Note 8—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

We have entered into non-cancellable operating, capital, and financing leases for equipment and office, fulfillment center, and data center facilities. Rental expense under operating lease agreements was $541 million, $362 million, and $225 million for 2012, 2011, and 2010.

The following summarizes our principal contractual commitments, excluding open orders for purchases that support normal operations, as of December 31, 2012 (in millions):


	Year Ended December 31,
	2013		2014		2015		2016		2017		Thereafter		Total
Operating and capital commitments:
Debt principal and interest	$	656	$	105	$	866	$	43	$	1,069	$	1,380	$	4,119
Capital leases, including interest		562		403		214		51		17		95		1,342
Financing lease obligations, including interest		1		1		1		1		1		9		14
Operating leases		595		634		570		514		453		2,688		5,454
Unconditional purchase obligations (1)		302		239		143		38		1		—		723
Other commitments (2) (3)		380		276		253		110		78		436		1,533

Total commitments	$	2,496	$	1,658	$	2,047	$	757	$	1,619	$	4,608	$	13,185

(1)	Includes unconditional purchase obligations related to agreements to acquire and license digital video content that represent long-term liabilities or that are not reflected on the consolidated balance sheets.

(2)	Includes the estimated timing and amounts of payments for rent and tenant improvements associated with build-to-suit lease arrangements that have not been placed in service.

(3)	Excludes $294 million of tax contingencies for which we cannot make a reasonably reliable estimate of the amount and period of payment, if any.

Pledged Securities

We have pledged or otherwise restricted $99 million and $156 million in 2012 and 2011 of our cash and marketable securities as collateral for standby and trade letters of credit, guarantees, debt related to our international operations, as well as real estate leases.

Inventory Suppliers

During 2012, no vendor accounted for 10% or more of our inventory purchases. We generally do not have long-term contracts or arrangements with our vendors to guarantee the availability of merchandise, particular payment terms, or the extension of credit limits.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved from time to time in claims, proceedings, and litigation, including the following:

Beginning in March 2003, we were served with complaints filed in several different states, including Illinois, by a private litigant, Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C., purportedly on behalf of the state governments under various state False Claims Acts. The complaints allege that we (along with other companies with which we have commercial agreements) wrongfully failed to collect and remit sales and use taxes for sales of personal property to customers in those states and knowingly created records and statements falsely stating we were not required to collect or remit such taxes. In December 2006, we learned that one additional complaint was filed in the state of Illinois by a different private litigant, Matthew T. Hurst, alleging similar violations of the Illinois state law. The Hurst case was dismissed with prejudice in June 2012. All of the complaints seek injunctive relief, unpaid taxes, interest, attorneys’ fees, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, and treble or punitive damages under the various state False Claims Acts. It is possible that we have been or will be named in similar cases in other states as well. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing in these complaints and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters.

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 the processor core in our Kindle e-reader infringes two patents owned by Nazomi purporting to cover “Java virtual machine hardware for RISC and CISC processors” and “Java hardware accelerator using microcode engine” (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,080,362 and 7,225,436) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. In October 2010, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In January 2012, Nazomi added Amazon to a second lawsuit, which alleges, among other things, that the Kindle Fire infringes a patent owned by Nazomi purporting to cover a “Constant Pool Reference Resolution Method” (U.S. Patent No. 6,338,160) also seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In July 2010, Positive Technologies 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 certain of our products, including our Kindle e-reader, infringe three patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “DC Integrating Display Driver Employing Pixel Status Memories” (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,444,457; 5,627,558 and 5,831,588) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. In April 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In July 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff informed us that it was considering whether to recommend enforcement proceedings against us for advertising and selling certain textile fiber products as “bamboo” when they are made of rayon manufactured from bamboo, in violation of the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act, the FTC Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. We do not believe we violated these laws and regulations and cooperated voluntarily with the Commission’s inquiry. In September 2011, we learned that the Commission voted to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for enforcement proceedings. In January 2013, we entered into a settlement of the inquiry that included, among other things, payment of a civil penalty. The payment was not material to either the current or future years.

In September 2010, Olympic Developments AG, LLC 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 certain aspects of our technology, including our Kindle e-reader, infringe two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Transactional Processing System” (U.S. Patent No. 5,475,585) and a “Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver” (U.S. Patent No. 6,246,400B1) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. In February 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In September 2011, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the outcome of the Patent and Trademark Office’s re-examination of the patents in suit. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In November 2010, Kelora Systems, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleged that our website infringes a patent owned by Kelora Systems purporting to cover a “Method and system for executing a guided parametric search” (U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821) and sought monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. In March 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In August 2011, Kelora filed an amended complaint adding Amazon subsidiaries Audible and Zappos as defendants. In May 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgment. In June 2012, Kelora appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In December 2010, Technology Innovations, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon’s sale of e-books and Kindle e-readers infringes a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Device For Including Enhancing Information With Printed Information And Method For Electronic Searching Thereof” (U.S. Patent No. 5,517,407) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, interest, and 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.

In July 2011, GPNE Corp. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain aspects of our technology, including our Kindle e-reader, infringe three patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Network Communication System Wherein a Node Obtains Resources for Transmitting Data by Transmitting Two Reservation Requests” (U.S. Patent No. 7,555,267), a “Communication System Wherein a Clocking Signal from a Controller, a Request from a Node, Acknowledgement of the Request, and Data Transferred from the Node are all Provided on Different Frequencies, Enabling Simultaneous Transmission of these Signals” (U.S. Patent No. 7,570,954) and a “Network Communication System with an Alignment Signal to Allow a Controller to Provide Messages to Nodes and Transmission of the Messages over Four Independent Frequencies” (U.S. Patent No. 7,792,492) and seeks monetary damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In June 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Parallel Iron, LLC, filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged, among other things, that certain AWS file storage systems that include a Hadoop Distributed File System infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover “Methods and Systems for a Storage System With a Program-Controlled Switch for Routing Data” (U.S. Patent No. 7,415,565), and sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In June 2012, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Later in June 2012, the plaintiff filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the same AWS file storage systems infringe three additional patents, all entitled “Methods and Systems for a Storage System” (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,197,662; 7,958,388; and 7,543,177), and seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Droplets, Inc. 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 by offering web applications and software Amazon infringed two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “System and Method for Delivering a Graphical User Interface of Remote Applications Over a Thin Bandwidth Connection” (U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745) and a “System and Method for Delivering Remotely Stored Applications and Information” (U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838), and sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In June 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2012, we entered into a settlement of the litigation that included, among other things, a payment to the plaintiff. The settlement was not material to either the current or future years.

In September 2011, LVL Patent Group, LLC filed three complaints against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege, among other things, that certain aspects of our technology, including our mobile applications, infringe four patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Telephone/Transaction Entry Device and System for Entering Transaction Data into Databases (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,676; 5,987,103; and 8,019,060) and a “Data Transaction Assembly Server” (U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382), and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In August 2012, the court entered judgment declaring the ’060 patent to be invalid; the case is proceeding with respect to the ’676, ’103, and ’382 patents. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In December 2011, Personalweb Technologies LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that “Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) and Amazon ElastiCache” infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791, entitled “Data Processing System Using Substantially Unique Identifiers To Identify Data Items, Whereby Data Items Have The Same Identifiers”; U.S Patent No. 6,415,280, entitled “Identifying And Requesting Data In Network Using Identifiers Which Are Based On Contents Of Data”; U.S Patent No. 6,928,442, entitled “Enforcement And Policing Of Licensed Content Using Content-Based Identifiers”; U.S Patent No. 7,802,310, entitled “Controlling Access To Data In A Data Processing System”; U.S. Patent No. 7,945,539, entitled “Distributing And Accessing Data In A Data Processing System”; U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544, entitled “Similarity-Based Access Control Of Data In A Data Processing System”; U.S. Patent No. 7,949,662, entitled “De-Duplication Of Data In A Data Processing System”; and U.S Patent No. 8,001,096, entitled “Computer File System Using Content-Dependent File Identifiers.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In December 2011, Round Rock Research, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that “RFID products” and “Kindle products with unlicensed DRAM” infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,500,650 and 5,627,544, entitled “Data Communication Method Using Identification Protocol”; U.S. Patent No. 5,974,078, entitled “Modulated Spread Spectrum In RF Identification Systems Method”; U.S. Patent No. 6,459,726, entitled “Backscatter Interrogators, Communication Systems And Backscatter Communication Methods”; U.S. Patent No. RE41,531, entitled “Communications Systems For Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)”; U.S. Patent Nos. 6,975,556 and 7,106,646, entitled “Circuit And Method For Controlling A Clock Synchronizing Circuit For Low Power Refresh Operation”; U.S. Patent No. 7,221,020, entitled “Method To Construct A Self Aligned Recess Gate For DRAM Access Devices”; and U.S. Patent No. 7,389,369, entitled “Active Termination Control.” In February 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that further alleges, among other things, that Kindle products allegedly including “unlicensed flash memory” infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,801,985, entitled “Memory System Having Programmable Control Parameters” and U.S. Patent No. 5,880,996, entitled “Memory System Having Non-Volatile Data Storage Structure For Memory Control Parameters And Method.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. In April 2012, the case was stayed pending reexamination of ten of the asserted patents. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In March 2012, OIP Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, that certain aspects of our pricing methods infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,970,713, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Automatic Pricing in Electronic Commerce.” The complaint sought three times an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest. In September 2012, the Court invalidated the plaintiff’s patent and dismissed the case with prejudice. In September 2012, OIP appealed the judgment of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which, in November 2012, stayed all proceedings pending its decision in a separate case that raises a related question of law.

In May 2012, Clouding IP, LLC f/k/a/ STEC IP, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our “Elastic Compute Cloud,” “WhisperSync,” “Virtual Private Cloud,” “Cloud Drive,” and “Kindle Store” services infringe one or more of 11 patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,596,784, entitled “Method System and Apparatus for Providing Pay-Per-Use Distributed Computing Resources”; 7,065,637, entitled “System for Configuration of Dynamic Computing Environments Using a Visual Interface”; 6,738,799, entitled “Methods and Apparatuses for File Synchronization and Updating Using a Signature List”; 5,944,839, entitled “System and Method for Automatically Maintaining A Computer System”; 5,825,891, entitled “Key Management for Network Communication”; 5,495,607, entitled “Network Management System Having Virtual Catalog Overview of Files Distributively Stored Across Network Domain”; 6,925,481, entitled “Technique for Enabling Remote Data Access And Manipulation From A Pervasive Device”; 7,254,621, entitled “Technique for Enabling Remote Data Access And Manipulation From A Pervasive Device”; 6,631,449, entitled “Dynamic Distributed Data System and Method”; 6,918,014, entitled “Dynamic Distributed Data System and Method”; and 6,963,908, entitled “System for Transferring Customized Hardware and Software Settings from One Computer to Another Computer to Provide Personalized Operating Environments.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages together with interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves 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 vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action complaint against us for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we sell 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 vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In July 2012, Technology Properties Limited, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, and Patriot Scientific Corporation filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States International Trade Commission and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, that using the Kindle Fire in combination with certain peripheral devices infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock.” The ITC complaint seeks an exclusion order preventing the importation of Kindle Fire into the United States. The district court complaint asserts infringement of two additional patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749 and 5,530,890, both entitled “High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor Architecture”—and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and an injunction. In a November 2012 letter to the Company plaintiff alleged specifically 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 $42 million, subject to enhancement, plus $17 million in prejudgment interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In August 2012, an Australian quasi-government entity named Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the sale of “products which are operable according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) 802.11a, g, n, and/or draft n standards” infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069, entitled “Wireless LAN.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2012, B.E. Technology, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon Digital Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Kindle, Kindle Touch, Kindle Touch 3G, Kindle Keyboard 3G, Kindle DX, and Kindle Fire infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290, entitled “Computer Interface Method And Apparatus With Portable Network Organization System And Targeted Advertising.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In November 2012, Innovative Automation LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc., Audible, Inc., and On-Demand Publishing LLC dba CreateSpace in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon products and services relating to Kindle content distribution, Audible audiobooks, Amazon Cloud Player, and on-demand CD and DVD duplication infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,392,283 and 7,174,362, both entitled “Method and System for Supplying Products and Pre-Stored Digital Data in Response to Demands Transmitted Via Computer Network.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

We cannot predict the impact (if any) that any of the matters described above may have on our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters, including the early stage and lack of specific damage claims in many of them, we cannot estimate the range of possible losses from them (except as otherwise indicated).