Orbitz 2011 Annual Report Download - page 31

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 31 of the 2011 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 108

  • 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

31
without prejudice on December 12, 2012 and refiled as a separate case against Orbitz, LLC on that same date.
TQP Development, LLC v. Caterpillar Inc. et al. On September 9, 2011, TQP Development, LLC filed a patent
infringement suit against Orbitz, LLC and several other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas. The plaintiff alleges that Orbitz, LLC and the other defendants are infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730.
LVL Patent Group LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. On September 15, 2011, LVL Patent Group LLC filed a patent
infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a group of defendants, including Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc. The plaintiff alleges that Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. and the other defendants are infringing U.S. Patent No.
8,019,060.
Other Litigation
Trilegiant Corp. v. Orbitz, LLC and Trip Network Inc. On July 7, 2011, Trilegiant Corp filed an action for breach of
contract and declaratory judgment in the Supreme Court of New York against Orbitz, LLC, and Trip Network, Inc. The plaintiff
alleges that the defendants are obligated to make a series of termination payments arising out of a promotion agreement that
defendants terminated at the end of 2007.
American Airlines, Inc. v. Travelport Limited et al. On April 12, 2011, American Airlines, Inc. filed suit against
Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP, and Orbitz Worldwide, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. American Airlines alleged that Orbitz, through its Travelport GDS Service Agreement, violated the Sherman Antitrust
Act. On June 9, 2011, American Airlines filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Sabre Inc. and affiliated entities to its
lawsuit. On November 22, 2011, the court granted Orbitz's motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims against Orbitz. On
December 6, 2011, American Airlines filed under seal a Second Amended Complaint against Travelport, Sabre, and Orbitz.
Against Orbitz, the Second Amended Complaint realleges one claim that was previously dismissed, and adds one new claim
alleging that Orbitz violated the Sherman Act through communications with other travel agents relating to American's
termination of Orbitz's ticketing authority in December 2010. On February 28, 2012, the Court clarified that the original claim
that American Airlines realleged against Orbitz in its Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. As a result,
there is only one claim remaining against Orbitz. Orbitz has moved to dismiss that claim, and is awaiting a ruling from the
court.
We intend to defend vigorously against the claims described above. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and, although
we believe we have valid defenses in these matters, unfavorable resolutions could occur. We cannot estimate our range of loss,
except to the extent taxing authorities have issued assessments against us. Although we believe it is unlikely that an adverse
outcome will result from these proceedings, an adverse outcome could be material to us with respect to earnings or cash flows
in any given reporting period.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure
Not Applicable.