Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Jul. 28, 2012
Legal Proceedings	(18) Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, benefits, securities, personal injuries and other matters. The results of these proceedings in the ordinary course of business are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. The Company records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least quarterly, developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued and makes adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount of a loss or potential loss. The Company may be unable to reasonably estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for a particular legal contingency for various reasons, including, among others: (i) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (ii) if proceedings are in the early stages; (iii) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals); (iv) if there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of settlement and the outcome of any negotiations with respect thereto; (v) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; (vi) if the proceedings involve a large number of parties; (vii) if relevant law is unsettled or novel or untested legal theories are presented; or (viii) if the proceedings are taking place in jurisdictions where the laws are complex or unclear. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any. With respect to the legal matters described below, the Company has determined, based on its current knowledge, that the amount of loss or range of loss, that is reasonably possible including any reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of these matters will not materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The following is a discussion of the material legal matters involving the Company. In re Barnes & Noble Stockholder Derivative Litigation (Consolidated Cases Formerly Captioned Separately as: Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Riggio et al.; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Riggio et al.; City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System v. Riggio et al.; Louise Schuman v. Riggio et al.; *Virgin Islands Government Employees’ Retirement System v. Riggio et al.; Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Riggio et al.)* Between August 17, 2009 and August 31, 2009, five putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company’s directors. The complaints generally allege breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company’s entry into a definitive agreement to purchase Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, which was announced on August 10, 2009 (the Transaction). The complaints generally seek damages in favor of the Company in an unspecified amount; costs, fees and interest; disgorgement; restitution; and equitable relief, including injunctive relief. On September 1, 2009, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Order of Consolidation consolidating the five lawsuits (the Consolidated Cases) and directing plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. In a related development, on August 27, 2009, the Company received a demand pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law, Section 220, on behalf of the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., a shareholder, seeking to inspect certain books and records related to the Transaction. On September 18, 2009, this shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint in Delaware Court of Chancery against certain of the Company’s directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeking to enjoin the consummation of the Transaction. On October 6, 2009, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases filed a motion seeking to consolidate the later-filed sixth case with the Consolidated Cases. On November 3, 2009, a Consolidated Complaint was filed in the Consolidated Cases. On December 11, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating all actions and appointing co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on January 12, 2010. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 16, 2010. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint on April 30, 2010. Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on June 2, 2010. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on October 21, 2010. Following those arguments, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Leonard Riggio, Stephen Riggio and Lawrence Zilavy, and denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by the remaining defendants, dismissing all claims asserted against Directors George Campbell, Jr. and Patricia Higgins. All defendants except Leonard Riggio moved for summary judgment on December 21, 2011. Briefing on those motions was completed by March 2, 2012. The Court ruled on those motions on March 27, 2012, denying summary judgment as to Defendants Lawrence Zilavy and Michael Del Giudice and granting summary judgment as to, and dismissing all claims against, Defendants Stephen Riggio, Irene R. Miller, Margaret T. Monaco and William Dillard, II. On June 13, 2012, all remaining defendants agreed to settle all remaining claims, subject to receipt of court approval (the Settlement). In the Settlement, the sellers in the Transaction have agreed to waive $22,750 of the purchase price by waiving a corresponding principal amount (and interest on) of the Junior Seller Note issued by the Company to the sellers as part of the purchase price of the Transaction. A hearing will be held on September 4, 2012 to approve the Settlement and what, if any, attorney’s fees will be paid by the Company to plaintiffs. If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Consolidated Cases will be dismissed, on the merits, with prejudice. Upon approval, the $22,750 reduction in purchase price will be recorded as a credit to additional paid in capital. *Whitney Parker v. Leonard Riggio, et al.* (formerly *Stephen Strugala v. Leonard Riggio, et al.) On December 21, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Stephen Strugala against the Company’s current directors and former directors Lawrence Zilavy and Michael Del Giudice. The complaint is purportedly brought both directly, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders, and derivatively, on behalf of the Company. The complaint generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, waste and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, the adoption of the Shareholder Rights Plan, and other unspecified instances of alleged mismanagement and alleged wrongful conduct. The complaint also generally alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act in connection with the issuance of various proxy statements by the Company. The complaint generally seeks declaratory and equitable relief, including injunctive relief, and costs and fees. On January 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation and Order. On February 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Claim, dismissing without prejudice his putative class claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act. On March 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the litigation. On October 4, 2011, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but also granted plaintiff leave to replead within 30 days. On November 3, 2011, plaintiff requested a pre-motion conference with the Court to discuss an anticipated motion to substitute a new plaintiff, Ms. Whitney Parker, for Mr. Strugala, and simultaneously filed an amended complaint on behalf of Ms. Parker containing substantially the same claims asserted in Mr. Strugala’s original complaint. The Court held a pre-motion conference on December 9, 2011, at which the parties agreed that Ms. Parker could be substituted for Mr. Strugala without prejudice to any of defendants’ rights. On January 20, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on May 4, 2012. On August 3, 2012, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the complaint in its entirety and denying plaintiff’s request for leave to replead. Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.* On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of California from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On August 30, 2011, the Company filed an answer in state court, and on August 31, 2011 it removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). On October 28, 2011, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the action back to state court, over the Company’s opposition. On November 7, 2011, the Company petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the district court’s remand order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand order on May 18, 2012. The parties are currently engaged in pre-certification discovery. The Court has not yet set a date for plaintiff’s anticipated motion for class certification, and it has not yet set a trial date. *Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnesandnoble.com llc v. LSI Corporation and Agere Systems, Inc.* On June 6, 2011, Barnes & Noble, Inc. filed a complaint against LSI Corporation (LSI) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 11-CV-2709 EMC. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Barnes & Noble, Inc. does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,546,420; 5,670,730; 5,862,182; 5,920,552; 6,044,073; 6,119,091; 6,404,732; 6,452,958; 6,707,867 and 7,583,582. Barnes & Noble, Inc. amended the complaint on August 10, 2011 to add barnesandnoble.com llc as a plaintiff, to add Agere Systems, Inc. (Agere) as a defendant, to add a cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment that neither Barnes & Noble, Inc. nor barnesandnoble.com llc infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,477,633, and to add causes of action seeking a declaratory judgment that each of the eleven patents-in-suit is invalid. On November 1, 2011, LSI and Agere answered the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc, alleging infringement of the eleven patents-in-suit. On November 28, 2011, Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc answered the counterclaims and asserted several affirmative defenses, including the defense that seven of the patents-in-suit are unenforceable as a result of standard-setting misconduct. As required by the Court’s Local Patent Rules, LSI and Agere served their Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on July 2, 2012. In that disclosure, LSI and Agere asserted infringement of only six of the eleven patents that it had previously accused Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc of infringing. The Court has set certain pretrial dates in the case, including a claim construction hearing on March 11, 2013. The Court has not yet set a trial date in the case. *Dustin Torrez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.* On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco against the Company. The complaint is styled as a California state-wide class action. It alleges violations of California Civil Code section 1747.08 (the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to the Company’s alleged improper requesting and recording of zip codes from California customers who used credit cards as payment. The complaint was re-filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco on December 23, 2011 as a separate action. The Summons and Complaint have not been served on the Company for either action. On February 10, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request that the action filed in December be dismissed with prejudice. *Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.* On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange against the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company’s website in August 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false advertising under both New York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company also moved to stay all proceedings pending final resolution of the motion to compel arbitration on July 20, 2012. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to compel arbitration or the motion to stay. *Deep9 Corporation v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc* On January 1, 2011, Deep9 Corporation (Deep9) filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges that Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,937,405 and 6,377,951. On February 1, 2011, Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc filed an answer denying infringement and asserting several affirmative defenses. At the same time, Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that neither Barnes & Noble, Inc. nor barnesandnoble.com llc infringes the patents-in-suit and that each of the two patents-in-suit is invalid. The Court issued an order regarding claim construction on January 10, 2012 and amended that order on January 24, 2012. On July 19, 2012, each party filed motions for summary judgment, and Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc filed motions to exclude as unreliable certain opinions of Deep9’s technical expert and to preclude Deep9’s damages expert from testifying at trial. Briefing on those motions was completed on August 10, 2012. On August 2, 2012, Deep9 filed a Daubert motion to preclude Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc’s damages expert from testifying at trial, which Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc are opposing. Briefing on Deep9’s Daubert motion was completed on August 13, 2012. The Court has not yet ruled on any of the pending summary judgment or Daubert motions. A five day jury trial is scheduled to begin on October 22, 2012.

(18) Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, benefits, securities, personal injuries and other matters. The results of these proceedings in the ordinary course of business are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least quarterly, developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued and makes adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount of a loss or potential loss. The Company may be unable to reasonably estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for a particular legal contingency for various reasons, including, among others: (i) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (ii) if proceedings are in the early stages; (iii) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals); (iv) if there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of settlement and the outcome of any negotiations with respect thereto; (v) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; (vi) if the proceedings involve a large number of parties; (vii) if relevant law is unsettled or novel or untested legal theories are presented; or (viii) if the proceedings are taking place in jurisdictions where the laws are complex or unclear. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any. With respect to the legal matters described below, the Company has determined, based on its current knowledge, that the amount of loss or range of loss, that is reasonably possible including any reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of these matters will not materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The following is a discussion of the material legal matters involving the Company.

In re Barnes & Noble Stockholder Derivative Litigation (Consolidated Cases Formerly Captioned Separately as: Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Riggio et al.; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Riggio et al.; City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System v. Riggio et al.; Louise Schuman v. Riggio et al.; Virgin Islands Government Employees’ Retirement System v. Riggio et al.; Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Riggio et al.)

Between August 17, 2009 and August 31, 2009, five putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company’s directors. The complaints generally allege breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company’s entry into a definitive agreement to purchase Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, which was announced on August 10, 2009 (the Transaction). The complaints generally seek damages in favor of the Company in an unspecified amount; costs, fees and interest; disgorgement; restitution; and equitable relief, including injunctive relief. On September 1, 2009, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Order of Consolidation consolidating the five lawsuits (the Consolidated Cases) and directing plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. In a related development, on August 27, 2009, the Company received a demand pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law, Section 220, on behalf of the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., a shareholder, seeking to inspect certain books and records related to the Transaction. On September 18, 2009, this shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint in Delaware Court of Chancery against certain of the Company’s directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeking to enjoin the consummation of the Transaction. On October 6, 2009, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases filed a motion seeking to consolidate the later-filed sixth case with the Consolidated Cases. On November 3, 2009, a Consolidated Complaint was filed in the Consolidated Cases. On December 11, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating all actions and appointing co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on January 12, 2010. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 16, 2010. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint on April 30, 2010. Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on June 2, 2010. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on October 21, 2010. Following those arguments, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Leonard Riggio, Stephen Riggio and Lawrence Zilavy, and denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by the remaining defendants, dismissing all claims asserted against Directors George Campbell, Jr. and Patricia Higgins. All defendants except Leonard Riggio moved for summary judgment on December 21, 2011. Briefing on those motions was completed by March 2, 2012. The Court ruled on those motions on March 27, 2012, denying summary judgment as to Defendants Lawrence Zilavy and Michael Del Giudice and granting summary judgment as to, and dismissing all claims against, Defendants Stephen Riggio, Irene R. Miller, Margaret T. Monaco and William Dillard, II. On June 13, 2012, all remaining defendants agreed to settle all remaining claims, subject to receipt of court approval (the Settlement). In the Settlement, the sellers in the Transaction have agreed to waive $22,750 of the purchase price by waiving a corresponding principal amount (and interest on) of the Junior Seller Note issued by the Company to the sellers as part of the purchase price of the Transaction. A hearing will be held on September 4, 2012 to approve the Settlement and what, if any, attorney’s fees will be paid by the Company to plaintiffs. If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Consolidated Cases will be dismissed, on the merits, with prejudice. Upon approval, the $22,750 reduction in purchase price will be recorded as a credit to additional paid in capital.

Whitney Parker v. Leonard Riggio, et al. (formerly Stephen Strugala v. Leonard Riggio, et al.)

On December 21, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Stephen Strugala against the Company’s current directors and former directors Lawrence Zilavy and Michael Del Giudice. The complaint is purportedly brought both directly, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders, and derivatively, on behalf of the Company. The complaint generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, waste and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, the adoption of the Shareholder Rights Plan, and other unspecified instances of alleged mismanagement and alleged wrongful conduct. The complaint also generally alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act in connection with the issuance of various proxy statements by the Company. The complaint generally seeks declaratory and equitable relief, including injunctive relief, and costs and fees. On January 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation and Order. On February 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Claim, dismissing without prejudice his putative class claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act. On March 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the litigation. On October 4, 2011, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but also granted plaintiff leave to replead within 30 days. On November 3, 2011, plaintiff requested a pre-motion conference with the Court to discuss an anticipated motion to substitute a new plaintiff, Ms. Whitney Parker, for Mr. Strugala, and simultaneously filed an amended complaint on behalf of Ms. Parker containing substantially the same claims asserted in Mr. Strugala’s original complaint. The Court held a pre-motion conference on December 9, 2011, at which the parties agreed that Ms. Parker could be substituted for Mr. Strugala without prejudice to any of defendants’ rights. On January 20, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on May 4, 2012. On August 3, 2012, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the complaint in its entirety and denying plaintiff’s request for leave to replead.

Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of California from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On August 30, 2011, the Company filed an answer in state court, and on August 31, 2011 it removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). On October 28, 2011, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the action back to state court, over the Company’s opposition. On November 7, 2011, the Company petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the district court’s remand order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand order on May 18, 2012. The parties are currently engaged in pre-certification discovery. The Court has not yet set a date for plaintiff’s anticipated motion for class certification, and it has not yet set a trial date.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnesandnoble.com llc v. LSI Corporation and Agere Systems, Inc.

On June 6, 2011, Barnes & Noble, Inc. filed a complaint against LSI Corporation (LSI) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 11-CV-2709 EMC. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Barnes & Noble, Inc. does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,546,420; 5,670,730; 5,862,182; 5,920,552; 6,044,073; 6,119,091; 6,404,732; 6,452,958; 6,707,867 and 7,583,582. Barnes & Noble, Inc. amended the complaint on August 10, 2011 to add barnesandnoble.com llc as a plaintiff, to add Agere Systems, Inc. (Agere) as a defendant, to add a cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment that neither Barnes & Noble, Inc. nor barnesandnoble.com llc infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,477,633, and to add causes of action seeking a declaratory judgment that each of the eleven patents-in-suit is invalid. On November 1, 2011, LSI and Agere answered the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc, alleging infringement of the eleven patents-in-suit. On November 28, 2011, Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc answered the counterclaims and asserted several affirmative defenses, including the defense that seven of the patents-in-suit are unenforceable as a result of standard-setting misconduct. As required by the Court’s Local Patent Rules, LSI and Agere served their Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on July 2, 2012. In that disclosure, LSI and Agere asserted infringement of only six of the eleven patents that it had previously accused Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc of infringing. The Court has set certain pretrial dates in the case, including a claim construction hearing on March 11, 2013. The Court has not yet set a trial date in the case.

Dustin Torrez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco against the Company. The complaint is styled as a California state-wide class action. It alleges violations of California Civil Code section 1747.08 (the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to the Company’s alleged improper requesting and recording of zip codes from California customers who used credit cards as payment. The complaint was re-filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco on December 23, 2011 as a separate action. The Summons and Complaint have not been served on the Company for either action. On February 10, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request that the action filed in December be dismissed with prejudice.

Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange against the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company’s website in August 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false advertising under both New York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company also moved to stay all proceedings pending final resolution of the motion to compel arbitration on July 20, 2012. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to compel arbitration or the motion to stay.

Deep9 Corporation v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc

On January 1, 2011, Deep9 Corporation (Deep9) filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges that Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,937,405 and 6,377,951. On February 1, 2011, Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc filed an answer denying infringement and asserting several affirmative defenses. At the same time, Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that neither Barnes & Noble, Inc. nor barnesandnoble.com llc infringes the patents-in-suit and that each of the two patents-in-suit is invalid. The Court issued an order regarding claim construction on January 10, 2012 and amended that order on January 24, 2012. On July 19, 2012, each party filed motions for summary judgment, and Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc filed motions to exclude as unreliable certain opinions of Deep9’s technical expert and to preclude Deep9’s damages expert from testifying at trial. Briefing on those motions was completed on August 10, 2012. On August 2, 2012, Deep9 filed a Daubert motion to preclude Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc’s damages expert from testifying at trial, which Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc are opposing. Briefing on Deep9’s Daubert motion was completed on August 13, 2012. The Court has not yet ruled on any of the pending summary judgment or Daubert motions. A five day jury trial is scheduled to begin on October 22, 2012.