Orbitz 2014 Annual Report Download - page 27

27
Litigation related to Intellectual Property
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). On June 13, 2014, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the Court entered an order dismissing the case. Plaintiff
agreed to stipulate that under the district court’s claim construction, Defendants do not infringe Plaintiff’s patents. On June 27,
2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 26, 2014,
the Federal Circuit entered an order staying Plaintiff’s appeal, pending the outcome of fee motions by certain defendants.
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. 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. In March of 2014, the PTAB instituted CBM review of several of the challenged claims in the
’850 and ’325 Patents. A final decision on the validity of the instituted claims is due from the PTAB in March of 2015.
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. On July 3, 2014, the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On
January 20, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
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. The parties filed a Stipulation to stay the case pending the outcome of the CBM proceedings: the first one challenging
U.S. Patent No. 8,326,924 (“924 CBM proceeding”) and the second one challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 8,239,451 (“451 CBM
proceeding”). On December 3, 2013, the Court entered an Order staying the case pending a decision from the PTAB. On March
20, 2014 and June 18, 2014, the PTAB instituted trial on both the ’924 and ’451 patents, respectively, finding it more likely
than not the challenged claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and more likely than not the challenged claims
were unpatentable in view of the prior art. The patent owner has filed in both proceedings motions to amend the patent by
adding substitute claims. All briefing and oral arguments were completed on December 5, 2014 in the ’924 CBM proceeding,
and a final decision from the PTAB is expected by March 20, 2015. Briefing and oral argument will be completed on February
24, 2015 in the ’451 CBM proceeding, and a final decision is expected by June 18, 2015.
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.
On May 21, 2014, Orbitz filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.
Shareholder Litigation
Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. Martin J. Brand et al.: On April 3, 2014, the Teamsters 25
Health Services & Insurance Plan derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Orbitz Worldwide Inc., filed suit in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware against certain current and former members of the Orbitz Board of Directors, Travelport
Limited, Travelport LP, Travelport Global Distribution System, B.V., TDS Investor (Luxembourg) S.A.R.L., Waltonville
Limited, Travelport Holdings Limited, and the Blackstone Group L.P. With respect to the Orbitz directors, the Complaint
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in relation to a new GDS agreement that was entered into between
Orbitz and Travelport in 2014. On June 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On November 18, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint. On December 4, 2014, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss has been scheduled for April 15, 2015.