Print Page   Close Window


SEC Filings

10-K
AMAZON COM INC filed this Form 10-K on 01/30/2013
Entire Document
 << Previous Page | Next Page >>


Table of Contents

In November 2007, an Austrian copyright collection society, Austro-Mechana, filed lawsuits against several Amazon.com EU subsidiaries in the Commercial Court of Vienna, Austria and in the District Court of Munich, Germany seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by our EU-based retail websites to customers located in Austria. In July 2008, the German court stayed the German case pending a final decision in the Austrian case. In July 2010, the Austrian court ruled in favor of Austro-Mechana and ordered us to report all sales of products to which the tariff potentially applies for a determination of damages. We contested Austro-Mechana’s claim and in September 2010 commenced an appeal in the Commercial Court of Vienna. We lost this appeal and in March 2011 commenced an appeal in the Supreme Court of Austria. In October 2011, the Austrian Supreme Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice.

In April 2009, Parallel Networks, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged, among other things, that our website technology infringed a patent owned by Parallel Networks purporting to cover a “Method And Apparatus For Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over A Low-Speed Communications Link” (U.S. Patent No. 6,446,111) and sought injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice in February 2010, but the plaintiff filed a new complaint against us the following month containing similar allegations. In December 2011, the court granted Amazon’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against Amazon with prejudice. In January 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

In May 2009, Big Baboon, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our third-party selling and payments technology infringes a patent owned by Big Baboon, Inc. purporting to cover an “Integrated Business-to-Business Web Commerce and Business Automation System” (U.S. Patent No. 6,115,690) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In February 2011, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the outcome of the Patent and Trademark Office’s re-examination of the patent in suit. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2009, SpeedTrack, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our website technology infringes a patent owned by SpeedTrack purporting to cover a “Method For Accessing Computer Files and Data, Using Linked Categories Assigned to Each Data File Record on Entry of the Data File Record” (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,544,360) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, enhanced damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In November 2009, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the outcome of the Patent and Trademark Office’s re-examination of the patent in suit and the resolution of similar litigation against another party. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In October 2009, Eolas Technologies Incorporated filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our website technology infringes two patents owned by Eolas purporting to cover “Distributed Hypermedia Method for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects within a Hypermedia Document” (U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906) and “Distributed Hypermedia Method and System for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects within a Hypermedia Document” (U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In February 2012, the Court held a jury trial to determine the validity of the asserted patent claims, and the jury found all asserted claims invalid. In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In December 2009, Nazomi Communications, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that

 

60

 << Previous Page | Next Page >>