Shutterfly 2012 Annual Report Download - page 37

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 37 of the 2012 Shutterfly annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 106

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106

Nos. 6,549,306; 6,600,572; 7,202,982; 6,069,712; and 6,512,570, which claimed among other things, methods
for selecting photographic images using index prints, an image handling system incorporating coded
instructions, and processing a roll of exposed photographic film into corresponding visual prints and
distributing such prints. The complaint asserted that we directly or indirectly infringed the patents without
providing any details concerning the alleged infringement, and it sought unspecified damages and
injunctive relief. On February 5, 2013, Kodak filed a stipulation and order lifting the stay and dismissing
the case with prejudice.
On January 31, 2011, we filed a complaint for patent infringement against Eastman Kodak Company
and Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. in Shutterfly, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company and Kodak Imaging
Network, Inc., C.A. No. 11-099-SLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint
asserted infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,583,799; 7,269,800; 6,587,596; 6,973,222; 7,474,801; 7,016,869;
and 7,395,229, which claimed among other things, methods for image uploading, image cropping,
automatic generation of photo albums, and changing attributes of an image-based product. The complaint
asserted that Kodak directly or indirectly infringed the patents, and it sought unspecified damages and
injunctive relief. On February 5, 2013, we filed a stipulation and order lifting the stay and dismissing the
case with prejudice.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable
35