Orbitz 2012 Annual Report Download - page 29

29
violation of the Commerce Clause, violation of state uniformity clause and federal equal protection, and void for vagueness. On
April 18, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Portland, Oregon: On February 17, 2012, we and other online travel companies, brought an action in the Circuit Court
of the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah, against the City of Portland, Oregon and Multnomah County. Expedia, Inc. et al.
v. City of Portland, et al., No. 1202-02223 (Cir. Ct. Oregon, Multnomah County.). The complaint asserts four claims for
declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality and legality of the law relating to the Portland City and Multnomah
County's transient lodging taxes and one claim for injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of the taxes against the online travel
companies. On March 22, 2012, the court entered a temporary restraining order against the City of Portland, Oregon and
Multnomah County, enjoining the enforcement of previously issued assessments. On June 15, 2012, the Court denied the City
of Portland, Oregon and Multnomah County's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding the
court had jurisdiction over the matter. On November 30, 2012, the Court granted the online travel companies' motion to dismiss
the City of Portland, Oregon and Multnomah County's common law counterclaims, finding that the tax ordinances provided the
exclusive remedy for the City of Portland, Oregon and Multnomah County's alleged damage.
Consumer Class Actions
On-Line Travel Company (OTC) Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation: On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain hotel chains and the
major online travel companies, including Orbitz. The complaint alleges that the hotel chains and several major online travel
companies, including Orbitz, have violated the antitrust and consumer protection laws by entering into agreements in which
online travel companies agree not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms at prices that are less than what the hotel chain
offers on its own website. Following the filing of the initial complaint on August 20, 2012, several dozen additional putative
consumer class action complaints have been filed in federal courts across the country. On December 11, 2012, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating these cases in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
Debra Miller v. 1-800-Flowers.com et al.: On September 7, 2012, Orbitz was named as a defendant in a putative
consumer class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges the
defendants, including Orbitz, violated certain federal and state laws relating to their marketing practices. On December 21,
2012, Orbitz filed a motion to dismiss.
Litigation related to Intellectual Property
Global Sessions L.P. v. Travelocity.com L.P. et al.: In December 2010, Global Sessions 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 Orbitz Defendants”). The
lawsuit alleges that the defendants infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,480,894; 6,076,108; 6,085,220; and 6,360,249. In January
2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. On January 16, 2013, the Court issued an Order dismissing with
prejudice all claims and counterclaims between Plaintiffs and the Orbitz Defendants.
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. Pinpoint 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
without prejudice on December 12, 2012 and refiled as a separate case against Orbitz, LLC on that same date. On June 13,
2012, the Court stayed proceedings in the case pending its ruling on related claim construction issues in a separate patent
infringement suit brought by Pinpoint against Hotwire.
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 ("LVL") 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. On August 16, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the asserted patent is invalid.
LVL (now proceeding as “Cyberfone Systems, LLC”) has appealed the decision.