Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended |
Jun. 30, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
14. Commitments and Contingencies |
|
Legal Proceedings |
|
The Company is currently involved in certain legal proceedings, as discussed within the section “Legal Proceedings” in Note 21, “Commitments and Contingencies” within our Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8 in the Annual Report, and below in this Note 14. From time to time, the Company is a party to various other litigation and administrative proceedings relating to claims arising from its operations in the ordinary course of business. However, as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and except as disclosed below, there have been no material developments in the legal proceedings disclosed in the Annual Report, and the Company is not a party to any other litigation or administrative proceedings that management believes will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. |
|
On February 28, 2007, in a patent infringement action against a real estate agent, Diane Sarkisian, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Sarkisian case”), Real Estate Alliance, Limited (“REAL”) moved to certify two classes of defendants: subscribers and members of the multiple listing service of which Sarkisian was a member, and customers of the Company who had purchased enhanced listings from the Company. The U.S. District Court in the Sarkisian case denied REAL’s motion to certify the classes on September 24, 2007. On March 25, 2008, the U.S. District Court in the Sarkisian case stayed that case, and denied without prejudice all pending motions, pending the U.S. District Court of California’s determination in the Move California Action (see below) of whether the Company’s web sites infringe the REAL patents. |
|
On April 3, 2007, in response to REAL’s attempt to certify our customers as a class of defendants in the Sarkisian case, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”) against REAL and its licensing agent (the “Move California Action”) seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 4,870,576 and 5,032,989 (the “REAL patents”), that the REAL patents are invalid and/or unenforceable, and alleging several business torts and unfair competition. On August 8, 2007, REAL denied the Company’s allegations, and asserted counterclaims against the Company for infringement of the REAL patents seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, costs, expenses, reasonable attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 11, 2008, REAL filed a separate suit in the District Court (the “REAL California Action”) alleging infringement of the REAL patents against the NAR and the National Association of Home Builders (the “NAHB”) as individual defendants, as well as various brokers including RE/Max International (“RE/Max”), agents, MLSs, new home builders, rental property owners, and technology companies. The Company is not named as a defendant in the REAL California Action; however, the Company is defending the NAR, the NAHB and RE/Max. On July 29, 2008, the Move California Action was transferred to the same judge in the REAL California Action and in September 2008, the District Court coordinated both cases and issued an order dividing the issues into two phases. Phase 1 addresses issues of patent validity and enforceability, whether Move web sites infringe, possible damages, and liability of Move, the NAR and the NAHB. Phase 2 will address REAL’s infringement claims related to the web sites owned or operated by the remaining defendants and whether those defendants infringe the REAL patents by using the Move web sites. The District Court has stayed Phase 2 pending resolution of the issues in Phase 1. |
|
On November 25, 2009, the District Court entered its claim construction order in the Move California Action. On January 27, 2010, upon joint request of the parties, the District Court entered judgment of non-infringement of the patent. In July 2010, REAL appealed the District Court’s claim construction with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”). On March 22, 2011, the Circuit Court concluded that the District Court erred in certain of its claim construction and vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings. |
|
On October 18, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Brief on Summary Judgment Motions, each side putting forth its arguments requesting the District Court to enter summary judgment in its favor. On January 26, 2012, the District Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment on the Company’s claim of non-infringement of the patent. On March 27, 2012, REAL appealed the District Court’s summary judgment order. On March 4, 2013, the Circuit Court issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s ruling of no direct infringement of the patent by the Company, but remanded the case to the District Court for a determination of induced infringement under the standard set forth in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Network, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (S.Ct. Cert. No. 12-960). The Company filed a motion for rehearing to the Circuit Court on May 3, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the Circuit Court denied the Company’s motion and remanded the case to the District Court. On January 10, 2014, the U. S. Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in the Akamai case on the issue of whether the Circuit Court erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement in the absence of a finding of direct infringement. On February 3, 2014, the District Court entered an order staying the case pending the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Akamai case. |
|
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision in Akamai, holding that an entity cannot be liable for induced infringement when no one is liable for direct infringement. On June 23, 2014, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Akamai, the District Court reinstated its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and entered final judgment in favor of the Company. On July 21, 2014, REAL filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s final judgment. |
|
The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims. At this time, however, the Company is unable to express an opinion on the outcome of these cases. |
|
In March 2010, Smarter Agent, LLC (“Smarter Agent”) filed suit against Move, Inc., against the Company’s affiliate, RealSelect, Inc. (“RealSelect”), and also against other co-defendants Boopsie, Inc., Classified Ventures, LLC, Hotpads, Inc., IDX, Inc., Multifamily Technology Solutions, Inc., D/B/A MyNewPlace, Primedia, Inc., Consumer Source, Inc., Trsoft, Inc., D/B/A PlanetRE, Trulia, Inc., Zillow, Inc., and ZipRealty, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company and RealSelect, Inc. infringe U.S. Patents 6,385,541; 6,496,776; and 7,072,665 (“Patents in Suit”) by offering an iPhone application for the realtor.com® web site and requested an unspecified amount of damages (including enhanced damages for willful infringement and attorneys’ fees) and an injunction. On August 31, 2010, co-defendants Boopsie, Inc., Classified Ventures, LLC, Hotpads, Inc., IDX, Inc., Multifamily Technology Solutions, Inc., Primedia, Inc., Consumer Source, Inc., Trsoft, Inc., Trulia, Inc., Zillow, Inc., and ZipRealty, Inc., filed requests for interpartes reexamination of the Patents in Suit with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). On September 30, 2010, the Company filed an answer and counter claims on behalf of Move and RealSelect. On October 22, 2010, SmarterAgent filed its answer to such counter claims. The PTO accepted the Patents in Suit for re-examination and on December 21, 2010, issued an initial office action rejecting all claims in the Patents in Suit. Smarter Agent appealed the PTO’s rejection to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. On March 2, 2011, all parties agreed to stipulate to stay the lawsuit pending the completion of all re-examination proceedings at the PTO and on March 7, 2011, the Court so ordered the stay as requested. The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims. At this time, however, the Company is unable to express an opinion on the outcome of this case. |
|
Contingencies |
|
From time to time, the Company is subject to a variety of threats or claims, other than formal litigation or legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business and relate to commercial, intellectual property, employment and other matters. However, as of the date of this Form 10-Q, and except as disclosed herein, or in the Annual Report, the Company does not believe such threats or claims will have a material adverse effect upon its business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, although the Company can offer no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of any such matters. |