2.2.0.7 false Litigation 0212 - Disclosure - Litigation true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Litigation [Abstract] 0 artg_LitigationAbstract artg false na duration Litigation. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Litigation. false 3 Litigation 1 artg_LitigationTextBlock artg false na duration Litigation. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0   <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>(12) Litigation</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc., two former officers of Primus and the underwriters of Primus’ 1999 initial public offering. The complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed compensation in connection with Primus’ initial public offering. The litigation has been coordinated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with claims against approximately 300 other companies that had initial public offerings during the same general time period. The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation under which insurance will pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to Primus, and Primus bears no financial liability. In October 2009, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors are appealing the final order. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, it does not expect any material adverse impact to its business, or the results of its operations, from this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In May 2009, LivePerson, Inc. (“LivePerson”) commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against InstantService. In the action, LivePerson alleges that InstantService infringes two United States patents held by LivePerson and seeks injunctive relief, damages and attorneys’ fees. In April 2010, InstantService asserted counter-claims against LivePerson, alleging that LivePerson infringes one of InstantService’s patents and is seeking injunctive relief, damages and attorneys fees. In May 2010, the Company joined the action and asserted counter claims against LivePerson, alleging that LivePerson infringes two of its patents and is seeking injunctive relief, damages and attorneys fees against LivePerson. Discovery in the LivePerson action has not yet commenced. The Company is investigating the claims made by LivePerson and has reached no conclusion as to the likelihood of an adverse outcome in the litigation, which the Company intends to contest vigorously. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Company’s industry is characterized by the existence of a large number of patents, trademarks and copyrights, and by increasingly frequent litigation based on allegations of infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights. Some of the Company’s competitors in the e-commerce software and services market have filed or may file patent applications covering aspects of their technology that they may claim the Company’s technology infringes. Such competitors could make claims of infringement against the Company with respect to the Company’s products and technology. Additionally, third parties who are not actively engaged in providing e-commerce products or services but who hold or acquire patents upon which they may allege the Company’s current or future products or services infringe may make claims of infringement against the Company or the Company’s customers. The Company’s agreements with its customers typically require it to indemnify them against claims of intellectual property infringement resulting from their use of the Company’s products and services with certain industry-standard exceptions. The Company periodically receives notices from customers regarding patent license inquiries they have received which may or may not implicate the Company’s indemnity obligations, and certain of its customers are currently parties to litigation in which it is alleged that the patent rights of others are infringed by the Company’s products or services. Any litigation over intellectual property rights, whether brought by the Company or by others, could result in the expenditure of significant financial resources and the diversion of management’s time and efforts. In addition, litigation in which the Company or its customers are accused of infringement might cause product shipment or service delivery delays, require the Company to develop alternative technology or require the Company to enter into royalty or license agreements, which might not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. ATG could incur substantial costs in prosecuting or defending any intellectual property litigation. These claims, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require expensive changes in the Company’s methods of doing business or could require the Company to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements, if available. As a result, these claims could harm the Company’s business. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and either unfavorable or favorable outcomes could have a material negative impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, consolidated balance sheets and cash flows, due to defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Litigation. No authoritative reference available. false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true