American Airlines 2008 Annual Report Download - page 27

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 27 of the 2008 American Airlines annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 114

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114

24
plaintiffs re-file claims against the Company, the Company will vigorously defend these lawsuits, but any adverse
judgment in these actions could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
On August 21, 2006, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against American and American Beacon Advisors, Inc.
(then a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas (Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.). This case has been
consolidated in the Central District of California for pre-trial purposes with numerous other cases brought by the
plaintiff against other defendants. On December 1, 2008, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims against
American Beacon. The plaintiff alleges that American infringes a number of the plaintiff’s patents, each of which
relates to automated telephone call processing systems. The plaintiff is seeking past and future royalties,
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Although the Company believes that the plaintiff’s claims are without
merit and is vigorously defending the lawsuit, a final adverse court decision awarding substantial money damages
or placing material restrictions on existing automated telephone call system operations would have a material
adverse impact on the Company.