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

attorneys’ fees. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice in August 2011, but the plaintiff filed a new complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware containing similar allegations and alleging infringement of an additional patent purporting to cover an “Apparatus for the Display of Embedded Information” (U.S. Patent No. 7,429,965). We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In January 2011, Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., TV Guide Online, LLC, and TV Guide Online, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and IMDb.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the use of links on instant video web pages to DVD and Blu-ray discs; instant video preview, TV season, and season pass options; IMDb TV listings (localized listings); and links on IMDb title pages to DVD and Blue-ray pages on Amazon’s website infringe one or more of U.S. Patent No. 5,988,078, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Receiving Customized Television Programming Information by Transmitting Geographic Location to a Service Provider Through a Wide-Area Network”; U.S. Patent No. 6,275,268, entitled “Electronic Television Program Guide with Remote Product Ordering”; U.S. Patent No. 6,769,128, entitled “Electronic Television Program Guide Schedule System and Method with Data Feed Access”; U.S. Patent No. 7,493,643, entitled “Program Guide System with Video-On-Demand Browsing”; and U.S. Patent No. 7,603,690, entitled “Interactive Television Program Guide System with Pay Program Package Promotion.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction. In August 2012, the court granted a stipulated judgment of non-infringement for U.S. Patent No. 6,769,128. In November 2012, Rovi’s damages expert opined that, if we are found to infringe the patents-in-suit and the patents are found to be valid (both of which we dispute), Amazon and its affiliates should pay damages of approximately $40 million, subject to enhancement. In December 2012, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,988,078 and 7,493,643. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In February 2011, SFA Systems, LLC, 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 by using computer-implemented systems and methods for personalization Amazon and Zappos infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover an “Integrated Computerized Sales Force Automation System” (U.S. Patent No. 6,067,525), and seeks monetary damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In August 2011, the plaintiff filed an additional complaint against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging, among other things, that certain supply chain, sales, marketing, and inventory systems and methods used by Amazon and Zappos infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Sales Force Automation System and Method” (U.S. Patent No. 7,941,341), and seeking monetary damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In April 2011, Walker Digital LLC filed several complaints against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege that we infringe several of the plaintiff’s U.S. patents by, among other things, providing “cross benefits” to customers through our promotions, (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,470 and 7,827,056), using a customer’s identified original product to offer a substitute product (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,942), using our product recommendations and personalization features to offer complementary products together (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,601,036 and 6,138,105), enabling customers to subscribe to a delivery schedule for products they routinely use at reduced prices (U.S. Patent No. 5,970,470), and offering personalized advertising based on customers’ preferences identified using a data pattern (U.S. Patent No. 7,933,893). Another complaint, filed in the same court in October 2011, alleges that we infringe plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 8,041,711 by offering personalized advertising based on customer preferences that associate data with resource locators. Another complaint, filed in the same court in February 2012, alleges that we infringe plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 8,112,359 by using product information received from customers to identify and offer substitute products using a manufacturer database. The complaints seek monetary damages, interest, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters.

 

62

 << Previous Page | Next Page >>