Time Warner Cable 2006 Annual Report Download - page 147

appeal of this order was dismissed on October 10, 2006, and its claim for injunctive relief should now be moot.
America Channel, however, has announced its intention to proceed with its damages case in the District of
Minnesota. On September 19, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was granted on
January 17, 2007 with leave to replead. On February 5, 2007, America Channel filed an amended complaint. The
Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this suit or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
On June 22, 2005, Mecklenburg County filed suit against TWE-A/N in the General Court of Justice District
Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Mecklenburg County, the franchisor in TWE-A/N’s
Mecklenburg County cable system, alleges that TWE-A/N’s predecessor failed to construct an institutional
network in 1981 and that TWE-A/N assumed that obligation upon the transfer of the franchise in 1995.
Mecklenburg County is seeking compensatory damages and TWE-A/N’s release of certain video channels it is
currently using on the cable system. On April 14, 2006, TWE-A/N filed a motion for summary judgment, which is
pending. TWE-A/N intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this suit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
On June 16, 1998, plaintiffs in Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment
Company, L.P. and Time Warner Cable filed a purported nation-wide class action in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York claiming that TWE sold its subscribers’ personally identifiable information and failed
to inform subscribers of their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and
common law. The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On August 6, 1998, TWE filed a
motion to dismiss, which was denied on September 7, 1999. On December 8, 1999, TWE filed a motion to deny
class certification, which was granted on January 9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with respect
to injunctive relief. On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s
decision denying class certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings on class
certification and other matters. On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Company
opposed. On October 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement arrangement on terms
that were not material to the Company. A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 19, 2006, and on
January 26, 2007, the court denied approval of the settlement. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the suit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
Patent Litigation
On September 1, 2006, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware alleging that TWC and several other cable operators, among others, infringe a number
of patents purportedly relating to the Company’s customer call center operations, voicemail and/or video-on-de-
mand services. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. The Company
intends to defend against the claim vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the suit or reasonably estimate
a range of possible loss.
On July 14, 2006, Hybrid Patents Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas alleging that the Company and a number of other cable operators infringed a patent purportedly relating to
high-speed data and Internet-based telephony services. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages as
well as injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend against the claim vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of the suit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
On June 1, 2006, Rembrandt Technologies, LP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas alleging that the Company and a number of other cable operators infringed several patents
purportedly related to a variety of technologies, including high-speed data and Internet-based telephony services. In
addition, on September 13, 2006, Rembrandt Technologies, LP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company infringes several patents purportedly related to “high-speed
cable modem internet products and services.” In each of these cases, the plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary
142
TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)