Orbitz 2011 Annual Report Download - page 30

30
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants overbilled
customers for hotel occupancy taxes and sales taxes imposed by the City and State of New York and asserts claims for violation
of New York's deceptive business practices statute, declaratory and injunctive relief, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On October 7, 2010, the case was consolidated with similar cases that were
previously filed against other online travel companies. On May 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the motion of Blackstone Group, L.P., Orbitz, LLC, Cendant Corpoartion, Travelport L.P. Orbitz Worldwide
International, LLC, Orbitz.com, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, Orbitz Worldwide, Development, LLC, and Orbtiz Worldwide Inc. to
dismiss the complaint. The court transferred plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. On July 14, 2011, plaintiff filed her notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On July 25, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the remaining claim pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. On December 7, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
McAllister v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. On February 24, 2011, citizen-taxpayers Elizabeth McAllister and Greg Bowerman
filed a putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas against a number of current and former
online travel companies, including Orbitz, LLC, Trip Network, Inc and Internetwork Publishing Corp. seeking to enjoin
defendants to make reimbursement of monies owed to the State of Arkansas for hotel taxes collected by defendants and not
reported by defendants, plus interest. On February 6, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
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 and 6,993,572 to which DDR claims
full right and title. 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 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. On
July 20, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Reissue certificates with respect to the two patents at issue
in the case. On October 6, 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) granted
the plaintiff's motion to reopen the case.
Global Sessions L.P. v. Travelocity.com L.P. et al. In December 2010, Global Sessions L.P. filed a suit for patent
infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against 19 defendants, including Orbitz
Worldwide, LLC, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Orbitz Inc., Orbitz, LLC, and Trip Network, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,480,894; 6,076,108; 6,085,220; and 6,360,249.
H-W Technology L.C. v. Apple et al. On March 30, 2011, H-W Technology filed a suit for patent infringement in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against 32 defendants, including Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. The suit
alleges that Orbitz's Smartphone application infringes United States patent No. 7,525,955. On February 3, 2012, Orbitz reached
an agreement in principle to settle the case.
Alloqate, LLC v. Dealbase Corp. et al. On May 9, 2011, Alloqate, LLC filed a suit for patent infringement in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware against ten defendants including Orbitz, LLC. The suit alleged that the
“DealDetector” feature on the Orbitz.com website infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,615, 184. On December 30, 2011, Orbitz and
Alloqate, LLC entered into an agreement in principle to settle the case. A dismissal was granted by the court on January 5,
2012.
Pinpoint Inc. v. Groupon et al. On August 16, 2011, Pinpoint Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against a group of
defendants, including Orbitz, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges
that Orbitz, LLC and the other defendants are infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,754,938 and 7,853,600. The case was dismissed