Orbitz 2012 Annual Report Download - page 30

30
Unified Messaging Solutions LLC v. Orbitz, LLC: On March 1, 2012, Unified Messaging Solutions LLC (“UMS”) filed
a suit for patent infringement against Orbitz, LLC in the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois alleging
infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,857,074; 7,836,141; 7,895,306; 7,895,313; and 7,934,148. On April 23, 2012, UMS filed an
Amended Complaint in which it alleged infringement of only one of the five originally asserted patents (U.S. Patent No.
7,934,148).
Ameranth, Inc. v. Orbitz, LLC: On June 29, 2012, Ameranth, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Orbitz, LLC in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325; and
8,146,077.
Parallel Iron, LLC v. Orbitz, LLC: On July 12, 2012, Parallel Iron, LLC filed a lawsuit against Orbitz, LLC in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,197,662;
7,958,388; and 7,543,177.
Metasearch Systems, LLC v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.: On September 21, 2012, Metasearch Systems, LLC filed a suit for
patent infringement against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that
Orbitz infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,239,451; 8,171,079; 8.073,904; 7,490,091; 7,421,468; and 7,277,918. On December 19,
2012, Metasearch filed an Amended Complaint adding allegations of infringement for U.S. Patent No. 8,326,924.
Other Litigation
Trilegiant Corporation v. Orbitz, LLC v. and Trip Network, Inc.: On July 7, 2011, Trilegiant Corporation filed an action
for breach of contract and declaratory judgment in the Supreme Court of New York against Orbitz, LLC and Trip Network, Inc.
Trilegiant 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. On December 3, 2012, Trilegiant moved to dismiss certain of Orbitz's
affirmative defenses. On January 14, 2013, Orbitz moved for summary judgment and filed an opposition to Trilegiant's motion
to dismiss.
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 realleged one claim that was previously dismissed, and added 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 in the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On December 22, 2011,
Orbitz moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On August 7, 2012, the Court denied Orbitz's motion to dismiss. On
September 6, 2012, the Court granted the motion of American Airlines, Travelport, and Orbitz to stay all deadlines in the case
until December 21, 2012. On January 9, 2013, the Court granted the parties motion to extend the stay until January 15, 2013.
On January 30, 2013, Orbitz filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement that it believes it reached with American Airlines.
On February 12, 2013, the court denied Orbitz's motion.
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.