Overstock.com 2011 Annual Report Download - page 127

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 127 of the 2011 Overstock.com 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 155

  • 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
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155

Table of Contents
Overstock.com, Inc.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
patent, having to do with a communications protocol. On November 29, 2011, Alcatel-Lucent filed a motion for a new trial. We have opposed the motion. The
court has not ruled on the motion.
On May 11, 2010, Site Update Solutions, LLC filed suit against us and 34 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of
Texas (now transferred to the Northern District of California) for infringement of a patent claiming "a process for maintaining ongoing registration for pages
on a given search engine . . . a method to actively cause an updating of a specific Internet search engine database regarding a particular WWW resource." We,
along with other defendants, filed a motion to transfer venue. The court granted the motion, and the case is now transferred to the Northern District of
California. We have answered the complaint. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted
against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our
indemnification rights with our vendors, if any.
On August 4, 2010, EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC filed suit against us and 16 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Eastern District
of Texas for infringement of a patent covering a system and method for communicating between local subscriber units and a local base station repeater cell in
a two-way communication interactive video network. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been
asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue
our indemnification rights with our vendors, if any.
On September 29, 2010, a trustee in bankruptcy filed against us an adversary proceeding in the matter of In re: Petters Company, Inc., a case filed in
United States Bankruptcy Court, in the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges principal causes of action against us under various Bankruptcy Code
sections and the Minnesota Fraudulent Transfer Act, to recover damages for alleged transfers of property from the Petters Company occurring prior to the
filing of the case initially as a civil receivership in October 2008. The trustee's complaint alleges such transfers occurred in at least one note transaction
whereby we transferred at least $2,300,000 and received in return transfers totaling at least $2,547,406. The trustee does not specify a date for the
transactions; however we believe that any alleged transaction with the Petters Company would have taken place in excess of seven years from the date of the
filing of the adversary proceeding. The case is in its early stages. We filed a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations and other grounds. The court has not
ruled upon the motion to dismiss. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no
estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action.
On November 17, 2010 we were sued in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, by District Attorneys for the California Counties of
Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Santa Clara, Shasta and Sonoma County, and the County of Santa Cruz recently joined the suit. These district attorneys
seek damages and an injunction under claims for violations of California consumer protection laws, alleging we made untrue or misleading statements
concerning our pricing, price reductions, sources of products and shipping charges. The complaint asks for damages in the amount of not less than
$15 million. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. The suit is in the discovery stage.
We intend to vigorously defend this action.
On April 4, 2011, Walker Digital, LLC filed suit against us and 24 other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for
infringement of a patent covering a system of
F-31