Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 5 - Commitments and Contingencies Indemnifications In the normal course of business, the Company enters into contracts and agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnifications. The Company's exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves future claims that may be made against the Company, but have not yet been made. To date, the Company has not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to its indemnification obligations. However, the Company may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations. Contingencies From time to time, the Company may have certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Company accrues contingent liabilities when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. Legal Matters On December 10, 2010, Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) filed a complaint for alleged patent infringement against the Company in Eastman Kodak Company v. Shutterfly, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1079-SLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,549,306; 6,600,572; 7,202,982; 6,069,712; and 6,512,570, which claim among other things, methods for selecting photographic images using index prints, an image handling system incorporating coded instructions, and processing a roll of exposed photographic film into corresponding visual prints and distributing such prints. The Complaint asserts that the Company directly or indirectly infringes the patents without providing any details concerning the alleged infringement, and it seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The Company believes the suit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. On February 3, 2011, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims against Kodak. On November 16, 2011, Kodak filed its First Amended Complaint adding Tiny Prints, Inc. as a defendant. On December 13, 2011, the Company and Tiny Prints, Inc. each filed its answer and counterclaims against Kodak. A trial date is currently set for on or around October 21, 2013. In light of the provisions of federal bankruptcy law, the Company has requested that the court stay the entirety of Eastman Kodak Company v. Shutterfly, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1079-SLR. On January 31, 2011, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against Eastman Kodak Company and Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. in Shutterfly, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company and Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., C.A. No. 11-099-SLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,583,799; 7,269,800; 6,587,596; 6,973,222; 7,474,801; 7,016,869; and 7,395,229, which claim among other things, methods for image uploading, image cropping, automatic generation of photo albums, and changing attributes of an image-based product. The Complaint asserts that Kodak directly or indirectly infringes the patents, and it seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On March 24, 2011, Kodak filed an answer and counterclaims against the Company. On November 16, 2011, the Company filed its First Amended Complaint to include U.S. Patent No. 7,243,079. On the same day, November 16, 2011, Kodak filed its answer. Upon Kodak's filing of a Chapter 11 petition on January 19, 2012, Shutterfly, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company and Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., C.A. No. 11-099-SLR was automatically stayed pursuant to provisions of federal bankruptcy law. On January 30, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, suggesting that the Company's counterclaims and affirmative defenses also be automatically stayed. On September 10, 2011, Princeton Digital Image Corporation (“Princeton”) filed a complaint for alleged patent infringement against the Company and seven other defendants in Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 2:2011cv00400, in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,813,056, which claims, among other things, a method for encoding user's images. The Complaint asserts that the Company directly or indirectly infringes the patent without providing any details concerning the alleged infringement, and it seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On September 12, 2011 Princeton filed a First Amended Complaint adding additional defendants. On January 23, 2012, the Company filed its Answer to Princeton's First Amended Complaint, and on March 12, 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company cannot predict the impact, if any, that any of the matters described above for the period ended March 31, 2012 may have on its business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. At this early stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to responsible parties or the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss. In addition to the above cases, from time to time, the Company may be involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, the Company accrues for the amount, or if a range, the Company accrues the low end of the range as a component of legal expense.

Note 5 - Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into contracts and agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnifications. The Company's exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves future claims that may be made against the Company, but have not yet been made. To date, the Company has not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to its indemnification obligations. However, the Company may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations.

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company may have certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Company accrues contingent liabilities when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated.

Legal Matters

On December 10, 2010, Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) filed a complaint for alleged patent infringement against the Company in Eastman Kodak Company v. Shutterfly, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1079-SLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,549,306; 6,600,572; 7,202,982; 6,069,712; and 6,512,570, which claim among other things, methods for selecting photographic images using index prints, an image handling system incorporating coded instructions, and processing a roll of exposed photographic film into corresponding visual prints and distributing such prints. The Complaint asserts that the Company directly or indirectly infringes the patents without providing any details concerning the alleged infringement, and it seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The Company believes the suit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. On February 3, 2011, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims against Kodak. On November 16, 2011, Kodak filed its First Amended Complaint adding Tiny Prints, Inc. as a defendant. On December 13, 2011, the Company and Tiny Prints, Inc. each filed its answer and counterclaims against Kodak. A trial date is currently set for on or around October 21, 2013. In light of the provisions of federal bankruptcy law, the Company has requested that the court stay the entirety of Eastman Kodak Company v. Shutterfly, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1079-SLR.

On January 31, 2011, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against Eastman Kodak Company and Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. in Shutterfly, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company and Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., C.A. No. 11-099-SLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,583,799; 7,269,800; 6,587,596; 6,973,222; 7,474,801; 7,016,869; and 7,395,229, which claim among other things, methods for image uploading, image cropping, automatic generation of photo albums, and changing attributes of an image-based product. The Complaint asserts that Kodak directly or indirectly infringes the patents, and it seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On March 24, 2011, Kodak filed an answer and counterclaims against the Company. On November 16, 2011, the Company filed its First Amended Complaint to include U.S. Patent No. 7,243,079. On the same day, November 16, 2011, Kodak filed its answer. Upon Kodak's filing of a Chapter 11 petition on January 19, 2012, Shutterfly, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company and Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., C.A. No. 11-099-SLR was automatically stayed pursuant to provisions of federal bankruptcy law. On January 30, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, suggesting that the Company's counterclaims and affirmative defenses also be automatically stayed.

On September 10, 2011, Princeton Digital Image Corporation (“Princeton”) filed a complaint for alleged patent infringement against the Company and seven other defendants in Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 2:2011cv00400, in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,813,056, which claims, among other things, a method for encoding user's images. The Complaint asserts that the Company directly or indirectly infringes the patent without providing any details concerning the alleged infringement, and it seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On September 12, 2011 Princeton filed a First Amended Complaint adding additional defendants. On January 23, 2012, the Company filed its Answer to Princeton's First Amended Complaint, and on March 12, 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Company cannot predict the impact, if any, that any of the matters described above for the period ended March 31, 2012 may have on its business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. At this early stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to responsible parties or the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss.

In addition to the above cases, from time to time, the Company may be involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, the Company accrues for the amount, or if a range, the Company accrues the low end of the range as a component of legal expense.