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).