Commitments and Contingencies
|
6 Months Ended | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2013
|
|||||||||
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In the ordinary course of business, the Company is involved in various pending and threatened litigation matters related to operations, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. The Company believes that no actions, other than the matters listed below, depart from customary litigation incidental to its business. As background to the disclosures below, please note the following:
CheckFree Corporation and CashEdge, Inc. v. Metavante Corporation and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. This is a patent infringement action that was filed by CheckFree Corporation and CashEdge, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of Fiserv, Inc., against Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and our subsidiary, Metavante Corporation (collectively the “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division on January 5, 2012. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees for the alleged infringement of three patents. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants infringe the patents at issue by providing customers financial and payment solutions that process payment instructions, provide electronic biller notifications, and/or process account-to-account funds transfer transactions and have requested financial damages and injunctive relief. Defendants filed their Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiffs' complaint for patent infringement denying the claims of patent infringement and asserting defenses, including non-infringement and invalidity. Additionally, Defendants filed counterclaims asserting patent infringement of three patents and adding Fiserv, Inc. as a Counter Defendant. Defendants seek damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs and Counter Defendant Fiserv, Inc., filed their Answer to Defendants' counterclaims denying the claims of patent infringement and asserting defenses, including non-infringement and invalidity. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend its First Amended Complaint to add a fourth patent and Defendants' Motion to Amend its First Amended Answer and Counterclaims. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking an order invalidating all of the Plaintiffs' asserted patents. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to invalidate select patent claims from one of Defendants' asserted patents. On June 24, 2013, Defendants filed for covered business method (“CBM”) post-grant reviews of the validity of the Plaintiff's asserted patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office. On June 25, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the case pending the outcome of the CBM post-grant reviews. The Court has not yet ruled on either of the summary judgment motions or the motion to stay. Discovery is ongoing. If the case is not stayed, the trial date will be re-scheduled. An estimate of a possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, for this litigation cannot be made at this time. DataTreasury Corporation v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. et. al. This patent infringement lawsuit was filed on May 28, 2013 by DataTreasury Corporation (“DTC”) against Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (the “Company”) and multiple customer banks in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The Complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees for the alleged infringement of two patents. The Company has not yet been served. Based on what it is aware of at this early stage, the Company believes that it has strong defenses to this action. An estimate of a possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, for this action cannot be made at this time. Indemnifications and Warranties The Company generally indemnifies its customers, subject to certain exceptions, against damages and costs resulting from claims of patent, copyright, or trademark infringement associated with its customers' use of the Company's products or services. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments under such indemnifications, but continues to monitor the conditions that are subject to the indemnifications to identify whether it is probable that a loss has occurred, and would recognize any such losses when they are estimable. In addition, the Company warrants to customers that its software operates substantially in accordance with the software specifications. Historically, no material costs have been incurred related to software warranties and no accruals for warranty costs have been made. |