April patent filings showed the typical recessionary increase, as the NPEs crank up activity in a rough economy. Frequent filers included Cedar Lane, Coding Technologies, Communication Interface Technologies, Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, Location Based Services, and Symbology.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Clarifai, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., W.D. Tex., N.D. Cal.).

Judge:            District Judge Robert Pitman, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    

  • Clarifai, Inc.
  • Corel, Inc.
  • Eyeris Entertainment

Plaintiff:        Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law; Budo Law

Patent:           6,904,168 (Workflow system for detection and classification of images suspected as pornographic); 6,700,999 (System, method, and apparatus for multiple face tracking); 6,972,774 (Image processing system for inserting plurality of images into composite area, and medium); 7,292,261 (Virtual reality camera); 7,733,368 (Virtual reality camera); 8,031,223 (Virtual reality camera); RE44087 (Presenting panoramic images with geometric transformation)

Coding Technologies, LLC v. Zuca, Inc. (N.D. Cal., N.D. Tex., D. Neb.)

Judge:            District Judge Sam A. Lindsay; Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    

  • ZUCA, Inc.
  • Samsonite Corporation
  • Hyvee, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        SML Avvocati; Kizzia Johnson; Goosmann Law Firm

Patent:  8,540,159 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern)

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. PepsiCo, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).        

Judge:            District Judge Sean D. Jordan

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • PepsiCo, Inc.
  • Rent-A-Center, Inc.
  • Texas Instruments Incorporated
  • Yum! Brands, Inc.
  • FedEx Corporation
  • Cinemark Holdings, Inc.
  • Cinemark USA, Inc.
  • Capital One Financial Corporation
  • American Messaging Services, LLC

Plaintiff:        Communication Interface Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patent:           6,574,239 (Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server); 8,266,296 (Application-layer evaluation of communications received by a mobile device); 8,291,010 (Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server)

Corrino Holdings LLC v. Expedia Group, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Expedia Group, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Corrino Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        DiMuro Ginsberg

Patent:           6,741,188 (System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system); 7,716,149 (Method, device, and program product for a social dashboard associated with a persistent virtual environment); 7,843,332 (System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system); 7,847,685 (System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system); 7,958,104 (Context based data searching); 9,152,734 (Systems and methods for identifying intersections using content metadata); 9,262,533 (Context based data searching)

Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC v. Carter’s, Inc. . (multiple cases) (N.D. Ohio, D. Del.).

Judge:            District Judge Sara Lioi; District Judge Benita Y. Pearson

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Carter’s, Inc.
  • JC Penney Corporation, Inc.
  • Menard, Inc.
  • The Children’s Place, Inc.
  • American Airlines Group Inc.

Plaintiff:        Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow; Chong Law Firm

Patent:           8,820,635 (Processing a transaction by a terminal)

Estech Systems, Inc. v. PlainsCapital Bank (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:

  • PlainsCapital Bank
  • Target Corporation
  • Regus International

Plaintiff:         Estech Systems, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Williams Simons & Landis

Patent:           7,068,684 (Quality of service in a voice over IP telephone system); 7,123,699 (Voice mail in a voice over IP telephone system); 8,391,298 (Phone directory in a voice over IP telephone system); 6,067,349 (Dialing using caller ID)

Honeyman Cipher Solutions LLC v. Adidas American Inc. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Robert Pitman

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Adidas American Inc.
  • Asics Digital Inc.
  • Evernote Corporation
  • PayPal, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Honeyman Cipher Solutions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:  5,991,399 (Method for securely distributing a conditional use private key to a trusted entity on a remote system)

Human Differential Intelligence LLC v. Cigna Corporation (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.). 

Judge:            District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cigna Corporation
  • The Gap, Inc.
  • Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
  • CVS Health Corporation

Plaintiff:        Human Differential Intelligence LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        DiNovo Price

Patent:           8,752,141 (Methods for presenting and determining the efficacy of progressive pictorial and motion-based CAPTCHAs); 9,192,861 (Motion, orientation, and touch-based CAPTCHAs)

Location Based Services, LLC v. Booking.com (USA) Inc. (N.D. Fla., S.D. Fla., D. Del., N.D. Cal.).

Judge:            District Judge Allen C. Winsor, Magistrate Judge Martin A. Fitzpatrick, District Judge Darrin P. Gayles

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    

  • com (USA) Inc.
  • Deere & Company
  • HUGO BOSS Fashions, Inc.
  • Phillips 66 Company
  • com US, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Location Based Services, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow; Chong Law Firm; SML Avvocati

Patent:           9,702,713 (Map-based guide system and method)

S3G Technology LLC v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Chick-Fil-A, Inc.

Plaintiff:        S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patent:           10,261,774 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,081,897 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine) 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Stragent, LLC v. BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC (multiple cases) (D. Del.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC
  • BMW of North America, LLC
  • Daimler North American Corporation
  • Daimler Trucks North America LLC
  • Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
  • Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC

Plaintiff:        Stragent, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        O’Kelly & Ernst; Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Liao

Patent:           10,002,036 (System, method and computer program product for sharing information in a distributed framework); 10,031,790 (System, method and computer program product for sharing information in a distributed framework); 10,248,477 (System, method and computer program product for sharing information in a distributed framework); 9,705,765 (System, method and computer program product for sharing information in a distributed framework)

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Celebrity Cruises Inc. (multiple cases) (S.D. Fla., C.D. Cal., N.D. Cal., D. Del., N.D. Ohio).  

Judge:            District Judge Rodney Smith; District Judge Dan Aaron Polster; District Judge Benita Y. Pearson

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Celebrity Cruises Inc.
  • NCL Corporation Ltd.
  • Fabletics, LLC
  • Houdini Inc. d/b/a Wine Country Gift Baskets
  • 23andMe, Inc.
  • ThreeSixty Brands Group LLC d/b/a Sharper Image
  • IPIC Theatres, LLC
  • L’Occitane, Inc.
  • Under Armour, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow; Karish & Bjorgum; Chong Law Firm

Patent:           8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Syte-Visual Conception Ltd. v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (D.N.J.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.

Plaintiff:        Syte-Visual Conception Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl:        Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz

Patent:           9,412,182 (System and process for automatically finding objects of a specific color)

March patent filings were relatively low. The NPEs also had to shelter in place for a bit before starting the typical recessionary increase in patent filings. Frequent filers included Cedar Lane, Coding Technologies, Internet Media Interactive, Landmark Technology, Rothschild, and Symbology.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

 Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Progress Solar Solutions, LLC (E.D.N.C.).

Judge:             District Judge Richard E. Myers, II

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:   Progress Solar Solutions, LLC

Plaintiff:        Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law; Eldreth Law Firm

Patent:           8,733,963 (Portable solar light tower); 9,428,100 (Portable solar light tower)

Coding Technologies, LLC v. Qualtrics, LLC, et al. (D. Del.).      

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:

  • Qualtrics, LLC
  • CNH Industrial American LLC
  • Eventbrite, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chong Law Firm

Patent:           8,540,159 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern)

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. ViaMichelin North America LLC (D. Del.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:    ViaMichelin North America LLC

Plaintiff:        Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chong Law Firm

Patent:           7,917,285 (Device, system and method for remotely entering, storing and sharing addresses for a positional information device)

 Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Shopify Inc. (D. Del., S.D. Fla.).

Judge:            District Judge Ursula Ungaro

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:

  • Shopify Inc.
  • Lennar Corporation

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        O’Kelly & Ernst; Haller Law

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)

Landmark Technology A, LLC v. Tom Bihn, Inc. (W.D. Wash.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:    Tom Bihn, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Landmark Technology A, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         Banie & Ishimoto

Patent:            7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network)

Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. AMC Premiere LLC (D. Del.) (multiple case).         

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • AMC Premiere LLC
  • Deezer, Inc.
  • LiveXLive Media, Inc.
  • Project Panther US, LLC
  • World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chong Law Firm

Patent:           8,856,221 (System and method for storing broadcast content in a cloud-based computing environment)

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Blackbaud, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:            Infringement

Defendant:    Blackbaud, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         Budo Law

Patent:           8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

NPEs slowed down in early February, but picked back up later in the month ahead of the pandemic. Frequent filers included Aeritas, Browse3D, Cedar Lane, Coding Technologies, Encoditech, Internet Media Interactive, Landmark Technology, Reflection Code, and Rothschild.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Aeritas, LLC v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., et al.  (W.D. Tex.).       

Judge:            District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc.
  • Franchise World Headquarters, LLC
  • Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc.
  • Subway Subs, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Mort Law Firm

Patents:         10,362,160 (Mixed-mode interaction); 8,055,285 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,390,435 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,888,107 (Mixed-mode interaction)

Browse3D LLC v. ASICS America Corporation (W.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).   

Judge:            District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • ASICS America Corporation
  • Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC
  • Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation

Plaintiff:        Browse3D LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Mort Law Firm

Patent:           10,031,897 (System and method for web browsing)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Elite Brands Inc. (S.D.N.Y., C.D. Cal., N.D. Cal.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Elite Brands Inc.
  • Chicony America Group, Inc.
  • Blackmagic Design Inc.

Plaintiff:        Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law; Budo Law

Patents:         6,473,527 (Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means); 6,972,790 (Host interface for imaging arrays); 8,537,242 (Host interface for imaging arrays)

 Coding Technologies, LLC v. Cengage Learning, Inc., et al. (D. Del.).    

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cengage Learning, Inc.
  • Colgate-Palmolive Company

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           8,540,159 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern)

Encoditech LLC v. Fluke Electronics Corporation (D. Del., S.D.N.Y.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Fluke Electronics Corporation
  • Precor Incorporated
  • Clover Network, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Encoditech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Rabicoff Law

Patent:           6,321,095 (Wireless communications approach)

Hunter Fan Company v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (W.D. Tenn.).

Claims:           Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:    Landmark Technology A, LLC

Plaintiff:         Hunter Fan Company

Pls. Cnsl:         Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

Patents:          6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system); 7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network)

 Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (M.D. Fla., N.D. Ill.).

Judge:            Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell; Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell; District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Jo-Ann Stores, LLC
  • Express, Inc.
  • Express LLC

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

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)

Landmark Technology A, LLC v. Sterling Paper Co. (S.D. Ohio).

Judges:           District Judge James L. Graham; Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Sterling Paper Co.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology A, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow; Banie & Ishimoto

Patent:           7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network)

Reflection Code LLC v. Illinois Tool Works Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judge:            District Judge Andrea R. Wood

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Illinois Tool Works Inc.
  • Starbucks Corporation
  • Tampico Beverages, Inc.
  • Walgreen Co.
  • Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.
  • Mondelez Global LLC
  • Mondelez International, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Reflection Code LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patents:          7,963,446 (Bar code device); 8,733,657 (Barcode device); 8,763,907 (Barcode device)

Rothschild Digital Confirmation, LLC v. Servicechannel.com, Inc., et al. (D. Del.).             

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • com, Inc.
  • Terrago Technologies, Inc.
  • Field Agent, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Rothschild Digital Confirmation, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Chavous Intellectual Property Law

Patent:           7,456,872 (Device and method for embedding and retrieving information in digital images)

January 2020 was a typical start to a new year. NPEs started out slow and built up filings in the back half of the month. Frequent filers included Coding Technologies, Encoditech, Internet Media Interactive, Reflection Code, S3G and Symbology Innovations.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Aeritas, LLC v. Air Canada (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:    Air Canada

Plaintiff:         Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         The Mort Law Firm

Patents:         10,362,160 (Mixed-mode interaction); 7,209,903 (Method and system for facilitation of wireless e-commerce transactions); 7,706,819 (Mixed-mode interaction); 7,933,589 (Method and system for facilitation of wireless e-commerce transactions); 8,620,364 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,390,435 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,888,107 (Mixed-mode interaction)

 Aido Mobility LLC v. CVS Health Corporation (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).        

Judges:           District Judge Jorge L. Alonso; District Judge Charles P. Kocoras; Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland; District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • CVS Health Corporation
  • Sephora USA, Inc.
  • Domino’s Pizza, Inc.
  • Walgreen Co.
  • Starbucks Corporation
  • Yelp, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Aido Mobility LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         Nelson Bumgardner Albritton

Patents:          6,983,139 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems); 7,058,395 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems); 7,212,811 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems); 7,292,844 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems)

Browse3D LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:            Infringement

Defendant:    Macy’s, Inc. d/b/a Bloomingdale’s

Plaintiff:         Browse3D LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         The Mort Law Firm

Patent:           10,031,897 (System and method for web browsing)

Coding Technologies, LLC v. Mississippi Power Company (S.D. Miss., N.D. Tex.).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker; District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr.; District Judge Brantley Starr; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Mississippi Power Company
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
  • Schneider Electric USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        McDavid & Associates; Kizzia Johnson

Patent:           9,240,008 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern); 8,540,159 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern)

Encoditech LLC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Andrea R. Wood, District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
  • The Swatch Group (US) Inc.

Plaintiff:        Encoditech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:           6,321,095 (Wireless communications approach)

Intelligent Agency, LLC v. Neighborfavor, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:   Neighborfavor, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Intelligent Agency, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Emanuelson Firm

Patents:         9,286,610 (Method and apparatus for a principal / agent based mobile commerce); 9,439,035 (Method, system, and apparatus for managing attributes and functionalities of areas exhibiting density of users); 9,894,476 (Method, system and apparatus for location-based machine-assisted interactions)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Unilever PLC (D. Del.).

Claims:            Infringement

Defendant:    Unilever PLC

Plaintiff:         Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:         O’Kelly & Ernst; Haller Law

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)

 Reflection Code LLC v. Carter’s, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

Judges:           District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Carter’s, Inc.
  • Conagra Brands, Inc.
  • The Hershey Company

Plaintiff:        Reflection Code LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patents:         7,963,446 (Bar code device); 8,733,657 (Barcode device); 8,763,907 (Barcode device)

S3G Technology LLC v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC (E.D. Tex., W.D Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Whataburger Restaurants LLC
  • Qv21 Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff:        S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:         10,261,774 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,081,897 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 8,572,571 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,304,758 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. (D. Del., C.D. Cal., S.D. Fla.).

Judge:            District Judge K. Michael Moore

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Isagenix Worldwide, Inc.
  • Reflexis Systems, Inc.
  • Ascentis Corporation
  • NovaTime Technology Inc.
  • For Life Products, LLC

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Budo Law; Sand Sebolt & Wernow

Patent:           8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

NPEs were surprisingly active to end the fourth quarter. Frequent filers included Blackbird Technologies, Blueprint IP Solutions, Cedar Lane Technologies, Coding Technologies, Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, Internet Media Interactive, Landmark Technology, Pebble Tide, Scanning Technologies Innovations, and Universal Ciphers.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Scanning Technologies Innovations LLC v. Square, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:    Square, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Scanning Technologies Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson; Nielsen Patents

Patent:           9,934,528 (Systems and methods for indicating the existence of accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce)

Pebble Tide LLC v. Branch Banking and Trust Company (W.D. Tex., N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judge:            District Judge Robert Pitman

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:                  

  • Branch Banking and Trust Company
  • Allstate Insurance Holdings LLC
  • Government Employees Insurance Company
  • The Progressive Corporation

Plaintiff:        Pebble Tide LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:       10,261,739 (System for capturing and outputting digital content over a network that includes the internet); 10,303,411 (Method for capturing, storing, accessing, and outputting digital content)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. GetResponse, Inc. (D. Del., N.D. Cal., S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    

  • GetResponse, Inc.
  • BeFunky, Inc.
  • Digital Palette LLC
  • BLU Products, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        O’Kelly Ernst & Joyce; Rabicoff Law; Nielsen Patents; Sand Sebolt & Wernow

Patent:           6,806,889 (Interavtive applications); 6,972,774 (Image processing system for inserting plurality of images into composite area, and medium); 7,324,689 (Method and system for removal of red eye effects); 6,473,527 (Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means); 6,972,790 (Host interface for imaging arrays); 7,292,261 (Virtual reality camera)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. IMAX Corporation (S.D.N.Y.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:   IMAX Corporation

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

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)

 Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Discover Financial Services, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:   Discover Financial Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies

Patent:           7,958,214 (Method for secure transactions utilizing physically separated computers); 8,285,832 (Method for secure transactions utilizing physically separated computers); 9,424,848 (Method for secure transactions utilizing physically separated computers)

Landmark Technology A, LLC v. Amerimark Direct, LLC (S.D. Ohio, E.D. Mo.).

Judge:            District Judge Timothy S. Black

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    

  • AmeriMark Direct, LLC
  • Frost Electric Supply Company

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology A, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto, The Simon Law Firm

Patent:           7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network)

Blueprint IP Solutions LLC v. The Walt Disney Company (M.D. Fla., S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:          Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly; District Judge Paul G. Byron; District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington; Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone; District Judge Ursula Ungaro

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant

  • The Walt Disney Company
  • Publix Asset Management Company
  • Citibank Corporation

Plaintiff:        Blueprint IP Solutions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow

Patent:           8,089,980 (Method for protection switching of geographically separate switching systems)

Universal Cipher, LLC v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).   

Judge:            District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
  • GameStop Corporation
  • Office Depot, Inc.
  • Staples, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Universal Cipher, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:           7,721,222 (Dynamic language text generation system and method)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Mindbody, Inc. (C.D. Cal., S.D. Cal., D. Del., N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:          District Judge Larry Alan Burns; Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin; District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia; Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Mindbody, Inc.
  • Public Storage
  • Zara USA, LLC.
  • IKEA North American Services, LLC
  • IKEA US Retail LLC
  • Dupont de Nemours, Inc.
  • Amphenol Antenna Solutions, Inc.
  • Peapod, LLC

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Budo Law; Sand Sebolt & Wernow; Rabicoff Law

Patent:           8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC v. International Restaurant Management Group, Inc. (S.D. Fla., N.D. Ohio) (multiple cases).

Judges:          District Judge Marcia G. Cooke; District Judge James S. Gwin

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:

  • International Restaurant Management Group, Inc.
  • Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff:        Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow

Patent:           8,534,551 (System and method for issuing digital receipts for purchase transactions over a network)

HTC Corporation et al v. Innovation Sciences, LLC (E.D. Va.).

Claims:          Declaratory Judgment; Infringement

Defendant:   Innovation Sciences, LLC

Plaintiffs:

  • HTC America, Inc.
  • HTC Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Paul Hastings

Patent:           10,104,425 (Method and system for efficient communication)

Coding Technologies, LLC v. Compass Group USA, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).           

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Compass Group USA, Inc.
  • Kofax, Inc.
  • China Unionpay (USA), LLC

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           9,240,008 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern)

November patent filings increased slowed as the NPEs slow down for the holidays and year-end, as they usually do. Frequent filers included Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, Hawk Technology Systems, Internet Media Interactive, Landmark Technology, and Symbology.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Salem Tools, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (W.D. Va.).

Judge:       District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon

Claims:     Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:                   Landmark Technology A, LLC

Plaintiff:   Salem Tools, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Woods Rogers

Patent:       7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network)

Driessen v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (multiple cases) (D.D.C.).

Judge:       District Judge James E. Boasberg; District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Claims:     Infringement

Defendant:

  • Best Buy Co., Inc.
  • Target Corporation

Plaintiff:   James L. Driessen

Pls. Cnsl:        pro se James L Driessen

Patent:       1,0304,052 (Retail point of sale apparatus for internet merchandising)

Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (multiple cases) (M.D. Fla., N.D. Ohio, D. Del.).

Judge:                           Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins

Claims:     Infringement

Defendant:                  

  • Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
  • Meijer, Inc.
  • Shop Rite Supermarkets, Inc.
  • BP America, Inc.
  • Vend Limited

Plaintiff:   Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow; Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Nielsen Patents

Patent:       8,534,551 (System and method for issuing digital receipts for purchase transactions over a network)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC (E.D.N.Y.).

Claims:     Infringement

Defendant:                   Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC

Plaintiff:   Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

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)

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Memphis Shelby County Airport Authority (W.D. Tenn.).

Judges:      District Judge Jon Phipps McCalla; Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham

Claims:     Infringement

Defendant:                   Memphis Shelby County Airport Authority

Plaintiff:   Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Henderson Dantone

Patent:       RE37342 (Dual format digital video production system); RE43462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system)

Southern Pipe & Supply Company, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (S.D. Miss.).

Judges:      Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker; District Judge Tom S. Lee

Claims:     Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:                   Landmark Technology A, LLC

Plaintiff:   Southern Pipe & Supply Company, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

Patent:       7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network)

NPEs stayed busy entering the fourth quarter. Frequent filers included AlexSam, Consolidated Transaction Processing, Cascades Branding, Devine Licensing, Express Mobile, Geographic Location Innovations, Guada Technologies, and Symbology.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc. (M.D. Fla., S.D. Fla., S.D. of Tex.).

Judges:           District Judge Steven D. Merryday; Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed; District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks; Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Bloomin’ Brands, Inc.
  • Night Owl SP, LLC
  • Firstline Manufacturing, Corp.

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow

Patent:           8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Proxense, Inc. v. CVS Health Corporation (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases) (N.D. Ill.).            

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • CVS Health Corporation
  • Walmart Inc. f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Proxense, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        McCaulley Dowell

Patent:           8,340,672 (Wireless network synchronization of cells and client devices on a network)

Be TopNotch Wyoming, LLC v. My Wedding Workbook, LLC d/b/a Planning Pod (D. Colo.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     My Wedding Workbook, LLC d/b/a Planning Pod

Plaintiff:        Be TopNotch Wyoming, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chavous Intellectual Property Law

Patent:           9,373,104 (Assign photographers on an event invite and automate requesting, uploading, and sharing of photos and videos for an event)

Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al. (multiple cases) (D. Del.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Costco Wholesale Corporation
  • Ford Motor Company
  • The Home Depot, Inc.
  • JC Penney Company, Inc.
  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patents:          8,396,743 (Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information); and 8,712,846 (Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information)

Express Mobile, Inc. v. Wix.com, Ltd. et al. (N.D. Cal.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • com, Inc.
  • com Ltd.

Plaintiff:        Express Mobile, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; Steptoe & Johnson

Patents:          6,546,397 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine); 7,594,168 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine); 9,063,755 (Systems and methods for presenting information on mobile devices); 9,471,287 (Systems and methods for integrating widgets on mobile devices); and 9,928,044 (Systems and methods for programming mobile devices)

AlexSam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, LP (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Simon Property Group, LP

Plaintiff:        AlexSam, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Heninger Garrison Davis; Insight

Patent:           6,000,608 (Multifunction card system)

Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. Ace Hardware Corporation (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:            District Judge Andrea R. Wood

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Ace Hardware Corporation

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)

Scanning Technologies Innovations LLC v. Shopkeep, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Shopkeep, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Scanning Technologies Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           9,934,528 (Systems and methods for indicating the existence of accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce)

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. Juno USA, LP (multiple cases) (D. Del.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Juno USA, LP
  • Mobike, Inc.
  • Via Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           7,917,285 (Device, system and method for remotely entering, storing and sharing addresses for a positional information device)

Devine Licensing LLC v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP (E.D. Pa.).

Judges:           District Judge Michael M. Baylson

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP

Plaintiff:        Devine Licensing LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Rabicoff Law

Patent:           6,339,769 (Query optimization by transparently altering properties of relational tables using materialized views)

Driessen v. Walmart Inc. f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (D.D.C).

Judge:            District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Walmart Inc. f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff:        James L. Driessen

Pls. Cnsl:        James L Driessen (pro se)

Patent:           10,304,052 (Retail point of sale (RPOS) apparatus for internet merchandising)

Guada Technologies LLC v. Dupont De Nemours, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Dupont De Nemours, Inc.
  • Munchkin, Inc.
  • Newell Brands Inc.

Plaintiff:        Guada Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law; Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           7,231,379 (Navigation in a hierarchical structured transaction processing system)

 

September patent filings increased from the summer months, as they usually do. Kids go back to school, adults wrap up summer vacations and NPEs get back to filing suits.. Frequent filers included Billingnetwork Patent, Consolidated Transaction Processing, Geographic Location Innovations, Guada Technologies, Interface IP Holdings, Internet Media Interactive, Modern Font Applications, and Symbology.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Public Joint Stock Company, Aeroflot – Russian Airlines (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:          District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant: Public Joint Stock Company, Aeroflot – Russian Airlines

Plaintiff:      Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Law Offices of Bradford Black; Olavi Law

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).

Modern Font Applications LLC v. PetSmart, Inc. (D. Utah).

Judges:        Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero; Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Claims:         Infringement

Defendants:          

  • PetSmart, Inc.
  • Domino’s Pizza, LLC

Plaintiff:      Modern Font Applications LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Kunzler Bean & Adamson

Patent:         9,886,421 (Allowing operating system access to non-standard fonts in a network document)

Proxense, Inc. v. Macy’s, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

 Judge:          District Judge Virginia M. Kendall

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant: Macy’s, Inc.

Plaintiff:      Proxense, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:     McCaulley Dowell

Patent:         8,340,672 (Wireless network synchronization of cells and client devices on a network)

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Nabisco, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims:        Infringement

Defendant: Nabisco, Inc.

Plaintiff:      Symbology Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Sand Sebolt & Wernow; Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:         8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

realZOOM LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant: Sephora USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:      realZOOM LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     SML Avvocati

Patent:         7,774,712 (Methods and systems for displaying an enlarged image)

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. Kydia Inc. d/b/a Beyondmenu (multiple cases) (N.D. Ill.).

Claims:        Infringement

Defendants:

  • Kydia Inc. d/b/a Beyondmenu
  • GrubHub, Inc.

Plaintiff:      Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Rabicoff Law

Patent:         7,917,285 (Device, system and method for remotely entering, storing and sharing addresses for a positional information device)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Shutterfly, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., S.D. Fla.).

 Judges:        District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg; Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart

Claims:        Infringement

Defendants:          

  • Shutterfly, Inc.
  • Trans Union LLC

Plaintiff:      Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:     Haller Law

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)

Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:      Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Devlin Law Firm

Patents:       8,374,956 (Internet transactions based on user-specific information); 8,396,743 (Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information); 8,533,047 (Internet business transaction processor); 8,712,846 (Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information); 8,775,255 (Internet business transaction processor)

Billingnetwork Patent, Inc. v. Zoho Corporation (N.D. Cal., C.D. Cal.).

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant:

  • Zoho Corporation
  • Onward Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff:      Billingnetwork Patent, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:     Noble IP; Haller Law; Law Offices of Marc Libarle

Patent:         6,374,229 (Integrated internet facilitated billing, data processing and communication system)

Guada Technologies LLC v. Deere & Company (D. Del.).

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant: Deere & Company

Plaintiff:      Guada Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Direction IP Law; Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:         7,231,379 (Navigation in a hierarchical structured transaction processing system)

Digi Portal LLC v. Redfin Corporation, et al. (multiple cases) (D. Del.).

Claims:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • Redfin Corporation
  • Zomato USA, LLC
  • TripAdvisor, Inc.

Plaintiff:      Digi Portal LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Direction IP Law; Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patents:       5,983,227 (Dynamic page generator); 7,171,414 (Dynamic page generator); 7,565,359 (Dynamic page generator); 8,352,854 (Dynamic page generator); 9,626,342 (Dynamic page generator)

S3G Technology LLC v. RE/MAX, LLC (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:          District Judge Sean D. Jordan

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant: RE/MAX, LLC

Plaintiff:      S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:       10,261,774 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 8,572,571 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,081,897 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,304,758 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Saros Licensing LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company (D. Del.).

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant: The Coca-Cola Company

Plaintiff:      Saros Licensing LLC

Pls. Cnsl:     Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Rabicoff Law

Patent:         6,480,753 (Communications, particularly in the domestic environment)

Helios Streaming, LLC et al v. Crackle, Inc. et al. (D. Del.).

Claims:        Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Inc.
  • Crackle, Inc.
  • Crackle Plus, LLC
  • Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
  • Sony Pictures Television Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Helios Streaming, LLC
  • Ideahub, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:     Devlin Law Firm

Patents:       10,270,830 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming content using representations); 10,277,660 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming content); 10,313,414 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming content using representations); 10,356,145 (Method and device for providing streaming content); 10,362,130 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming contents); 10,375,373 (Method and apparatus for encoding three-dimensional (3D) content); 8,645,562 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming content); 8,909,805 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming content); 9,325,558 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming contents); 9,467,493 (Apparatus and method for providing streaming content)

August patent filings stayed consistent with June and July in the retail space, as opposed to the usual summer slowdown. Frequent filers included Aeritas, Consolidated Transaction Processing, Digi Portal, Display Technologies, Internet Media Interactive, Intertrust Technologies, Modern Font Applications, Landmark Technology, Sonohm Licensing, Symbology, Transaction Secure and WordLogic.

Continue Reading August 2019 Retail Patent Litigation Report