Amazon.com 2015 Annual Report Download - page 69

59
proceedings. In October 2013, the Austrian Supreme Court referred the case back to the Commercial Court of Vienna for
further fact finding to determine whether the tariff on blank digital media meets the conditions set by the ECJ. In August 2015,
the Commercial Court of Vienna ruled that the Austrian tariff regime does not meet the conditions the ECJ set and dismissed
Austro-Mechana’s claims. In September 2015, Austro-Mechana appealed that judgment to the Higher Commercial Court of
Vienna. In December 2015, the Higher Commercial Court of Vienna confirmed that the Austrian tariff regime does not meet the
conditions the ECJ set and dismissed Austro-Mechana’s appeal. A number of additional actions have been filed making similar
allegations. In December 2012, a German copyright collection society, Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte (“ZPU”),
filed a complaint against Amazon EU S.à r.l., Amazon Media EU S.à r.l., Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l., Amazon Payments
Europe SCA, Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS, and Amazon Eurasia Holdings S.à r.l. in the District Court of
Luxembourg seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by the Amazon.de retail website to customers located in
Germany. In January 2013, a Belgian copyright collection society, AUVIBEL, filed a complaint against Amazon EU S.à r.l. in
the Court of First Instance of Brussels, Belgium, seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by the Amazon.fr retail
website to customers located in Belgium. In November 2013, the Belgian court ruled in favor of AUVIBEL and ordered us to
report all sales of products to which the tariff potentially applies for a determination of damages. We dispute the allegations of
wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.
In May 2009, Big Baboon, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Payments, Inc. 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 patents owned by Big Baboon, Inc. purporting to cover
an “Integrated Business-to-Business Web Commerce And Business Automation System” (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,115,690 and
6,343,275) 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. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.
In June 2012, Hand Held Products, Inc., a subsidiary of Honeywell, filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc., AMZN
Mobile, LLC, AmazonFresh, LLC, A9.com, Inc., A9 Innovations, LLC, and Quidsi, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the use of mobile barcode reader applications,
including Amazon Mobile, Amazon Price Check, Flow, and AmazonFresh, infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,015,088, entitled
“Decoding Of Real Time Video Imaging.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, and an injunction.
We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.
In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for copyright
infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that Amazon.com, Inc. sells digital music in our Amazon MP3 Store obtained from defendant Orchard Enterprises and
other unnamed “digital music aggregators” without obtaining mechanical licenses for the compositions embodied in that
music. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest. We dispute the
allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.
In November 2012, Lexington Luminance LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Digital
Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that certain light-emitting diodes in certain Kindle devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851, entitled “Semiconductor Light-
Emitting Device And Method For Manufacturing Same.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and an
injunction or, in the absence of an injunction, a compulsory ongoing royalty. In March 2014, the court invalidated the plaintiff’s
patent and dismissed the case with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit. In February 2015, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court. We dispute the allegations
of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.
Beginning in August 2013, a number of complaints were filed alleging, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc. and
several of its subsidiaries failed to compensate hourly workers for time spent waiting in security lines and otherwise violated
federal and state wage and hour statutes and common law. In August 2013, Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. and
Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
Zappos.com Inc., another affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc., and Kelly Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky. In September 2013, Allison v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc. and an
affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In October
2013, Davis v. Amazon.com, Inc., an affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc., and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs variously purport to represent a nationwide
class of certain current and former employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or state-law-based subclasses for certain
current and former employees in states including Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, Washington,
and Nevada, and one complaint asserts nationwide breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The complaints seek an
unspecified amount of damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. We have been named in several other similar
cases. In December 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Busk that time spent waiting for and undergoing security screening is not