Orbitz 2008 Annual Report Download - page 38

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 38 of the 2008 Orbitz annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 146

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146

In the City of Jacksonville, in and for Duval County, Florida case, on October 31, 2007, the court entered an order dismissing the action.
The Cumberland County, North Carolina case was dismissed on November 19, 2007.
In the City of Oakland, California case, on November 6, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed all claims
with prejudice. However, the plaintiff filed its notice of appeal on December 5, 2007 and its opening brief in support was filed on February 22, 2008. The
appellees-defendants' response brief is due on April 14, 2008.
The City of Houston, Texas, et al. case was dismissed on March 13, 2008.
We have also been contacted by several municipalities or other taxing bodies concerning our possible obligations with respect to state or local hotel
occupancy or related taxes. The City of Baltimore, Maryland, City of New Orleans, Louisiana, the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the City of Madison,
Wisconsin, the counties of Mecklenburg, Stanly and Brunswick, North Carolina, the counties of Miami-Dade and Broward, Florida, the cities of Alpharetta,
Atlanta, Cartersville, Cedartown, College Park, Columbus, Dalton, East Point, Hartwell, Macon, Rockmart, Rome, Tybee Island and Warner Robins, Georgia,
the counties of Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett, Georgia, the cities of Anaheim, Los Angeles and San Diego, California, the cities of Pine Bluff and North
Little Rock, Arkansas, the county of Jefferson, Arkansas, state tax officials from Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Indiana, and a third-party on
behalf of numerous municipalities and counties in Alabama, among others, have begun or attempted to pursue formal or informal audits or administrative
procedures (including in one instance issuing an assessment against us, which we are protesting), or stated that they may assert claims against us relating to
allegedly unpaid state or local hotel occupancy or related taxes.
Litigation related to Intellectual Property
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. On January 31, 2006, DDR Holdings, LLC ("DDR") filed an action in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) against a number of Internet companies, including Cendant Corporation, for alleged infringement of U.S.
Patents Nos. 6,629,135 (entitled "Affiliate Commerce System and Method"), and 6,993,572 (entitled "System and Method for Facilitating Internet Commerce
with Outsourced Websites"), which DDR claims full right and title to. The plaintiff asserts only patent infringement claims. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment and attorneys' fees. On April 12, 2006, the plaintiff amended its complaint to add Internetwork Publishing
Corporation (d/b/a Lodging.com) as a defendant. On April 12, 2006, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Cendant Corporation and named Cendant Travel
Distribution Services Group, Inc. as a defendant. On July 14, 2006, certain defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that both patents are invalid
(Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc. and Internetwork Publishing Corporation joined on July 19, 2006). On September 22, 2006, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint adding Neat Group Corporation as a defendant and not including Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc. as a defendant. On
September 26, 2006, DDR filed a request of reexamination in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, of the patents-in-suit. DDR moved to stay the
lawsuit pending the outcome of any reexamination. On December 19, 2006, the court administratively closed the case pending reexamination. The court ruled
that actions by defendants during the reexamination may not be used to argue willful infringement, but the court reserved judgment on whether damages are
tolled. On February 2, 2007, the Patent and Trademark Office granted DDR's requests for reexamination of the two patents-in-suit.
We intend to defend vigorously against the claims described above. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss that may result. If any of these legal proceedings were to result in an unfavorable outcome, it could have a material adverse effect on us.
31
Source: Orbitz Worldwide, In, 10-K/A, August 28, 2008