June 2019 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

June patent filings saw an uptick in the retail space. Frequent filers included Aeritas, Internet Media Interactive, Secure Cam, 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. Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Budo Law

Patent:            8424752 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Guada Technologies LLC v. Pier 1 Imports (US), Inc. (D. Del.) [multiple defendants – see below]

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Pier 1 Imports (US), Inc. _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • Sally Beauty Supply LLC _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • Staples, Inc. _-__-cv-_____ ➞

Plaintiff:         Guada Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Devlin Law Firm

Patent:            7231379 (Parikh Navigation in a hierarchical structured transaction processing system)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Duracell, Inc. (D. Del.) [multiple defendants – see below]       

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Duracell, Inc. _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • Methode Electronics, Inc. _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • Conagra Brands Inc. _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • Wonderwill Ltd. _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • Zapper Marketing Limited _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • Zapper Marketing (USA) Inc. _-__-cv-_____ ➞
  • SATO America, Inc. _-__-cv-_____ ➞

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Budo Law

Patent:            8424752 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Barilla America, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Barilla America Inc.

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Budo Law

Patent:            8936190 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Telesis Technologies Inc. (S.D. Ohio)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Telesis Technologies Inc.

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sand Sebolt & Wernow

Budo Law

Patent:            8424752 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Honeyman Cipher Solutions LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Groupon, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Honeyman Cipher Solutions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:            5991399 (Graunke Method for securely distributing a conditional use private key to a trusted entity on a remote system)

Arunachalam v. BNSF Railway Company  6-19-cv-00349 (W.D. Tex.) [multiple defendants – see below]

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Beal Bank, SSB 6-19-cv-00350 ➞
  • Berry Aviation, Inc. 6-19-cv-00351 ➞
  • Apache Corporation 6-19-cv-00352 ➞

Plaintiff:         Lakshmi Arunachalam

Pls. Cnsl:        pro se

Patent:            7930340 (Arunachalam Network transaction portal to control multi-service provider transactions)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. doTerra Holdings, LLC (D. Utah)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     doTerra Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Pate Baird

Ferraiuoli

Patent:            8424752 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Dramm International, Inc. (E.D. Wis.) [multiple defendants – see below]

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Dramm International, Inc. 2-19-cv-00853 ➞
  • Hayat Pharmacy 3, LLC 2-19-cv-00854 ➞
  • Zaibak PRN, LLC 2-19-cv-00854 ➞

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Budo Law

Patent:            8424752 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. H&R Block, Inc. et al (C.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • HRB Digital LLC
  • H&R Block, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Uniloc 2017 LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Prince Lobel Tye

Patents:          6324578 (Cox Methods, systems and computer program products for management of configurable application programs on a network); 7069293 (Cox Methods, systems and computer program products for distribution of application programs to a target station on a network)

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Infor, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Infor, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Uniloc 2017 LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Prince Lobel Tye

Patents:          6324578 (Cox Methods, systems and computer program products for management of configurable application programs on a network); 7069293 (Cox Methods, systems and computer program products for distribution of application programs to a target station on a network)

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Netsuite, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     NetSuite, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Uniloc 2017 LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Prince Lobel Tye

Patents:          6324578 (Cox Methods, systems and computer program products for management of configurable application programs on a network); 7069293 (Cox Methods, systems and computer program products for distribution of application programs to a target station on a network)

Barco NV et al v. Vivitek Corporation et al (N.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Delta Electronics, Inc.
  • Vivitek Corporation

Plaintiffs:

  • Barco NV
  • Barco, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        K&L Gates

Patents:          8756348 (Beel Electronic tool and methods for meetings); 9083769 (Beel Electronic tool and methods for meetings); D699241 (Moors Peripheral device for computers)

Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB (D. Col.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Axioma Metering UAB

Plaintiff:         Kamstrup A/S

Pls. Cnsl:        Renner Otto

Holland & Hart

Patent:            8806957 (Laursen Ultrasonic flow meter housing formed by a monolithic polymer structure)

Inventergy LBS, LLC v. Spot LLC d/b/a Spot Satellite Messenger LLC (D. Col.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Spot LLC d/b/a Spot Satellite Messenger LLC

Plaintiff:         Inventergy LBS, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:            8760286 (Bertagna System and method for communication with a tracking device)

Barco NV et al v. Sahara Presentation Systems, Inc. et al (D. Del.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Sahara Presentation Systems, Inc.
  • Sahara Presentation Systems PLC

Plaintiffs:

  • Barco NV
  • Barco, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        K&L Gates

Patents:          8756348 (Beel Electronic tool and methods for meetings); 9083769 (Beel Electronic tool and methods for meetings); D699241 (Moors Peripheral device for computers)

Secure Cam, LLC v. Dahua Technology USA Inc. (N.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Dahua Technology USA Inc.

Plaintiff:         Secure Cam, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Nielsen Patents

Patent:            6698021 (Amini System and method for remote control of surveillance devices)

Secure Cam, LLC v. Surveon Corporation (N.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Surveon Corporation

Plaintiff:         Secure Cam, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Nielsen Patents

Patent:            6698021 (Amini System and method for remote control of surveillance devices)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Nuveen Investments, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Nuveen Investments, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

Patent:            6049835 (Gagnon 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)

Aeritas, LLC v. Panera Bread Company et al (W.D. Tex.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Panera Bread Company
  • Panera, LLC

Plaintiff:         Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Mort Law Firm

Patents:          7706819 (Mamdani Mixed-mode interaction); 8055285 (Mamdani Mixed-mode interaction); 9390435 (Mamdani Mixed-mode interaction); 9888107 (Mamdani Mixed-mode interaction)

May 2019 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

May patent filings stayed quiet in the retail space. Frequent filers included Coding Technologies, Geographic Location Innovations, Rothschild, Symbology and Vindolor.

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.

Universal Cipher, LLC v. Best Buy Stores, LP (E.D. Tex) (multiple defendants)

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Best Buy Stores, LP 2-19-cv-00160 ➞
  • Target Corporation 2-19-cv-00163 ➞
  • Walmart, Inc. 2-19-cv-00164 ➞

Plaintiff:         Universal Cipher LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:            7721222 (Dynamic language text generation system and method)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. The Children’s Place, Inc. (S.D. Fla.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     The Children’s Place, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

Patent:            6049835 (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)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Optimum Nutrition, Inc. (D. Del.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Optimum Nutrition, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; Ferraiuoli

Patent:            8936190 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

CXT Systems, Inc. v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple defendants)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. 2-19-cv-00167 ➞
  • Retail Concepts, Inc. 2-19-cv-00169 ➞

Plaintiff:         CXT Systems, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Truelove Law Firm; Brown Rudnick

Patents:          6493703 (System and method for implementing intelligent online community message board); 6571234 (System and method for managing online message board); RE45661 (Online content tabulating system and method)

CXT Systems, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple defendants)   

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Hallmark Cards, Inc. 2-19-cv-00168 ➞
  • CC Filson Co. 2-19-cv-00170 ➞
  • Filson Corporation 2-19-cv-00170 ➞

Plaintiff:         CXT Systems, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Truelove Law Firm; Brown Rudnick

Patents:          6493703 (System and method for implementing intelligent online community message board); 6571234 (System and method for managing online message board); 7016875 (Single sign-on for access to a central data repository); 7257581 (Storage, management and distribution of consumer information); 8260806 (Storage, management and distribution of consumer information); RE45661 (Online content tabulating system and method)

realZOOM LLC v. Staples, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple defendants)          

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Staples, Inc. 5-19-cv-00063 ➞ W
  • Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 5-19-cv-00064 ➞

Plaintiff:         realZOOM LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        SML Avvocati

Patent:            7774712 (Methods and systems for displaying an enlarged image)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. National Presto Industries, Inc. d/b/a Presto (W.D. Wis.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     National Presto Industries, Inc. d/b/a Presto

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

Patent:            8424752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

KCG Technologies, LLC v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. et al.  (D. Mass.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.
  • CarMax Business Services, LLC
  • Carmax Funding Services II, LLC
  • Carmax Funding Services, LLC

Plaintiff:         KCG Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chavous Intellectual Property Law

Patent:            9671955 (Virtual smart phone)

Cirrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft v. Fleming (D. Minn.)

Claims:           Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Hoyt Augustus Fleming

Plaintiff:         Cirrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft

Pls. Cnsl:        Faegre Baker Daniels

Patent:            8100365 (Intelligent ballistic parachute system that performs pre-activation and/or post-activation actions)

Rothschild Digital Confirmation, LLC v. Skedulo Holdings Inc. (N.D. Cal.)

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Thomas S Hixson

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Skedulo Holdings Inc.

Plaintiff:         Rothschild Digital Confirmation, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Nielsen Patents; Chavous Intellectual Property Law

Patent:            7456872 (Device and method for embedding and retrieving information in digital images)

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. Boston Market Corporation (E.D. Tex.) (multiple defendants)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Boston Market Corporation 2-19-cv-00192 ➞
  • CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 2-19-cv-00194 ➞

Plaintiff:         Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:            7917285 (Device, system and method for remotely entering, storing and sharing addresses for a positional information device)

72LUX, Inc. d/b/a Shoppable.com v. Honey Science Corporation et al  (C.D. Cal)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • IO, Inc. d/b/a Two Tap
  • Honey Science Corporation

Plaintiff:         72LUX, Inc. d/b/a Shoppable.com

Pls. Cnsl:        Fox Rothschild

Patent:            9697563 (System and method for providing electronic commerce data)

Coding Technologies, LLC v. California Giant, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     California Giant, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson; Nielsen Patents

Patent:            8540159 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Impax Laboratories, LLC f/k/a Impax Laboratories, Inc. (E.D. Del.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Impax Laboratories, LLC f/k/a Impax Laboratories, Inc.

Plaintiffs:       Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Ferraiuoli

Patent:            8424752 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. SpotOn Transact, LLC (E.D. Del.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     SpotOn Transact, LLC

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Ferraiuoli

 Patent:            8651369 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable device)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Essentra Components Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Essentra Components Inc.

Plaintiff:         Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Ferraiuoli

Patent:            8651369 (Rothschild System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable device)

April 2019 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

Patent filings remained quiet in April. Frequent filers included Cascades Branding, Coding Technologies, eCeipt, Geographic Location Innovations, Grecia, Internet Media Interactive, 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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Aido Mobility LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Macy’s, Inc.
  • Dow Jones & Company, Inc. d/b/a The Wall Street Journal
  • Walmart Apollo, LLC
  • Wal-Mart.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Aido Mobility LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; 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)

Grecia v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, et al. (S.D.N.Y) (multiple cases).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
  • Citibank, NA
  • Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
  • TIAA, FSB member FDIC

Plaintiff:         William Grecia

Pls. Cnsl:        Wawrzyn & Jarvis

Patent:            8,887,308 (Digital cloud access (PDMAS part III))

Modern Font Applications v. Smith d/b/a Chick-Fil-A at Centerville FSU #3259 et al. (D. Utah) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Ted Stewart; Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead; Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse;

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chick-Fil-A, Inc.
  • Kelli Kristina Smith d/b/a Chick-Fil-A at Centerville FSU #3259
  • Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.
  • WW Grainger, Inc.
  • Dine Brands Global, Inc.
  • Peak Restaurant Partners, 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)

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Delta Air Lines, Inc.
  • Vudu, Inc.
  • Walmart Inc.

Plaintiff:         Sound View Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Desmarais; Phillips Goldman McLaughlin & Hall

Patents:          5,806,062 (Data analysis system using virtual databases); 6,502,133 (Real-time event processing system with analysis engine using recovery information); 6,725,456 (Methods and apparatus for ensuring quality of service in an operating system); 7,426,715 (Shutting down a plurality of software components in an ordered sequence); 6,708,213 (Method for streaming multimedia information over public networks)

Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte – Visual Conception Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Kohl’s Corporation
  • Syte – Visual Conception Ltd.

Plaintiff:         Slyce Acquisition Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Patent:            9,152,624 (Systems and methods for visual presentation and navigation of content using data-based image analysis)

eCeipt LLC v. Old Navy, LLC (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:    

  • Old Navy, LLC
  • Kendra Scott, LLC

Plaintiff:         eCeipt LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Mort Law Firm

Patent:            8,643,875 (Receipt handling systems, print drivers and methods thereof)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (M.D. Fla.).

Judge:             District Judge John E. Steele

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

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. Woodland Foods, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:             District Judge Virginia M. Kendall

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Woodland Foods, Ltd.

Plaintiff:         Landmark Technology A, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. True Value Company (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:             District Judge Edmond E. Chang

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     True Value Company

Plaintiff:         Cascades Branding Innovation LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Flachsbart & Greenspoon

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

Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC et al. (E.D. Tex.).

Judges:           District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III; Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • L Brands, Inc.
  • Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC
  • Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc.
  • Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC

Plaintiff:         Andra Group, LP

Pls. Cnsl:        Nix Patterson; Mastrogiovanni Mersky & Flynn; Griffith Barbee

Patent:            8,078,498 Virtual showroom system and method

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. GameStop Corporation (N.D. Tex., C.D. Cal.). (multipal cases)

Judge:             District Judge David C. Godbey

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:

  • GameStop Corporation
  • Condor Outdoor Product, Inc.
  • Colorproof Haircare, LLC

Plaintiff:         Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson; Budo Law

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

Coding Technologies, LLC v. Kirby-Smith Machinery, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) (multicple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Jane J. Boyle; District Judge Karen Gren Scholer

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Kirby-Smith Machinery, Inc.
  • Chili’s, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

Guada Technologies LLC v. Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc., et al. (D.Del.). (multiple cases).            

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc.
  • HSN, Inc.
  • Big 5 Corp.

Plaintiff:         Guada Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law; Devlin Law Firm

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

RPX: The Berkheimer/Aatrix Effect is Real

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Uncategorized

My partner Anthony Fuga is providing excellent analysis on the latest Section 101 cases and issues at the Holland & Knight Section 101 Blog, which he edits and does a substantial amount of the writing for. His latest post provides valuable insight into how district courts are approaching Section 101 cases since the Federal Circuit’s Berkheimer and Aatrix decisions based upon a recent RPX study. It is reposted below, with permission and cross-posted on my Chicago IP Litigation blog:

RPX’s latest quarterly review provides a deep dive on the effects of Berkheimer and Aatrix. If you forget, the Federal Circuit found in those two 2018 cases that Section 101 motions – at the Rule 56 and Rule 12 stages, respectively – should not be granted if the plaintiff properly raised a factual dispute regarding whether the asserted patent contains an inventive concept. Now, more than a year later, we have the data to see the impact of those cases.

According to RPX’s analysis, “district courts have as a whole become less likely to grant Alice challenges: Since the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Berkheimer, courts have invalidated at least some claims from around 46 percent of patents challenged and adjudicated under Alice, a significant drop—roughly 23 percent [down] from the pre-Berkheimer nationwide invalidation rate of 69 percent.”

RPX also provides a breakdown of those decisions by the procedural stage, looking at both motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. At the Rule 12 stage, “the invalidation rate for patents challenged and adjudicated under Rule 12 – where a court has invalidated at least some claims – has dropped from around 70 percent to 45 percent.”

RPX provides further analysis and helpful charts to dig deeper into the Berkheimer/Aatrix effect, along with discussing the uptick in non-practicing entity activity, a PTAB update, the patent marketplace and more.

The entire review is worth reading and can be found here.

Liquid Cannabis Patent Survives Section 101 Challenge

By Anthony Fuga on Posted in Uncategorized

By: Anthony J Fuga|Taite R McDonald|Michael Obeiter

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on April 17, 2019, upheld United Cannabis Corp.’s (UCANN) patent claims concerning a liquid cannabinoid formulation, “wherein at least 95% of the total cannabinoids is a specified cannabinoid or combination of them.”1

Pure Hemp challenged the claims in an early motion for summary judgment, arguing that UCANN’s claims are directed to “the unpatentable natural phenomenon of the specified chemical compounds (cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids), as if UCANN is trying to secure a monopoly on those compounds.”

The court walked through the relevant precedent going back to the Funk Brothers 1948 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, which invalidated a new mixture of nitrogen-fixing bacteria: “Patents cannot issue for the discovery of the phenomena of nature. The qualities of these bacteria . . . are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men.”

The court then acknowledged the current reality: the “proper application of the Supreme Court’s Alice standard is an evolving and sometimes hazy area of law . . . not as straightforward as the Supreme Court makes it sounds in Alice itself.”

Despite the “hazy area of law,” the court found that the challenged claims are not directed at unpatentable subject matter. Instead, “the obvious thrust of the patent is a supposedly new means by which humans can consume cannabinoids so that those cannabinoids can produce the pharmacological effect they are known to have, thus (hopefully) treating or ameliorating various diseases and symptoms.”

The court found Pure Hemp’s argument unpersuasive: “Pure Hemp has failed to establish beyond genuine dispute that a liquefied version of cannabinoids and related chemicals specified in the [patent claims] is anything like a natural phenomenon . . . Pure Hemp nowhere claims that these precise concentrations, or anything close to them, occur in liquid form in nature. Accordingly UCANN’s claims are not restatements of the ‘handiwork of nature.’ ”

The court finally noted that it sees reason to question whether the patent “claims anything novel, useful, or nonobvious” but its analysis here was limited to the Section 101 Alice inquiry.

Beyond the patent claims at issue in this case, it is important to note that cannabis-derived goods also occupy a “hazy area of law,” though one that is getting clearer every day. While hemp – defined as any part of the cannabis plant or a derivative with less than 0.3 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry weight basis – was legalized in the 2018 Farm Bill, in most states these products will continue to be illegal until the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issues regulations and states subsequently have their licensing and regulatory plans approved by USDA. And while changes are coming at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cannabis-derived products are still not permitted in food, drugs or supplements, and companies cannot make any unfounded and unproven claims of medical benefits.

In short, this is a rapidly evolving area of law at the federal and state level that requires all existing and potential market participants to remain vigilant.

Clients seeking further information on the District Court’s ruling and its impact or the current regulatory landscape may contact the authors.

Notes

1 United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc., No. 18-cv-1922-WJM-NYW (D. Colorado, April 17, 2019)

 

March 2019 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

March patent filings saw a slight uptick from the first months of the year. Frequent filers included Express Mobile, Geographic Location Innovations, Hawk Technology, Internet Media Interactive, Lupercal 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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corporation (W.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Target Corporation

Plaintiff:        Dyfan, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Toler Law Group

Patents:          10,194,292 (System for location based triggers for mobile devices); 9,973,899 (System for location based triggers for mobile devices)

Shopify Inc. et al v. Express Mobile, Inc. (D. Del).

Claims:          Declaratory Judgment; Infringement

Defendant:     Express Mobile, Inc.

Plaintiffs:      

  • Shopify (USA) Inc.
  • Shopify Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri; McCarter & English

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)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Moen Incorporated (D. Del).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Moen Incorporated

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        O’Kelly Ernst & Joyce; 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. Specialty Bottle, Inc. et al. (W.D. Wash.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Specialty Bottle, Inc.
  • Specialty Bottle Supply, LLC

Plaintiff:         Landmark Technology A, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

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

Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. HSBC Bank USA, NA (D. Del.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     HSBC Bank USA, NA

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

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Blackbird Tech LLC

Patents:          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)

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (N.D. Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:    JetBlue Airways Corporation

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:           RE43462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system)

Lupercal LLC v. Citibank, NA, et al. (W.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Citibank, NA
  • PlainsCapital Bank

Plaintiff:        Lupercal LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Mort Law Firm

Patent:           9,386,094 (System, method and apparatus for media submission)

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. The Talbots, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     The Talbots, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • com, Inc.
  • eBay Inc.
  • Etsy, Inc.
  • com, Inc.
  • Walmart 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)

Secure Cam, LLC v. Hill-Rom Company, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:            District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Hill-Rom Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Secure Cam, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:           7,257,158 (System for transmitting video images over a computer network to a remote receiver)

First-Class Monitoring, LLC v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

Plaintiff:        First-Class Monitoring, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           6,014,089 (Method for transmitting data using a digital control channel of a wireless network)

Illinois State Bar Association Launches Legal Blog Aggregator

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Uncategorized

The Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) has launched Illinois Lawyer Now a legal blog aggregator that provides ISBA news combined with aggregating blog posts from ISBA members. As someone who for years kept and updated a list of regional IP blogs, I am interested to see how ISBA’s new aggregator works. ISBA, partnering with LexBlog (who built and maintains my blogs) plans to offer the best legal content from lawyers across Illinois. It should be a great asset for anyone doing business in or living in Illinois. I look forward for great things to come from ISBA and Illinois Lawyer Now.

Seeking Questions for PTO Director Iancu

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal Seminars

I am honored to announce that I will be interviewing U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu at the kickoff session of this year’s Rocky Mountain IP Institute in Denver, Colorado. First, I invite you to join me – register here. I have attended and spoken at the Institute for years and firmly believe that it is one of the best, if not the best IP conference in the country. Second, while there is a lot that I want to ask Director Iancu, I would love to get your thoughts on what I should ask. I am not promising I will ask every question you have. But I firmly believe collaboration and diversity build better results. So, I invite your thoughts. Please reply with questions or send them to me, if you would prefer.

Patent Reform: New Bipartisan Framework for Section 101 Eligibility Introduced in Congress

By Anthony Fuga on Posted in Patent Litigation Tips

Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), along with Reps. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), have unveiled a bipartisan and bicameral framework on Section 101 patent reform. The framework, released last week, is short – only one page – but the intent is clear: temper the Section 101-based rejections and invalidations that have skyrocketed since the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice decision.

For instance, the framework would define an exclusive set of categories of statutory subject matter that alone should not be eligible for patent protection, and “statutorily abrogate judicially created exceptions to patent eligible subject matter.” The framework would also “create a ‘practical application’ test to ensure that the statutorily ineligible subject matter is construed narrowly.”

Sen. Coons emphasized the framework’s intent, saying in a press release: “Today, U.S. patent law discourages innovation in some of the most critical areas of technology, including artificial intelligence, medical diagnostics, and personalized medicine … I look forward to continuing to receive feedback as we craft a legislative solution that encourages innovation.”

Rep. Stivers echoed that sentiment: “We have the opportunity to advance our society in so many exciting and unknown ways, and we need to ensure we have a patent system that encourages that kind of game-changing innovation, instead of stifling it.”[1]

Conclusion and Next Steps

Big tech, pharmaceutical companies, trial lawyers and intellectual property owners will surely be paying attention to the framework’s progress, but it is unclear how quickly it will move forward – or whether it will move at all. The next step for the legislation would be to turn the current framework into full legislative text. Once the legislation is formally introduced, it would have to survive markups in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees as well as votes by the full House and Senate.

Reforms to patent eligibility will garner significant interest, and its ultimate enactment will require its sponsors to make its enactment a priority before the politics surrounding the 2020 presidential election take over next year. This particular proposal has the benefit of bipartisan support from leaders on the House and Senate Judiciary Committee that give it real potential for enactment. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to engage with Congress as early as possible to let their voices be heard.

Notes

[1]  The statements by Sen. Coons and Rep. Stivers, as well as the framework’s language, are in this press release: “Sens. Coons and Tillis and Reps. Collins, Johnson, and Stivers Release Section 101 Patent Reform Framework,” April 17, 2019.

 

CLE – Patent Infringement Letters: New Considerations & Best Practices for Sending & Receiving Demand Letters

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal Seminars

In light of new case law and an uptick in patent filings, and in particular cease & desist letters, I am presenting a Strafford live webinar titled, “Patent Infringement Letters: New Considerations and Best Practices for Senders and Recipients.” The program is being held on Thursday, May 16, from 12:00pm-1:30pm CT. If you follow the link in the prior sentence to register, you will receive a 50% discount on the program as a loyal blog reader.

My co-panelist is Nathan Burnette of Stoel Rives. We will discuss patent demand / licensing letters from both sides, providing strategies both for preparing them and responding to them, or not responding depending upon the circumstances. The presentation will conclude with a live Q&A session to make sure we address your particular issues.

If you have questions ahead of the program or thoughts on what should be addressed, please contact me via the blog or email.

LexBlog