Orbitz 2013 Annual Report Download - page 30

30
8,146,077. On October 15, 2013, Orbitz filed petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office seeking review of the validity of Ameranth’s, asserted patents under the Transitional Program for
Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Patents. On November 27, 2013 the Court entered an Order which stayed the case pending
a final decision from the PTAB.
Parallel Iron, LLC v. Orbitz, LLC: On December 10, 2013, Orbitz reached a settlement agreement with plaintiff. On
December 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order dismissing the case against Orbitz, LLC.
CEATS, Inc. v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.: On August 5, 2013, CEATS, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Orbitz,
Worldwide, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The plaintiff alleges that Orbitz infringes U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,548,867; 7,640,178; 7,660,727; 8,219,448; 8,229,774; and 8,244,561.
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. Orbitz filed
petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking review of
the validity of certain of Metasearch’s, asserted patents under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method (“CBM”)
Patents, and the parties filed a Stipulation to stay the case pending the outcome of the CBM proceedings. On December 3,
2013, the Court entered an Order staying the case pending a decision from the PTAB.
Execware LLC v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.: On February 21, 2014, Execware LLC filed a patent infringement suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleges that Orbitz infringes U.S. patent No. 6,216,139.
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. On October 2, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment on one of its affirmative defenses. On December 24, 2013, the Supreme Court rejected the majority of
Orbitz’s remaining defenses.
We intend to defend ourselves 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. Although we believe it
is unlikely that an adverse outcome will result from these proceedings, an adverse outcome could be material to use with
respect to earnings or cash flows in any given reporting period.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure
Not Applicable.