed in various US jurisdictions. The actions were
brought on behalf of a purported class of persons in the United States as a whole consisting of all
individuals that purchased mobile phones without a headset. In general, the complaints allege that
handheld cellular telephone use causes and creates a risk of cell level injury and claim the defendants
should have included a headset with every handheld mobile telephone as a means of reducing any
potential health risk associated with the telephone’s use. All but one of the cases have been
withdrawn or dismissed. Of the dismissed cases, one matter is currently on appeal. The remaining
active case is currently subject to a motion to dismiss.
We have also been named as a defendant along with other mobile device manufacturers and network
operators in five lawsuits by individual plaintiffs who allege that the radio emissions from mobile
phones caused or contributed to each plaintiff’s brain tumor. Each of the cases was dismissed on the
basis of Federal preemption. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and the appeal is currently
pending.
We believe that the allegations described above are without merit, and intend to defend these
actions vigorously. Other courts that have reviewed similar matters to date have found that there is
no reliable scientific basis for the plaintiffs’ claims.
Antitrust Litigation
On April 22, 2005, Tele Atlas N.V. and Tele Atlas North America (“Tele Atlas”) filed a complaint against
NAVTEQ in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, as
amended on February 19, 2007, alleged that NAVTEQ violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and Sections 16720, 16727 and 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code, and that NAVTEQ intentionally interfered with Tele Atlas’ contractual relations and
prospective economic advantage with third parties, by allegedly excluding Tele Atlas from the market
for digital map data for use in navigation system applications in the United States through
exclusionary and predatory practices. Tele Atlas was seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, monetary, exemplary and treble damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees of suit. The parties
entered into an agreement settling this matter in December 2008. The settlement resolves the
entirety of the dispute pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
Agreement Related Litigation
We are also involved in two arbitrations and several lawsuits with Basari Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S. (“Basari Elektronik”) and Basari Teknik Servis Hizmetleri Ticaret A.S. (“Basari Teknik”) regarding
claims associated with the expiration of a product distribution agreement and the termination of a
product service agreement. Those matters are currently before various courts and arbitral tribunals in
Turkey and Finland. Basari Elektronik claims that it is entitled to compensation for goodwill it
generated on behalf of Nokia during the term of the agreement and for Nokia’s alleged actions in
connection with the termination of the agreement. The compensation claim has been dismissed by
the Turkish courts and referred to arbitration. Basari Teknik has filed several suits related to alleged
unpaid invoices and a suit that claims that the product service agreement between the parties was
improperly terminated. Nokia will continue to vigorously defend itself against these claims.
Securities Litigation
In August 2006, we entered into a merger agreement with Loudeye Corporation (“Loudeye”), a
company in the business of facilitating and providing digital media services. Loudeye was acquired by
Nokia in October 2006 and is a whollyowned subsidiary of Nokia. On October 4, 2006, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against Loudeye 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 claimed that the Loudeye executives made
125