Retail Patent Litigation

Illinois Patent Trial Attorney | R. David Donoghue

December 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

The trolls got more active in December.  Repeat filers included ArrivalStar, Eclipse IP, Hawk Technologies, and Landmark Technology. 

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Allegiant Travel Company (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • AmerisourceBergen Corporation
  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  • Choice Hotels International, Inc.
  • Weight Watchers International, Inc.
  • Zoetis Inc.
  • Panera Bread Company
  • Shutterstock, Inc.
  • Wayfair Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:          5,576,951 (Automated sales and services system); 6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system); and 7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. HealthEast Care System, (N.D. Minn.; D.N.J.) (multiple cases).

Judges:          Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois; District Judge Joan N. Ericksen

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • HealthEast Care System
  • St. Joseph’s Healthcare System, Inc.

Plaintiff:       Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Lockridge Grindal Nauen; and Patrick J Cerillo, LLC

Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

Video Insight Inc. v. Hawk Technology Systems, LLC, (S.D. Fla.)

Claim:            Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:   Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Plaintiff:        Video Insight Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:       Jones Day

Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

West Corporation v. Eclipse IP, LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Claim:            Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:   Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiff:        West Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,479,901 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,504,966 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,528,742 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,538,691 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,561,069 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to change particulars of delivery or pickup); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,232,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,242,935 (Notification systems and methods where a notified PCD causes implementation of a task(s) based upon failure to receive a notification); 8,284,076 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to quantity of goods and/or services for delivery and/or pickup); 8,362,927 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,368,562 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to stop location for delivery and/or pickup of good and/or service); 8,531,317 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,564,459 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to purchase order information for delivery and/or pickup of goods and/or services); and 8,711,010 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data).

WorldPantry.com, Inc. et al v. Eclipse IP, LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Percy Anderson; Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:    Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiffs:

  • Balance Bar, Inc.
  • WorldPantry.com, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,479,901 Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location; 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,504,966 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,528,742 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,538,691 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,561,069 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to change particulars of delivery or pickup); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia; 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,232,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,242,935 (Notification systems and methods where a notified PCD causes implementation of a task(s) based upon failure to receive a notification); 8,284,076 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to quantity of goods and/or services for delivery and/or pickup); 8,362,927 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,368,562 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to stop location for delivery and/or pickup of good and/or service); 8,531,317 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,564,459 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to purchase order information for delivery and/or pickup of goods and/or services); and 8,711,010 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data).

BSG Tech LLC v. Beauty Encounter Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Bodybuilding.com, LLC
  • The Bon-Ton Department Stores, Inc.
  • Discount Ramps.com LLC
  • Fat Brain Toys LLC
  • HRM USA, Inc.
  • HSNi, LLC
  • HSN
  • Musicnotes, Inc. d/b/a Musicnotes.com
  • Protocol II, Incorporated d/b/a Artbeads.com
  • Sears Holdings Management Corporation
  • Sur La Table, Inc.
  • XO Group Inc.

Plaintiff:        BSG Tech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Patents:          6,035,294 (Wide access databases and database systems); 6,195,652 (Self-evolving database and method of using same); and 6,243,699 (Systems and methods of indexing and retrieving data).

Farfetch UK Limited et al v. Eclipse IP, LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Margaret M. Morrow; Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal

Claim:              Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:    Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiffs:

  • Farfetch.com US, LLC
  • Farfetch UK Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,31,9414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,479,901 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,504,966 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,528,742 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,538,691 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,561,069 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to change particulars of delivery or pickup); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,232,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,242,935 (Notification systems and methods where a notified PCD causes implementation of a task(s) based upon failure to receive a notification); 8,284,076 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to quantity of goods and/or services for delivery and/or pickup); 8,362,927 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,368,562 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to stop location for delivery and/or pickup of good and/or service); 8,531,317 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,564,459 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to purchase order information for delivery and/or pickup of goods and/or services); and 8,711,010 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data).

ArrivalStar SA et al v. Fanatics Inc d/b/a Fanatics Holdings, Inc., (S.D. Fla.)

Judge:              District Judge Kenneth A. Marra

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:     Fanatics Inc d/b/a Fanatics Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • ArrivalStar SA
  • Melvino Technologies Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        Leslie Robert Evans & Associates

Patents:          6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); 6,952,645 (System and method for activation of an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).

November 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

The trolls entered the holiday season quiet, as they do most years.  Repeat filers included ArrivalStar, Eclipse IP, Hawk Technologies, and Interface IP. 

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Berks Packing Company, Inc., (E.D. Pa; M.D. Fla.; N.D. Ill.; N.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Edward G. Smith; District Judge Steven D. Merryday; Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli; District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.; Senior District Judge G. Kendall Sharp; Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding; District Judge Anne C. Conway; Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith; District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr.; Senior District Judge G. Kendall Sharp; Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith; District Judge John W. Darrah; District Judge Jane J. Boyle; Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding; District Judge Beth Bloom; Magistrate Judge Mona K Majzoub; District Judge Stephen J. Murphy; Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown; District Judge Brian M. Cogan

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Berks Packing Company, Inc.
  • Sonic Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Clearwater Toyota
  • Career Education Corporation
  • United Scrap Metal, Inc.
  • Oerther Foods, Inc.
  • Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
  • World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
  • De La Salle Institute
  • McCain Foods USA, Inc.
  • Southern Methodist University
  • Bethune-Cookman University, Inc.
  • JM Auto, Inc.
  • Skechers-USA, Inc.
  • Alrose King David, LLC

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Fiore & Barber; Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker; Schulz Law; Kilgore & Kilgore; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen; Law Office of Marc I Shulman; and The James Law Firm

Patent:            RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system); and 8,731,977 (System and method for analyzing and using vehicle historical data).

The Net-A-Porter Group LLC et al v. Eclipse IP LLC (C.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez; Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Eclipse IP LLC

Plaintiffs:

  • The Net-A-Porter Group Limited
  • The Net-A-Porter Group LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,479,901 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,504,966 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,528,742 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,538,691 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,561,069 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to change particulars of delivery or pickup); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,232,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,242,935 (Notification systems and methods where a notified PCD causes implementation of a task(s) based upon failure to receive a notification); 8,284,076 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to quantity of goods and/or services for delivery and/or pickup); 8,362,927 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,368,562 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to stop location for delivery and/or pickup of good and/or service); 8,531,317 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,564,459 Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to purchase order information for delivery and/or pickup of goods and/or services); and 8,711,010 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data).

ArrivalStar SA et al. v. Deckers Outdoor Corporation a/k/a Deckers Retail, LLC d/b/a Teva (S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks; District Judge James I. Cohn; District Judge Kenneth A. Marra; District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Sole Technology, Inc. d/b/a Etnies
  • Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC
  • Spencer Gifts, LLC a/k/a Spencer Gifts Online, LLC
  • Dollar General Corporation
  • Razor USA, LLC

Plaintiffs:

  • ArrivalStar SA
  • Melvino Technologies Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        Leslie Robert Evans & Associates

Patents:          6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); 6,952,645 (System and method for activation of an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, (E.D. Del.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
  • Choice Hotels International, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Black & Hamill; and Farnan

Patents:          7,406,663 (Graphical input device with dynamic field width adjustment for input of variable data via a browser-based display); and 7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device).

Eclipse IP LLC v. iMomoko, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Gaiam, Inc.
  • Natori, Inc.
  • Jones Group USA, Inc.
  • Woodcraft Supply LLC

Plaintiff:        Eclipse IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Olavi Dunne; and Tadlock Law Firm

Patents:          7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); and 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia).

October 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

The trolls continued the fourth quarter the way they ended the third — quiet.  Repeat filers included Hawk Technology, Interface IP and Phoenix Licensing.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Eclipse IP LLC v. Express, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Express, Inc.
  • Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.
  • Partsbandit.com, LLC

Plaintiff:        Eclipse IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Olavi Dunne; and Tadlock Law Firm

Patent:            7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); and 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia).

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Travelzoo Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Travelzoo Inc.
  • HomeAway, Inc.
  • RetailMeNot, Inc.
  • Singapore Airlines Limited

Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Black & Hamill; and Farnan

Patents:          7,406,663 (Graphical input device with dynamic field width adjustment for input of variable data via a browser-based display); 7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device); 7,743,542 (Magazine entrance guide); and 7,080,325 (Graphical device for comprehensive viewing and input of variable data via a browser-based display).

Magnacross LLC v.Best Buy Purchasing, LLC d/b/a Insignia Products, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Defendants:

  • BlackBerry Corporation
  • Fujitsu America, Inc.
  • HTC America, Inc.
  • LG Electronics USA, Inc.
  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Motorola Mobility LLC
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  • Sony Electronics Inc.
  • ZTE (USA) Inc.

Plaintiff:        Magnacross LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Patent:            6,917,304 (Wireless mutliplex data transmission system).

Phoenix Licensing, LLC et al v. CenturyLink, Inc.(E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • T-Mobile
  • Charter Communications
  • Cox Communications
  • DISH Network
  • Holland America Line, NV
  • Kohl’s Corporation
  • Southwest Airlines Co.
  • Macy’s Inc.
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
  • Hilton Worldwide
  • Hyundai
  • TDS Telecommunications Corporation
  • Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.
  • United States Cellular Corporation
  • Insight Communications Company, Inc.
  • Time Warner
  • Hyatt

Plaintiffs:

  • LPL Licensing, LLC
  • Phoenix Licensing, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Russ August & Kabat

Patents:          5,987,434 (Apparatus and method for transacting marketing and sales of financial products); 6,999,938 (Automated reply generation direct marketing system); 7,890,366 (Personalized communication documents, system and method for preparing same); 8,234,184 (Automated reply generation direct marketing system); 8,352,317 (System for facilitating production of variable offer communications); 8,606,632 (System, method, and computer program product for selecting and presenting financial products and services); 8,738,435 (Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services); 7,860,744 (System and method for automatically providing personalized notices concerning financial products and/or services); and 7,991,649 (Method for automatically preparing a plurality of client communications offering one or more financial products or services).

Gonzalez v. Snap Interactive, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Snap Interactive, Inc.
  • Tagged, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Emmanuel C Gonzalez

Pls. Cnsl:        Locke Lord

Patents:          7,558,807 (Host website for digitally labeled websites and method); 7,647,339 (Method for digitally labeling websites); 7,873,665 (Method for digitally labelling websites); 8,065,333 (Method for digitally labelling websites); and 8,296,325 (Method for digitally labelling websites).

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Terra Holdings, LLC, (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge:            District Judge George B. Daniels

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     Terra Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff:        Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Levisohn Berger

Patents:          6,886,750 (Method and apparatus for accessing electronic data via a familiar printed medium); and 6,929,182 (Method and apparatus for accessing electronic data via a familiar printed medium).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC (C.D. Cal.; D.N.J.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth; District Judge Christina A. Snyder

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC
  • Breezin’ Up, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker; and Patrick J Cerillo, LLC

Patent:            RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

Patent Reform: Coming Soon to a Congress Near You

Posted in Industry Issues, Patent Trolls

Gene Quinn at IP Watchdog is reporting that Rep. Goodlatte is planning to introduce a bill in the House next week that will be very similar to the Innovation Act that the House passed in the last session.  Here are some links to commentary on various sides of the patent reform debate that will help retailers understand the players and where the patent reform battle will be fault:

September 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

The trolls continued to lay low in September.  Repeat filers included Eclipse IP (in a DJ filing) and PanTaurus.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Justice Family Group, LLC, (S.D.W.V.; N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judge:            District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:   

  • Justice Family Group, LLC
  • Gold Coast Group, Ltd. d/b/a The Talbott Hotel

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls Cnsl:         Lockridge Grindal Nauen; Mani Ellis & Layne; and Schulz Law

Patent:            RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

PanTaurus LLC v. Bank of America Corporation (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:
  • Bank of America, NA
  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
  • Chevron Corp.
  • Citibank Corporation
  • Citibank, NA
  • Citicorp
  • Citigroup Inc.
  • eHarmony, Inc.
  • E*TRADE Financial Corporation
  • Facebook, Inc.
  • Hulu, LLC
  • Chase Bank USA, NA
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  • JP Morgan Securities LLC
  • LinkedIn Corporation
  • Morgan Stanley
  • Spotify Sweden AB
  • Spotify USA, Inc.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, NA
  • Wells Fargo & Company
  • Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Plaintiff:        PanTaurus LLC

Pls Cnsl:         Tadlock Law Firm

Patent:           6,272,533 (Secure computer system and method of providing secure access to a computer system including a stand alone switch operable to inhibit data corruption on a storage device).

Internet Media Interactive Corporation v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., (N.D. Ill.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:   Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Niro Haller & Niro

Patent:           6,049,835(System for providing easy access to the World Wide Web utilizing a published list of preselected Internet locations together with their unique multi-digit jump codes).

BSG Tech LLC v. Folica, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Folica, Inc.
  • ModCloth, Inc.
  • HM Wallace, Inc. d/b/a NationalBuilderSupply.com
  • Shopperschoice.com, LLC
  • VMR Products, LLC d/b/a www.v2cigs.com

Plaintiff:       BSG Tech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Direction IP Law

Patents:         6,035,294 (Wide access databases and database systems); 6,195,652 (Self-evolving database and method of using same); 6,243,699 (Systems and methods of indexing and retrieving data); and 5,831,669 (Facility monitoring system with image memory and correlation).

Incase Designs, Corp v. Eclipse IP LLC, (C.D. Cal.)

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:   Eclipse IP LLC

Plaintiff:        Incase Designs Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:       Mitchell + Company

Patents:          7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); and 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia).


Patent Reform Roundup

Posted in Industry Issues

The following post is from my Holland & Knight colleague Anthony Fuga.  Anthony regularly works with me defending retailers and their supply chains against patent infringement demands, and he is a period contributor to the Retail Patent Litigation Blog.  Also, please note that one of the articles Anthony discusses references RPX.  In the interest of transparency, we are panel counsel for the RPXIS insurance program that covers patent troll defense.

When speaking with retail clients, we often hear a repeated angst over patent trolls: patent lawsuits are a costly distraction from the actual business.  While cost and distraction remain at the forefront of complaints against patent trolls, there are other very real concerns: hampering innovation and investment in new companies.  And with these concerns come a multitude of proposed solutions.

Michael J. Meurer and James Bessen, both of Boston University School of Law, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe titled “Congress needs to rein in patent trolls,” which touches on patent abuse concerns and calls for Congress to “move swiftly.”  Interestingly, Messrs. Meurer and Bessen discuss the expansion of patent trolls overseas, including government-sponsored patent trolls.  In their opinion, abuse of patent rights overseas has the potential to lead to a less talked about problem: international technology transfer. 

David Balto, an antitrust lawyer in Washington D.C., is also calling for Congress to revisit patent reform in his blog post “Smart patent reform needs to enable market solutions.”  As an antirust lawyer, Mr. Balto points to 1993 when Congress passed the National Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA) to provide “limited antitrust exemption for joint ventures.”  Mr. Balto calls for Congress to provide a similar antitrust exemption now – but this time, for defensive patent pools.  This, in his opinion, would allow “patent owners to organize their rights and provide transparent licensing information.”

Regardless of the grievances and proposed solutions, it is clear that patent trolls and congressional patent reform remain topics of conversation. 

August 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

The trolls continued to lay low in August.  Repeat filers included EMG Technologies and SFA Systems. 

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

RevoLaze LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.(N.D. Ohio) (multiple cases).

Judges:    District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan; District Judge Donald C. Nugent; District Judge James S. Gwin; District Judge Dan Aaron Polster; District Judges Solomon Oliver, Jr

Claim:     Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
  • The Buckle, Inc.
  • H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB
  • H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP
  • BBC Apparel Group, LLC
  • Gotham Licensing Group, LLC
  • DL 1961 Premium Denim Inc.
  • Eddie Bauer LLC
  • 1724982 Alberta ULC d/b/a Buffalo David Bitton
  • Buffalo International ULC
  • Eddie Bauer LLC
  • Koos Manufacturing, Inc.
  • Fashion Box SpA
  • Levi Strauss & Co.
  • Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc
  • Guess?, Inc.
  • Roberto Cavalli SpA d/b/a Just Cavalli
  • VF Corporation
  • The Gap, Inc.

Plaintiff:        RevoLaze LLC

Pls Cnsl:         Dentons

Patents:          5,990,444 (Laser method and system of scribing graphics); 6,140,602 (Marking of fabrics and other materials using a laser); 6,252,196 (Laser method of scribing graphics); 6,664,505 (Laser processing of materials using mathematical tools); 6,819,972 (Material surface processing with a laser that has a scan modulated effective power to achieve multiple worn looks); 6858815 (Denim designs from laser scribing).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Hideaway Restaurant, Inc., (E.D. Okla.; W.D. PA; M.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Joy Flowers Conti; Magistrate Judge Gheri Polster Chappell; Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Hideaway Restaurant, Inc.
  • Caterpillar, Inc.
  • Chico’s FAS, Inc.

Plaintiff:       Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls Cnsl:       Lockridge Grindal Nauen; and Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker

Plaintiff:       Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Carlson Lynch; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen

Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

SFA Systems, LLC v. Certona Corporation (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Senior District Judge Claude M. Hilton; Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr.

Claims:          Infringement; Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:

  • Dell Inc.
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • Google Inc.
  • Groupon, Inc.
  • Netflix, Inc.
  • Yahoo! Inc.
  • Hotels.com, LP
  • Ji-Soo Lee
  • Porto Technology, Co., Ltd.
  • Porto Technology, LLC

Plaintiffs:

  • SFA Systems, LLC
  • TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.

Pls Cnsl:         Spangler Law; Stamoulis & Weinblatt; and Smith Gambrell & Russell

Patents:          6,067,525 (Integrated computerized sales force automation system); 7,941,341 (Sales force automation system and method); and 6,532,413 (Method and apparatus for providing time-variant geographical information and a user device therefor).

Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Gameloft, Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Glu Mobile Inc.
  • Kabam, Inc.
  • King.com Inc.
  • ngmoco, LLC
  • Rovio Animation Company
  • Supercell, Inc

Plaintiff:        Inventor Holdings, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           8,784,198 (Method and apparatus for conducting or facilitating a promotion).

EMG Technology, LLC v. Gilt Groupe Holdings, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • Sally Beauty Supply LLC

Plaintiff:        EMG Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell; and Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:          6,600,497 (Apparatus and method to navigate interactive television using unique inputs with a remote control); and 7,194,698 (Method to advertise and search on television for web content using a simplified interface).

July 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

Trolls continued their summer vacation in July.  Repeat filers included Antennatech, EMG Technology, Eclipse IP, GPNE, Hawk Technology and Interface IP.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Market Track, LLC v. Efficient Collavorative Retail Marketing, (N.D. Ill.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     Efficient Collaborative Retail Marketing, LLC

Plaintiff:         Market Track, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Latham & Watkins

Patent:            7,849,083 (Automatic creation of output file from images in database).

ServiceMax v. Eclipse IP LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Claim:            Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiff:         ServiceMax

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 Response systems and methods for notification systems; 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); and 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., (M.D. Fla.; W.D. Wis.; N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III; District Judge Mary S. Scriven; Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker; District Judge James D. Peterson; District Judge Andrea R. Wood; District Judge Milton I. Shadur

Claim:                        Infringement

Defendants:

  • Tampa Bay Downs, Inc.
  • Kwik Trip, Inc.
  • Benedictine University
  • De Paul University

    Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

    Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker; Schulz Law

    Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system); 5,860,946 (Instrument for inserting a suppository); and 7,018,992 (Hormone composition).

    GPNE Corp. v. Cassens Transport Company, (N.D. Ill.)

    Judge:             District Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

    Claim:              Infringement

    Defendant:    Cassens Transport Company

    Plaintiff:         GPNE Corp.

    Pls. Cnsl:        Niro Haller & Niro; and O’Kelly Ernst & Bielli

    Patents:          7,570,954 (Communication system wherein a clocking signal from a controller, a request from a node, acknowledgement of the request, and data transferred from the node are all provided on different frequencies, enabling simultaneous transmission of these signals); and 8,086,240 (Data communication system using a reserve request and four frequencies to enable transmitting data packets which can include a count value and termination indication information).

    Eclipse IP LLC v. Cobra Electronics Corporation, (N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

    Judge:            District Judge Ronald A. Guzman; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

    Claim:             Infringement

    Defendants:

  • Cobra Electronics Corporation
  • Deckers Outdoor Corporation
  • ABT Electronics, Inc
  • Ashford, Inc.

    Plaintiff:        Eclipse IP LLC; Olavi Dunne; Wawrzyn; and Tadlock Law Firm

    Patents:          7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); and 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems).

    Gonzalez v. Anastasia International, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

    Claim:                        Infringement

    Defendants:

  • Homes.com, Inc.

    Plaintiff:        Emmanuel C. Gonzalez

    Pls. Cnsl:        Locke Lord

    Patents:          7,558,807 (Host website for digitally labeled websites and method); 7,647,339 (Method for digitally labeling websites); 7,873,665 (Method for digitally labelling websites); 8,065,333 (Method for digitally labelling websites); and 8,296,325 (Method for digitally labelling websites).

    Antennatech, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

    Claim:                        Infringement

    Defendants:

  • Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
  • Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    Plaintiff:    Antennatech, LLC

    Pls. Cnsl:   Stamoulis & Weinblatt

    Patent:       6,885,845 (Personal communication device connectivity arrangement); and 8,180,279 (Wireless hotspot arrangement).

    Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

    Claim:         Infringement

    Defendants:

  • The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.

    Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

    Pls. Cnsl:       Black & Hamill; and Farnan

    Patent:           7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device; and 7,406,663 (Graphical input device with dynamic field width adjustment for input of variable data via a browser-based display).

    Icon Laser Solutions LLC v. Gap Inc, (N.D. Tex.).

    Judge:             District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater

    Claim:              Infringement

    Defendant:    Gap, Inc.

    Plaintiff:         Icon Laser Solutions LLC

    Pls. Cnsl:        Friedman Suder & Cooke

    Patent:            5,567,207 (Method for marking and fading textiles with lasers).

    EMG Technology, LLC v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases)

    Claim:          Infringement

    Defendants:

  • Rite Aid Corporation
  • Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund
  • Toys “R” Us – Delaware, Inc.

    Plaintiff:        EMG Technology, LLC

    Pls. Cnsl:        Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell; Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

    Patents:          6,600,497 (Apparatus and method to navigate interactive television using unique inputs with a remote control); 7,194,698 (Method to advertise and search on television for web content using a simplified interface); and 7,441,196 (Apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content).

    Aeritas, LLC v. GameStop Corp., (N.D. Tex.).

    Judges:           District Judge Ed Kinkeade; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

    Claim:              Infringement

    Defendant:    GameStop Corp.

    Plaintiff:         Aeritas, LLC

    Pls. Cnsl:        Law Office of David H Judson

    Patents:          7,706,819 (Mixed-mode interaction; and 8,055,285 (Mixed-mode interaction).

    Bank of America, NA v. Wolf Run Hollow, LLC., (N.D. Ill.).

    Claim:              Declaratory Judgment

    Defendant:    Wolf Run Hollow, LLC

    Plaintiff:        Bank of America, NA

    Pls. Cnsl:        Goodwin Procter; and Reed Smith

    Patent:           6,115,817 (Methods and systems for facilitating transmission of secure messages across insecure networks).

June 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

June continued May’s trend of reduced filings.  Repeat filers included Inventor Holdings, LBS Innovations, NeoMedia Technologies and Antennatech.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Advanced Marketing Systems, LLC v. The Kroger Company, (N.D. Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     The Kroger Company

Plaintiff:        Advanced Marketing Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Bracewell & Giuliani; and Miles & Stockbridge

Patents:          8,219,445 (Promotion processor and management system); 8,370,199 (Promotion processor and management system); and 8,538,805 (Promotion on processor and management system).

SimpleAir, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:        SimpleAir, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Capshaw DeRieux; and Dovel & Luner

Patents:          7,035,914 (System and method for transmission of data); 8,090,803 (System and method for transmission of data); 8,572,279 (System and method for transmission of data); 8,601,154 (System and method for transmission of data); and 8,639,838 (System and method for transmission of data).

Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corporation et al,  (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Sears Holdings Corporation
  • Sears Holdings Management Corporation
  • Sam’s West, Inc. d/b/a Sam’s Club
  • Target Corporation

Plaintiff:        Inventor Holdings, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Bayard; and Russ August & Kabat

Patent:           6,381,582 (Method and system for processing payments for remotely purchased goods); and 5,970,470 (System and method for establishing and managing subscription purchase agreements including commitments to purchase goods over time at agreed upon prices).

Rogers & Brown Custom Brokers, Inc. v. Eclipse IP, LLC, (D.S.C.).

Judge:             District Judge Richard M. Gergel

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiff:        Rogers & Brown Custom Brokers, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Barnwell Whaley Patterson and Helms

Patents:          7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); and 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia).

LBS Innovations, LLC v. Foursquare Labs, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple caases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Foursquare Labs, Inc.
  • GasBuddy OpenStore, LLC
  • Berroco, Inc.
  • Boa-Franc, Inc.
  • Clark Equipment Company
  • Discount Tire Co., Inc.
  • Doosan Infracore International, Inc.
  • Mirage Flooring, Inc.
  • Pep Boys – Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc.
  • Pizzeria Uno Corporation
  • Rain Bird Corporation
  • Transworld Entertainment Corporation
  • UMB Bank, NA

Plaintiff:        LBS Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Buether Joe & Carpenter

Patent:           6,091,956 (Situation information system).

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Just Born, (D. Colo.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Marriott International, Inc.

Plaintiff:        NeoMedia Technologies, Inc.

Pls Cnsl:         Global IP Law Group

Patent:           8,131,597 (System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer).

Antennatech, LLC v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
  • BP America, Inc.
  • Chevron Corporation
  • The Coca-Cola Company
  • The Container Store Group, Inc.
  • Jack In The Box, Inc.
  • Jamba, Inc.
  • McDonald’s Corporation
  • Office Depot, Inc.
  • Regal Entertainment Group
  • Sunoco, Inc.
  • The Home Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Antennatech, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           8,112,131 (Radiative focal area antenna transmission coupling arrangement).

Traffic Information, LLC v. Ally Financial, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Allstate Corporation
  • BeBe Stores, Inc.
  • Fandango, LLC
  • Farmers Group, Inc.
  • Hyatt Corporation
  • Kelley Blue Book Co., Inc.
  • Michaels Stores, Inc.
  • Smoothie King Co., Inc.
  • State Farm International Services, Inc.
  • WebMD, LLC

Plaintiff:        Traffic Information, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Capshaw DeRieux; and Polasek Quisenberry & Errington

Patent:           6,785,606 (System for providing traffic information agent); 7,634,666 (Crypto-engine for cryptographic processing of data); 7,757,298 (Method and apparatus for identifying and characterizing errant electronic files); and 8,215,816 (Light emitting panel assemblies).

May 2014 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Posted in Retail Litigation Report

After a legislation-fueled spike of cases in April, the trolls slowed considerably in May.  Repeat filers included Cascades Branding, Clear With Computers, Eclipse IP, Olivistar, and TQP Development.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co., (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; District Judge Robert W. Gettleman; District Judge Edmond E. Chang

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Abercrombie & Fitch, Co.
  • GameStop Corp.
  • Jo-Ann Stores, LLC

Plaintiff:        Cascades Branding Innovation LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Flachsbart & Greenspoon

Patents:          7,768,395 (Brand mapping); 8,106,766 (Brand mapping); and 8,405,504 (Brand mapping).

TQP Development, LLC v. Allied Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Airlines, Inc.
  • American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
  • Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
  • Brooks Brothers Group, Inc.
  • Carestream Dental LLC
  • Columbia Sportswear USA Corporation
  • eBags, Inc.
  • Estee Lauder Inc.
  • Frontier Airlines Holdings, Inc.
  • Groupon, Inc.
  • Hayneedle, Inc.
  • Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
  • Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation
  • Kaiser Permanente Ventures, LLC
  • LL Bean, Inc.
  • Marriott International, Inc.
  • Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
  • J Crew Group, Inc.

Furnitureland South, Inc.

Plaintiff:        TQP Development, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Austin Hansley PLLC

Patent:           5,412,730 (Encrypted data transmission system employing means for randomly altering the encryption keys).

BSG Tech LLC v. Inteladerm LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Konarqui Internet Services LLC
  • Spiraledge Inc. d/b/a SwimOutlet.com
  • Toolup.com LLC
  • Albee Baby Carriage Co., Inc.
  • Costume Craze, LLC
  • Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
  • J.A. Cosmetics, Corp.

Plaintiff:        BSG Tech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Patents:          6,035,294 (Wide access databases and database systems); 6,195,652 (Self-evolving database and method of using same); and 6,243,699 (Systems and methods of indexing and retrieving data).

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Target Corporation, (D. Colo.)

Judge:              Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:    Target Corporation

Plaintiff:        NeoMedia Technologies, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Global IP Law Group

Patents:          6,199,048 (System and method for automatic access of a remote computer over a network); 8,131,597 (System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer).

Olivistar, LLC v. Legrand North America, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Legrand North America, Inc.
  • Smartlabs, Inc.
  • Trane Inc.

VTech Electronics North America, LLC

Plaintiff:        Olivistar, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Austin Hansley PLLC

Patents:          6,839,731 (System and method for providing data communication in a device network); and 8,239,481 (System and method for implementing open-control remote device control).

Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equipment Corporation, (C.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Andrew J. Guilford; Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:     McKinley Equipment Corporation

Plaintiff:        Eclipse IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Newport Trial Group

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); and 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications).

EMG Technology, LLC v. CenturyLink, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc.
  • Fluor Corporation
  • Safelite Group, Inc.

Plaintiff:        EMG Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell; and Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patent:           7,441,196 (Apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content).

CYVA Research Holdings, LLC v. eBay Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:               Infringement

Defendant:     eBay Inc.

Plaintiff:        CYVA Research Holdings, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ni Wang & Massand

Patent:           8,195,569 (E-bazaar featuring personal information security).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Xtreme Indoor Karting, LLC, (S.D. Fla., C.D. Cal., E.D. Mich., M.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge William J. Zloch, District Judge Audrey B. Collins; Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner; Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk; Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly; District Judge Gregory A. Presnell

Claim:              Infringement

Defendants:

  • Xtreme Indoor Karting, LLC
  • California Cinema Investments, Inc.
  • Henry Ford Health System
  • NCL Corporation Ltd.

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker; and Law Office of Mark I Shulman

Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

Clear With Computers, LLC v. eBags, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:              Infringement

Defendants:

  • eBags, Inc.
  • Karmaloop, Inc.
  • Ellison Systems Inc. dba Shoplet.com

Plaintiff:        Clear With Computers, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Spangler Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patents:          5,625,776 (Electronic proposal preparation system for selling computer equipment and copy machines); and 7,606,739 (Electronic proposal preparation system).