Capital One 2014 Annual Report Download - page 282

monitoring products. In June 2012, the Attorney General of Mississippi filed substantially similar suits against
Capital One and several other banks. In April 2013, the Attorney General of New Mexico also filed substantially
similar suits against Capital One and several other banks. All three state attorney general complaints alleged that
Capital One enrolls customers in such programs without their consent and that Capital One enrolls customers in
such programs in circumstances in which the customer is not eligible to receive benefits for the product in question.
All suits alleged unjust enrichment and violation of Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act statutes. The remedies sought
in the lawsuits included an injunction prohibiting the Company from engaging in the alleged violations, restitution
for all persons allegedly injured by the complained of practices, civil penalties and costs. The parties resolved all
three lawsuits and agreed to dismiss the lawsuits in February 2015.
Relatedly, Capital One has provided information to the Attorney General of Missouri as part of an industry-wide
informal inquiry initiated in August 2011, relating to the marketing of payment protection products. Capital One
and the Attorney General of Missouri resolved the inquiry, and the court in Missouri entered a joint final judgment
order in October 2014.
Intellectual Ventures Corp., et al.
In June 2013, Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (collectively “IV”) sued Capital One
Financial Corp., Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Capital One, N.A. (collectively “Capital One”) for patent
infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In the Complaint, IV alleges
infringement of patents related to various business processes across the Capital One enterprise. IV simultaneously
filed patent infringement actions against numerous other financial institutions on the same and other patents in
several other federal courts. Capital One’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice in August 2013. Capital
One filed an answer and counterclaim alleging antitrust violations. In December 2013, the court dismissed Capital
One’s counterclaim and decided the parties’ arguments on claim construction. IV agreed to dismiss two patents in
suit, and following claim construction, asked for a stipulation of non-infringement for one patent with an
opportunity to appeal the court’s decision regarding claim construction. In April 2014, the court granted Capital
One’s motion for summary judgment and found that the two remaining patents were either unpatentable or
indefinite. In May 2014, IV appealed to the Federal Circuit and Capital One cross-appealed the dismissal of its
antitrust claims.
In January 2014, IV filed a second suit against Capital One for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland. In the complaint, IV again alleges infringement of patents related to various business practices
across the Capital One enterprise. IV has voluntarily dismissed one of the patents against Capital One. The parties
are currently engaged in discovery and preparing for claim construction on the remaining patents.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation
In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) Litigation Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
district Litigation (“TCPA MDL”), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D.
Illinois); and Charles C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois) and several individual
lawsuits. In February 2013, the putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint alleging that COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by contacting
consumers on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded
voice without first obtaining prior express consent to do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged
260
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)