Nokia 2011 Annual Report Download - page 191

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. As of October 3, 2011 all of these cases have
been withdrawn or dismissed in relation to Nokia.
We have also been named as a defendant along with several other mobile device manufacturers and
network operators in nine lawsuits by individual plaintiffs who allege that the radio emissions from
mobile devices caused or contributed to each plaintiff’s brain tumor and other adverse health effects.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that adverse health effect claims arising
from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the US Federal Communications Commission
radio frequency emission guidelines are pre-empted by federal law. Claims that are based upon
handsets that operate outside the Federal Communications Commission Guidelines, or were in use
before the guidelines were established in 1996, are not pre-empted. The plaintiffs in the subject law
suits all allege that their handsets either operated outside the US Federal Communications
Commission emission guidelines or were manufactured before any guidelines were established. The
suits also allege an industry wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing surrounding the
establishment of emission guidelines and testing protocol. A hearing on the admissibility of the
plaintiffs’ proffered general causation evidence will likely occur in the third quarter of 2013.
We believe that the allegations described above are without merit, and will continue to defend
ourselves vigorously against these actions. Other courts that have reviewed similar matters to date
have found that there is no reliable scientific basis for the plaintiffs’ claims.
Antitrust Litigation
In November 2009, Nokia Corporation filed two lawsuits, one in the United Kingdom’s High Court of
Justice and the other in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, joined by
Nokia Inc., against certain manufacturers of liquid crystal displays (“LCDs”). Both suits concern the
same underlying allegations: namely, that the defendants violated the relevant antitrust or competition
laws (including Article 81 EC Treaty, Article 53 EEA Agreement, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
various state competition laws) by entering into a worldwide conspiracy to raise and/or stabilize the
prices of LCDs, among other anticompetitive conduct, from approximately January 1996 to December
2006 (the “Cartel Period”). Defendants Sharp Corporation, LG Display Co. Ltd., Chunghwa Picture
Tubes, Ltd., Hitachi Displays Ltd. and Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, as well as non-defendant
Chi Mei Optoelectronics, and Hannstar Display Corporation, have pleaded guilty in the United States to
participating in a conspiracy to fix certain LCD prices and have agreed to pay fines totaling
approximately USD 900 million. Further, the United States Department of Justice has indicted AU
Optronics Corporation and its American subsidiary, AU Optronics Corporation America, for
participation in the conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide from September 14,
2001 to December 1, 2006. During the Cartel Period, Nokia purchased substantial quantities of LCDs
from several defendants and other manufacturers for incorporation into its mobile devices. The lawsuits
allege that as a result of defendants’ cartel activities, Nokia suffered harm by, among other reasons,
paying supra-competitive prices for LCDs. Trial in the United States action is currently scheduled for
November 1, 2012.
Also in November 2009, Nokia Corporation filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom’s High Court of
Justice against certain manufacturers of cathode rays tubes (“CRTs”). In this lawsuit, Nokia alleges
that the defendants violated the relevant antitrust or competition laws (Article 81 EC Treaty and
Article 53 EEA Agreement) by entering into a worldwide conspiracy to raise and/or stabilize the prices
of CRTs, among other anticompetitive conduct, from no later than March 1995 to around November
2007. During the Cartel Period, Nokia, through its subsidiary Nokia Display Products Oy, engaged in
the manufacture and supply of computer monitors for third parties. Nokia purchased substantial
189