2.2.0.25falsefalse2116100 - Disclosure - Litigationtruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
USD ($)
$D2010Q4YTDhttp://www.sec.gov/CIK0001080099duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00usdStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170sharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0infa_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstractinfafalsenaduration-- None. No documentation exists for this element. --falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestring-- None. No documentation exists for this element. --falsefalse3false0us-gaap_ScheduleOfLossContingenciesByContingencyTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:10pt;"><div style="line-height:120%;padding-bottom:12px;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;font-weight:bold;">Litigation</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">On November 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is entitled </font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;font-style:italic;">In re Informatica Corporation Initial Public Offering</font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;font-style:italic;">Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)</font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">, related to </font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;font-style:italic;">In re</font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;font-style:italic;">Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).</font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock from April 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000. It names as defendants Informatica Corporation, two of our former officers (together with the Company, the "Informatica defendants"), and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of our April 29, 1999 initial public offering (IPO) and September 28, 2000 follow-on public offering. The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued. No specific damages are claimed.</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging more than 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims we may have against the underwriters. The Informatica defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage. Any final settlement will require approval of the Court after class members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:17px;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:17px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">All parties in all lawsuits have reached a settlement, which, as noted above, will not require the Company to contribute cash unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage. The Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on June 10, 2009 and gave final approval on October 6, 2009.</font><font style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">Several objectors have filed notices of appeals of the final judgment dismissing the cases upon the settlement.</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">On November 24, 2008, Data Retrieval Technologies LLC ("Data Retrieval") filed a complaint in the Western District of Washington against the Company and Sybase, Inc. ("Sybase"), alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,026,392 (the "‘392 patent") and 6,631,382 (the "‘382 patent"). On December 5, 2008, the Company and Sybase filed an action in the Northern District of California against Data Retrieval, Timeline, Inc. ("Timeline") and TMLN Royalty, LLC ("TMLN Royalty"), asserting declaratory relief claims for non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘392 and ‘382 patents. On January 15, 2009, we filed an answer to the complaint in the Western District of Washington and asserted declaratory relief counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘392 and ‘382 patents. In addition, on January 15, 2009, Informatica and Sybase filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of Timeline and TMLN Royalty in the Northern District of California action. On April 1, 2009, in the Northern District of California action, Data Retrieval filed an answer and asserted counterclaims for patent infringement of the ‘382 and ‘392 patents. On April 8, 2009, the Court in the Western District of Washington transferred that action to the Northern District of California. On April 21, 2009, the Company filed its reply to Data Retrieval's counterclaims in the Northern District of California. Following Data Retrieval's service of its </font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;font-style:italic;">Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions</font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> on June 8, 2009, on June 18, 2009, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment of the following claims and issues: (1) non-infringement of the ‘382 patent; (2) non-infringement of the unasserted claims (claims 2-25) of the ‘392 patent; and (3) no infringement of either patent-in-suit by the Informatica PowerCenter product. On September 11, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgment on all of the claims and issues requested by the Company. On June 23, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part an additional motion for summary judgment filed by the Company. The Court ruled that the Company was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of inducement to infringe and contributory infringement, but denied the motion as to Data Retrieval's claim of direct infringement. On November 8, 2010, the Court granted the Company's further motion for summary judgment for invalidity of the sole remaining asserted claim of the ‘392 patent.</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">On January 12, 2010, Data Retrieval initiated another action (the Data Retrieval II Action) for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C 09-05360-VRW, asserting two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,802,511 (the "‘511 patent") and 6,625,617 B2 (the "‘617 patent") (collectively, the "Data Retrieval II patents-in-suit"). Sybase is also named as a defendant in the Data Retrieval II Action. The Data Retrieval II Action is related to the Data Retrieval I Actions and has been assigned to the same Judge. In the Data Retrieval II Action, Data Retrieval alleges that a "suite of data warehousing systems and/or material components thereof," including PowerCenter, Data Explorer and PowerExchange, infringe the Data Retrieval II patents-in-suit. Data Retrieval accuses the Company of infringing at least claims 1, 2 and 14 of the ‘511 patent and at least claims 25 and 26 of the ‘617 patent. On February 25, 2010, the Company filed its answer to the complaint in the Data Retrieval II Action and asserted declaratory relief counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity. The case is currently in the discovery phase, and no trial date has been set. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">The Company is also a party to various legal proceedings and claims arising from the normal course of its business activities.</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:justify;text-indent:18px;font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;">Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Given such uncertainties, the Company has from time to time discussed settlement in the context of litigation and has accrued, based on </font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;font-style:italic;">Contingencies</font><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> (ASC 450), for estimates of settlement. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operation for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurred, and potentially in future periods.</font></div><div style="line-height:120%;padding-bottom:12px;text-align:justify;"><font style="font-family:inherit;font-size:10pt;"> </font></div></div>LitigationOn November 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ThefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringDescribes and quantifies the loss contingencies that were reported in the period or disclosed as of the balance sheet date.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)
-Number 5
-Paragraph 9-12, 22-40
falsefalse12LitigationUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue