January 2018 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

The NPEs kicked off 2018 with a slow month.  Frequent filers included Epic IP, Internet Media Interactive, LBS Innovations, PersonalWeb Technologies, 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.

LBS Innovations, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Best Buy Co., Inc.
  • Car Toys, Inc.
  • Fry’s Electronics, Inc.

Plaintiff:        LBS Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Buether Joe & Carpenter

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

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC et al v. Airbnb, Inc. (N.D. Cal.; C.D. Cal.; E.D.N.Y.; S.D.N.Y.; E.D. Tex.; D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Airbnb, Inc.
  • Amicus FTW, Inc.
  • Atlassian, Inc.
  • Cloud 66, Inc.
  • Curebit, Inc.
  • Doximity, Inc.
  • Fandor, Inc.
  • Goldbely, Inc.
  • GoPro, Inc.
  • Heroku, Inc.
  • Leap Motion, Inc.
  • Lithium Technologies, Inc.
  • Melian Labs, Inc.
  • MyFitnessPal, Inc.
  • Optimizely, Inc.
  • Popsugar, Inc.
  • Reddit, Inc.
  • Stitchfix, Inc.
  • Stumbleupon, Inc.
  • Teespring, Inc.
  • Venmo, Inc.
  • Webflow, Inc.
  • Quotient Technology, Inc.
  • Roblox Corporation
  • Smugmug, Inc.
  • Tophatter, Inc.
  • Spokeo, Inc.
  • Vend Inc.
  • Vend Limited
  • Square, Inc.
  • Atlas Obscura Inc.
  • BDG Media, Inc.
  • Bitly, Inc.
  • Blue Apron, LLC
  • Centaur Media USA, Inc.
  • E-consultancy.com Limited
  • Fab Commerce & Design, Inc.
  • Food52, Inc.
  • Panjiva, Inc.
  • Ziff Davis, LLC
  • Cloud Warmer Inc.
  • Kickstarter, PBC
  • Group Nine Media, Inc.
  • Thrillist Media Group, Inc.
  • FanDuel Inc.
  • FanDuel Limited
  • ELEQT Group, Ltd.
  • RocketHub, Inc.
  • Spongecell, Inc.
  • Yotpo Ltd
  • Lesson Nine GmbH
  • Fiverr International Ltd.
  • HootSuite Media, Inc.
  • MWM My Wedding Match Ltd.
  • Merkle, Inc.
  • Capterra, Inc.
  • Karma Mobility Inc.
  • LiveChat, Inc.
  • LiveChat Software SA
  • Match Group, Inc.
  • Match Group, LLC
  • WeddingWire, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Level 3 Communications, LLC
  • PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Level 3 Communications; IP Law Group; Maceiko IP; Kent Beatty & Gordon; The Stafford Davis Firm; and SethLaw

Patents:          5,978,791 (Data processing system using substantially unique identifiers to identify data items, whereby identical data items have the same identifiers); 6,928,442 (Enforcement and policing of licensed content using content-based identifiers); 7,802,310 (Controlling access to data in a data processing system); 7,945,544 (Similarity-based access control of data in a data processing system); and 8,099,420 (Accessing data in a data processing system).

Proxicom Wireless, LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. et al. (M.D. Fla.).

Judges:           District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr.; Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Macy’s Florida Stores, LLC
  • Macy’s, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Proxicom Wireless, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Bunsow De Mory; and King Blackwell Zehnder & Wermuth

Patents:          8,090,359 (Exchanging identifiers between wireless communication to determine further information to be exchanged or further services to be provided); 8,116,749 (Protocol for anonymous wireless communication); and 8,374,592 (Exchanging identifiers between wireless communication to determine further information to be exchanged or further services to be provided).

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer; District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated
  • Hyatt Corporation
  • Hyatt Hotels 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).

MyMail, Ltd. v. Canon Solutions America, Inc. (E.D. Tex.; W.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Canon Solutions America, Inc.
  • Canon USA, Inc.
  • HP Inc. f/k/a Hewlett-Packard Company
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Lenovo Group Ltd.
  • Lenovo (United States) Inc.
  • Motorola Mobility, LLC

Plaintiff:        MyMail, Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl:        Collins Edmonds & Schlather

Patents:          8,732,318 (Method of connecting a user to a network); and 8,993,300 (Overexpression of phytase genes in yeast systems).

Epic IP LLC v. AutoNation, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • AutoNation, Inc.
  • Blue Jeans Network, Inc.
  • Backblaze, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Epic IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            6,434,599 (Method and apparatus for on-line chatting).

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Chewy.com (S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge K. Michael Moore; District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga; District Judge Kathleen M. Williams

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chewy.com
  • Fidelity National Title Group
  • G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.
  • Tech Data Corporation

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Cunningham Swaim

Patents:          7,992,773 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device); 8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device); 8,651,369 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable device); and 8,936,190 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device).

Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Lenovo Holding Company, Inc.
  • Monotype Imaging Holdings, Inc.
  • TrendKite, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Spider Search Analytics LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            7,454,430 (System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents).

Rothschild Patent Imaging, LLC v. Horizon Hobby, LLC (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Edmond E. Chang; District Judge Joan B. Gottschall

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Horizon Hobby, LLC
  • The Firelands Group, LLC

Plaintiff:        Rothschild Patent Imaging, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson; and Rabicoff Law

Patents:          8,204,437 (Wireless image distribution system and method); and 8,437,797 (Wireless image distribution system and method).

Lex Machina 2017 Patent Litigation Study — Patent Reform at Work

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Industry Issues

This analysis is being cross-posted at my [Chicago IP Litigation blog/Retail Patent Litigation blog].

Lex Machina recently published its comprehensive 2017 patent litigation year in review. As usual, it is full of fascinating data and charts, which I commend for your consideration.

Most of us in the space know the biggest takeaways already — patent litigation is down, way down in all forums. District court patent litigation waned to its lowest point since 2011. That is no doubt in large part due to the corrective actions taken by Congress (the America Invents Act) and the courts, principally the Supreme Court, in the form of Alice (software patent ability), Octane Fitness (the exceptional standard for attorney’s fees awards), and Lexmark (patent exhaustion), among others.

TC Heartland has also had a major impact on where cases are filed since the Court’s ruling last spring. E.D. Texas filings are down nearly 50% since the venue ruling, while Delaware filings are up 70% during the same time. Central California, Northern California and New Jersey also show more modest increases, along with a variety of other districts that have considerably smaller patent dockets. Looking at the statistics another way, since TC Heartland only 13% of cases were filed in East Texas (down from 33%), with 23% filed in Delaware (up from 13%), and the remaining 63% filed in the other districts (up from 54%). Of course, with 13% of the filings, East Texas remains an important patent district, but it is no longer the powerhouse that it was and I would expect it to continue to slip as Delaware, California, Chicago and other courts continue to see larger percentages of the filings.

PTAB proceedings have also fallen off considerably. Some of that is no doubt related to the reduced district court litigation filed in 2017. But the Oil States cases awaiting the Supreme Court determination of the constitutionality of the proceedings is also certainly having a major impact. The Oil States decision will have a major impact upon the patent world, in terms of patent dispute proceedings and in terms of relative patent value.

December 2017 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

December was typically slow, as NPEs presumably took time away for the holidays.  Frequent filers included Coding Technologies (in a declaratory action), Hawk Technology Realtime Data, Spider Search Analytics, 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.

Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Egnyte, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Egnyte, Inc.
  • iXsystems, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO

Pls. Cnsl:        Bayard; and Russ August & Kabat

Patents:          8,717,203 (Data compression systems and methods); 9,054,728 (Data compression systems and methods); 9,116,908 (System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval); and 9,667,751 (Data feed acceleration).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Affinity Gaming (D. Col.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Affinity Gaming

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lockridge Grindal Nauen; and Rosenblatt & Gosch

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

Map Mobile, LLC v. Burger King Corporation (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Burger King Corporation

Plaintiff:        Map Mobile, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth; and Pia Anderson Moss Hoyt

Patent:            9,532,164 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices).

Symbology Innovations LLC v. BankFinancial, National Association f/k/a BankFinancial, FSB (N.D. Ill.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Edmond E. Chang

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • BankFinancial, National Association f/k/a BankFinancial, FSB
  • Bounce Energy, Inc.
  • CITGO Petroleum Corporation
  • Eaton Corporation
  • Stewart Information Services Corporation

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Andreou & Casson; Ferraiuoli; and Cunningham Swaim

Patents:          8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device); 8,651,369 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable device); 8,936,190 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device); and 7,992,773 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device).

Dynamic Applet Technologies, LLC v. Mattress Firm, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Mattress Firm, Inc.
  • Sleepy’s, LLC
  • PetSmart, Inc.
  • Urban Outfitters, Inc.
  • Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc.
  • Belk eCommerce LLC
  • Belk, Inc.
  • Nine West Holdings, Inc.
  • Hollister Co.

Plaintiff:        Dynamic Applet Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patent:            6,446,111 (Method and apparatus for client-server communication using a limited capability client over a low-speed communications link).

VOIT Technologies, LLC v. Guardian Industrial Supply, LLC (W.D. Tex.; S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge William J. Zloch; District Judge Beth Bloom

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Guardian Industrial Supply, LLC
  • LiveAnew, LLC
  • Golf Cart King, LLC
  • Etrend Media Group, LLC
  • Lord Daniel Sportswear, Inc.
  • Lord Daniel Sportswear Limited Company

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners

Patent:            6,226,412 (Secure digital interactive system for unique product identification and sales).

Internet Media Interactive Corporation v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Jorge L. Alonso; District Judge John Z. Lee

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Allscripts Healthcare, LLC
  • Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
  • First Busey 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).

Mantissa Corporation v. First Federal Savings Bank of Champaign-Urbana (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • First Federal Savings Bank of Champaign-Urbana
  • Great American Bancorp, Inc.
  • First Financial Bank, NA
  • First Financial Corporation
  • Old Second Bancorp, Inc.
  • Old Second National Bank
  • Polish & Slavic Federal Credit Union

Plaintiff:        Mantissa Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Hunter Taubman Fischer & Li; and Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane

Patent:            9,361,658 (System and method for enhanced protection and control over the use of identity).

Identity Software Pty. Ltd. v. Ignite FirstRain Solutions, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Ignite FirstRain Solutions, Inc.
  • Medallia, Inc.
  • TrendKite, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Identity Software Pty. Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl:        DiNovo Price

Patent:            6,272,495 (Method and apparatus for processing free-format data).

Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Connotate, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Connotate, Inc.
  • io Corporation

Plaintiff:        Spider Search Analytics LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Farnan; and Hardy Parrish Yang

Patents:          7,454,430 (System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents); and 8,620,848 (System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents).

CLE: Imagination, Invention and Patent Incentives

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal Seminars

On February 2, 2018 at 4:00 pm the John Marshall Law School is offering what promises to be a very interesting CLE presentation by the former Director of its Center for Intellectual Property Law, Richard S. Gruner. Gruner is also former in-house counsel for IBM and the co-author of Transactional Intellectual Property: From Startups to Public Companies (Carolina Academic Press 3rd ed. 2015) and Intellectual Property: Private Rights, the Public Interest, and the Regulation of Creative Activity (West 3rd ed. 2016), as well as the author of Corporate Patents: Optimizing Organizational Responses to Innovation Opportunities and Invention Discoveries. Gruner has a background that promises thoughtfulness and credibility. Here is John Marshall’s description of the presentation:

This presentation is about three things: imagination, invention, and shaping patent law incentives. These seemingly disparate topics are actually linked subjects. Three insights provide the links and are the topics of this talk. First, imagination is subject to predictable flaws, which recent neurological research has helped us to identify and understand. Second, invention is an act of imagination of new tools and the functionality they bring, with such invention subject to the same predictable errors as all types of imagination. Third, patent laws should be crafted to combat these predictable errors in invention processes—that is, with targeted incentives to encourage inventors not to make these errors or to reveal the errors in invention designs as early as possible to ensure that more error-free designs receive patents and are given maximum commercial and public attention.

Register here: https://www.eventbrite.com.

October 2017 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

October continued at a slight uptick in filings, like September.  Frequent filers included Blackbird Technologies, Coding Technologies, Grecia, Guyzar, Hybrid Audio, Internet Media Interactive, Kroy IP, Landmark Technology, Rothschild, and Voit Technologies.

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.

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Allstate Insurance Company (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.; District Judge Robert W. Gettleman;

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Allstate Insurance Company
  • American InterContinental University, Inc.
  • Caterpillar Inc.
  • Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 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).

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon Inc. (D. Del.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Groupon, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Kroy IP Holdings, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kasowitz Benson Torres; and Potter Anderson & Corroon

Patent:            6,061,660 (System and method for incentive programs and award fulfillment).

Grecia v. Discover Financial Services, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Discover Financial Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:        William Grecia

Pls. Cnsl:        Wawrzyn & Jarvis

Patents:          8,402,555 (Personalized digital media access system (PDMAS); 8,533,860 (Personalized digital media access system–PDMAS part II); and 8,887,308 (Digital cloud access (PDMAS part III)).

Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC v. Slomin’s Inc. (E.D.N.Y.; D. Utah) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge David Nuffer

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Slomin’s Inc.
  • Vivint, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Watson LLP; Kizzia Johnson; and Shaver & Swanson

Patents:          8,204,437 (Wireless image distribution system and method); 8,437,797 (Wireless image distribution system and method); and 8,594,722 (Wireless image distribution system and method).

Coding Technologies, LLC v. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. (S.D. Fla.; S.D.N.Y.; M.D. Fla.; D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge K. Michael Moore; District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.; District Judge Federico A. Moreno; Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon; District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks; District Judge Anne C. Conway; Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith; Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly; Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando; District Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr.; Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson;  District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger; Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey; District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich; Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson; Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III; District Judge Mary S. Scriven; District Judge Steven D. Merryday; Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone; District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell; Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli; District Judge Susan C. Bucklew; Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • FCB Financial Holdings, Inc.
  • Copart, Inc.
  • Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
  • Cross Match Technologies, LLC
  • Alcoa Corporation
  • Flipboard, Inc.
  • Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
  • Philip Morris International, Inc.
  • International Business Machines Corporation
  • WZ Franchise Corp.
  • Delta Air Lines, Inc.
  • Wilsonart LLC
  • Arthrex, Inc.
  • Crowley Maritime Corporation
  • Acosta, Inc.
  • Kforce, Inc.
  • HSN, Inc.
  • Masonite Corporation
  • Rooms To Go.com, Inc.
  • RTG Furniture Corp.
  • TECO Energy, Inc.
  • Acuity Brands, Inc.
  • AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP
  • Blackboard, Inc.
  • Calix, Inc.
  • Chevron Corporation
  • Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
  • Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
  • Digi International, Inc.
  • Dupont De Nemours and Company, LLC
  • ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Watson LLP

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

Cumberland Systems LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  • AT&T Mobility LLC
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  • Texas Freight Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Cumberland Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:            8,023,647 (Password self encryption method and system and encryption by keys generated from personal secret information).

Guyzar LLC v. Executive Gift Shoppe (S.D.N.Y.; E.D. Tex.; E.D.N.Y.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Executive Gift Shoppe
  • com
  • com, Inc.
  • Al’s Formal Wear
  • Nikon Inc.

Plaintiff:        Guyzar LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Zimmerman Law Group

Patent:            5,845,070 (Security system for internet provider transaction).

Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Fitbit, Inc.
  • Moov Inc. d/b/a Moov Fitness Inc.
  • adidas America, Inc.
  • Nike, Inc.
  • Under Armour, Inc.
  • Fossil Group, Inc.
  • Misfit, Inc.
  • Garmin International, Inc.
  • Garmin USA, Inc.
  • Nikon Americas, Inc.
  • Nikon Inc.
  • TomTom, Inc.
  • TomTom North America
  • Canon USA, Inc.
  • GoPro, Inc.
  • Eastman Kodak Company
  • Panasonic Corporation of North America

Plaintiff:        Cellspin Soft, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Collins Edmonds Schlather & Tower

Patents:          8,738,794 (Automatic multimedia upload for publishing data and multimedia content); 8,892,752 (Automatic multimedia upload for publishing data and multimedia content); 9,749,847 (Automatic multimedia upload for publishing data and multimedia content; and 9,258,698 (Automatic multimedia upload for publishing data and multimedia content).

Berkeley*IEOR d/b/a B*IEOR v. WW Grainger, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:             District Judge Ronald A. Guzman

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Teradata Operations, Inc.
  • WW Grainger, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Berkeley*IEOR d/b/a B*IEOR

Pls. Cnsl:        SpencePC

Patents:          7,596,521 (Process for determining object level profitability); 7,882,137 (Process for determining object level profitability); and 8,612,316 (Process for determining object level profitability).

Hybrid Audio, LLC v.  DirecTV, LLC (D. Del.; C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Sonos Inc.
  • NVIDIA Corporation
  • DirecTV, LLC

Plaintiff:        Hybrid Audio, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; and Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener

Patent:            RE 40,281 (Signal processing utilizing a tree-structured array).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Anthony-Thomas Candy Company, (S.D. Ohio; W.D. Wash.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura; District Judge Michael H. Watson

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Anthony-Thomas Candy Company
  • Gensco, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

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

Patent:            6289319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system).

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

Guada Technologies LLC v. Gardens Alive, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Gardens Alive, Inc.
  • Gibson Brands, Inc.
  • J&P Park Acquisitions, Inc.
  • Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
  • Onkyo USA Corporation
  • Urban One, Inc.
  • Vice Media LLC

Plaintiff:        Guada Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. BMO Harris Bank NA (N.D. Ill.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     BMO Harris Bank NA

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

Pls. Cnsl:        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); and 9,424,848 (Method for secure transactions utilizing physically separated computers).

Confident Technologies, Inc. v. AXS Group LLC et al. (S.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel; Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • AEG Facilities, LLC
  • AXS Group LLC

Plaintiff:        Confident Technologies, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        San Diego IP Law Group

Patent:            8,621,578 (Methods and systems for protecting website forms from automated access).

Publishing Technologies, LLC v. Capital One Investing, LLC (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Capital One Investing, LLC
  • FMR LLC d/b/a Fidelity Investments
  • Bank of America Corporation d/b/a Merrill Edge
  • Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
  • TD Ameritrade Holdings Corporation d/b/a Scottrade

Plaintiff:        Publishing Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:            7,908,342 (Method, apparatus and system for management of information content for enhanced accessibility over wireless communication networks).

First-Class Monitoring, LLC v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (D. Del.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
  • BB&T Corporation

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).

Voit Technologies, LLC v. Amdep Holdings, LLC (S.D. Fla.).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon; District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Amdep Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners

Patent:            6,226,412 (Secure digital interactive system for unique product identification and sales).

July 2017 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

July filings were up slightly as patent holders figured out where to file and cleared out a backlog of cases.  As in June, post-TC Heartland filings, East Texas filings stayed way down and the bulk of the non-Texas filings went to Delaware, as well as to a lesser degree California and Illinois district courts, in particular.  Frequent filers included Blackbird Technologies, JSDQ Mesh Technologies, Kaldren, Mirror Imaging, Realtime Data, and VOIT Technologies.

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.

Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Scalematrix et al. (S.D. Cal.; D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Larry Alan Burns; Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Scalematrix
  • Scalematrix Holdings, Inc.
  • INRIX, Inc.
  • Capital One Financial Corporation

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

Pls. Cnsl:        Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies; Stamoulis & Weinblatt; and Walker Stevens Cannom Yang

Patents:          8,424,885 (Method and apparatus for an environmentally-protected electronic equipment enclosure); 9,400,190 (Real-time traffic condition measurement using network transmission data); 7,958,214 (Method for secure transactions utilizing physically separated computers); 8,285,832 (Method for secure transactions utilizing physically separated computers); and 9,424,848 (Method for secure transactions utilizing physically separated computers).

RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Quad/Graphics, Inc. (N.D. Ill.; D. Colo.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Robert W. Gettleman; District Judge Sara L. Ellis

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Quad/Graphics, Inc.
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff:        RAH Color Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Global IP Law Group

Patents:          6,995,870 (System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites); 7,312,897 (System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites); 7,729,008 (System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites); 7,830,546 (System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites); 8,537,357 (System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites); 8,760,704 (System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites); 8,279,236 (Methods and apparatus for calibrating a color display); 8,638,340 (Color calibration of color image rendering devices); 9,404,802 (System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites); and 9,516,288 (Color calibration of color image rendering devices).

VOIT Technologies, LLC v. It’s Only Natural, LLC (D. Colo.; S.D. Fla.; M.D. Fla.; W.D.N.C.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.; Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres; Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins; District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg; District Judge Paul G. Byron; Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith; District Judge Steven D. Merryday; Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed; District Judge Marcia Morales Howard; Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson; District Judge K. Michael Moore; Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton; Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer; District Judge Frank D. Whitney; Magistrate Judge David Keesler; District Judge Richard Voorhees

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • It’s Only Natural, LLC
  • Bluegate, Inc.
  • CCTV Camera Pros, LLC
  • The Holster Store, Inc.
  • Budget Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
  • David Tyson Lighting, Inc.
  • Jackson Lighting and Electric Supply Company
  • Better Planet Brands, LLC
  • Combi USA, Inc.
  • Power Transmission Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners; and Leak & Jamison

Patent:            6,226,412 (Secure digital interactive system for unique product identification and sales)

Kaldren LLC v. AbbVie Inc. (N.D., Ill.; E.D. Wis.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; District Judge Ronald A. Guzman; District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.; District Judge Thomas M. Durkin; District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo; District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller; Magistrate Judge William E Duffin; Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • AbbVie Inc.
  • Allstate Insurance Holdings LLC
  • Anixter Inc.
  • Medline Industries, Inc.
  • Signode Industrial Group LLC
  • Marinette Marine Corporation
  • The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
  • Western States Envelope Company
  • Woodway USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Corcoran IP Law; Media Litigation Firm; and Schulz Law

Patents:          6,098,882 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); 6,176,427 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); 6,820,807 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); and 8,281,999 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern).

IDB Ventures, LLC v. DSW Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • DSW Inc.
  • Academy Ltd.
  • Burlington Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff:        IDB Ventures, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Cunningham Swaim

Patent:            6,216,139 (Integrated dialog box for rapidly altering presentation of parametric text data objects on a computer display).

Spider Search Analytics LLC v. MicroPyramid Inc. (E.D. Tex.; D. Mass.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III; District Judge Denise J. Casper

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • MicroPyramid Inc.
  • Gift Hero, Inc.
  • HubSpot, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Spider Search Analytics LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

Patent:            7,454,430 (System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents).

Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Choice Hotels (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc.
  • Uber Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Fall Line Patents, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Antonelli Harrington & Thompson

Patent:            9,454,748 (System and method for data management).

e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. et al v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp. (D. Del.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Mattress Firm Holding Corp.

Plaintiffs:

  • e-Numerate, LLC
  • e-Numerate Solutions, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        O’Kelly Ernst & Joyce; and O’Rourke Law Office

Patents:          7,650,355 (Reusable macro markup language); 8,185,816 (Combining reusable data markup language documents); 9,262,383 (System, method, and computer program product for processing a markup document); and 9,268,748 (System, method, and computer program product for outputting markup language documents).

Smart Authentication IP, LLC v. Personal Capital Corporation (D. Del.).

Claim:                        Infringement

Defendant:     Personal Capital Corporation

Plaintiff:        Smart Authentication IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            8,082,213 (Method and system for personalized online security

Mirror Imaging LLC v. Austin Bancorp, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Austin Bancorp, Inc.
  • Austin Bank, Texas NA
  • Independent Bank
  • Independent Bank Group, Inc.
  • LegacyTexas Bank
  • Legacy Texas Group, Inc.
  • Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.
  • Prosperity Bank
  • Southside Bank

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patents:          6,963,866 (Method of obtaining an electronically stored financial document); 7,552,118 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document); 7,836,067 (Method of obtaining electronically-stored financial documents); and 9,141,612 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document).

Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Adobe systems Incorporated (E.D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Adobe Systems Incorporated
  • AOL Inc.
  • Cyberlink Corporation
  • Navico, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Hybrid Audio, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patent:            RE 40,281 (Signal processing utilizing a tree-structured array).

TMI Solutions LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc.
  • Gap, Inc.
  • Nordstrom, Inc.
  • Staples, Inc.
  • L Brands, Inc.
  • Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff:        TMI Solutions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; and Nelson Bumgardner

Patents:          9,484,077 (Providing services from a remote computer system to a user station over a communications network); and 9,484,078 (Providing services from a remote computer system to a user station over a communications network).

Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Acronis, Inc. (D. Mass.; D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Indira Talwani

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Acronis, Inc.
  • EVault, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO

Pls. Cnsl:        Birnbaum & Godkin; Bayard; and Russ August & Kabat

Patents:          7,415,530 (System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval); 8,717,204 (Methods for encoding and decoding data); 9,054,728 (Data compression systems and methods); and 9,116,908 (System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval).

GTX Corp. v. Openbucks Corp. (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Openbucks Corp.

Plaintiff:        GTX Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Ellis Law Group; and Rubin & Rudman

Patent:            6,876,979 (Electronic commerce bridge system).

Crane Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. NewZoom, LLC f/k/a NewZoom, Inc. d/b/a ZoomSystems et al. (D. Del.; N.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Benefit Cosmetics, LLC
  • Best Buy Stores, LP
  • Macy’s, Inc.
  • NewZoom, LLC f/k/a NewZoom, Inc. d/b/a ZoomSystems
  • The Honest Company, Inc.
  • Best Buy Co., Inc.

Plaintiff:        Crane Merchandising Systems, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Munck Wilson Mandala; and Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor

Patents:          6,328,180 (Apparatus and method for vending products); and 8,484,068 (Method and system for evaluating consumer demand for multiple products and services at remotely located equipment).

EveryMD.com LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:        EveryMD.com LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        TechCoastLaw

Patent:            9,584,461 (Method and apparatus for transmitting electronic mail).

CustomPlay, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Kenneth A. Marra

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • com, Inc.
  • Apple Inc.

Plaintiff:        CustomPlay, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya

Patents:          8,494,346 (Identifying a performer during a playing of a video); 9,124,950 (Providing item information notification during video playing); 9,380,282 (Providing item information during video playing); and 6,408,128 (Replaying with supplementary information a segment of a video).

September 2017 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

September filings increased, after the typical August lull.  Frequent filers included Internet Media Interactive, Kaldren, Landmark Technology, Mirror Imaging, Personal Audio, and Realtime Adaptive Streaming.

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.

Kaldren LLC v. Denbury Resources (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Denbury Resources Inc.
  • Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
  • Express Scripts Holding Company
  • Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
  • Embraer Executive Jet Services, LLC

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; and Toler Law Group

Patents:          6,820,807 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); and 8,281,999 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern).

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • com, Inc.
  • Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
  • Amazon Digital Services, LLC

Plaintiff:        Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Russ August & Kabat; and Ward Smith & Hill

Patents:          8,929,442 (System and methods for video and audio data distribution); 8,934,535 (Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution); and 9,769,477 (Video data compression systems).

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. The Kraft Heinz Company (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Edmond E. Chang

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Kraft Heinz Company
  • Baxter International 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, LLC v. Southern Motorcycle Supply, Inc. (S.D. Cal.; W.D.Wash.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt; District Judge John A. Houston

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Southern Motorcycle Supply, Inc.
  • Totally Chocolate, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

Patent:            6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system).

RFID Technology Innovations, LLC v. Fiesta Mart, LLC (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Fiesta Mart, LLC
  • Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc.
  • Hallmark Cards, Inc.
  • The Sherwin-Williams Company
  • Ulta Beauty, Inc.

Plaintiff:        RFID Technology Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:            9,582,689 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device).

Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Jos A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Jos A Bank Clothiers, Inc.
  • Oriental Trading Company, Inc.
  • Ralph Lauren Corporation
  • The TJX Companies, Inc.
  • Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Lexos Media IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patents:          5,995,102 (Server system and method for modifying a cursor image); and 6,118,449 (Server system and method for modifying a cursor image).

Venadium LLC v. American Musical Supply, Inc. (D.N.J.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Musical Supply, Inc.
  • Campmor, Inc.
  • DataMotion, Inc.
  • Prudential Financial, Inc.
  • Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.
  • Thorlabs, Inc.
  • WizKids/NECA, LLC

Plaintiff:        Venadium LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Corcoran IP Law; and Zimmerman Law Group

Patent:            6,330,549 (Protected shareware).

Mirror Imaging LLC v. American National Bank of Texas (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • American National Bank of Texas
  • Benchmark Bank
  • Guaranty Bank & Trust, NA
  • North Dallas Bank & Trust Co.
  • Third Coast Bancshares, Inc.
  • Third Coast Bank, SSB

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patents:          6,963,866 (Method of obtaining an electronically stored financial document); 7,552,118 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document); 7,836,067 (Method of obtaining electronically-stored financial documents); and 9,141,612 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document).

IDB Ventures, LLC v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
  • The Buckle, Inc.
  • Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff:        IDB Ventures, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Cunningham Swaim

Patent:            6,216,139 (Integrated dialog box for rapidly altering presentation of parametric text data objects on a computer display).

Google Inc. v. Personal Audio, LLC (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             District Judge Vince Chhabria

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Personal Audio, LLC

Plaintiff:        Google Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        White & Case

Patents:          6,199,076 (Audio program player including a dynamic program selection controller); and 7,509,178 (Audio program distribution and playback system).

Micoba LLC vs. Spotify USA Inc. (D. Del.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Spotify USA Inc.

Plaintiff:        Micoba LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            8,473,532 (Method and apparatus for automatic organization for computer files).

August 2017 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

August filings slowed some from July, as they usually do with NPEs taking a summer break.  After the TC Heartland venue decision came down, filings increased and diversified.  As you would expect, NPEs began filing most cases outside of the Eastern District of Texas.  Most of the non-Texas filings went to Delaware, but many were also dispersed across California, Florida, and Illinois.  Frequent filers included Anuwave, Coding Technologies, Kaldren, Mirror Imaging, Pherah, Tangelo IP, and VOIT Technologies.

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.

Anuwave LLC v. Community Banks of Colorado (D. Colo.; D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Community Banks of Colorado
  • Capitol Federal Savings Bank
  • Chase Bank USA
  • TCF Financial Corporation

Plaintiff:        Anuwave LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            8,295,862 (Method and system to enable communication through SMS communication channel).

VOIT Technologies, LLC v. Outdoor Edge Cutlery Corp. (D. Colo.; M.D. Fla.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge James D. Whittemore; Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson; District Judge Paul G. Byron; Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Outdoor Edge Cutlery Corp.
  • Volt, LLC
  • USA Vacuum, LLC
  • Brand Runner, Inc.

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners

Patent:            6,226,412 (Secure digital interactive system for unique product identification and sales).

Mirror Imaging LLC v. Green Bancorp, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Green Bancorp, Inc.
  • Green Bank, National Association
  • Inwood Bancshares, Inc.
  • Inwood National Bank, National Association
  • Origin Bancorp, Inc.
  • Origin Bank
  • PlainsCapital Bank
  • Texas Bank and Trust Company
  • AFNB Holdings, Inc.
  • American First National Bank
  • Bank of the Ozarks
  • Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
  • Cathay Bank
  • Cathay General Bancorp
  • IBERIABANK Corporation
  • Regions Bank, NA
  • Regions Financial Corporation
  • BTH Bank
  • BTH Bank, National Association
  • City Bank
  • East West Bank
  • Hanmi Bank
  • Texas Capital Bank, NA

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patents:          6,963,866 (Method of obtaining an electronically stored financial document); 7,552,118 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document); 7,836,067 (Method of obtaining electronically-stored financial documents); and 9,141,612 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document).

BillingNetwork Patent, Inc. v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:             District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Modernizing Medicine, Inc.

Plaintiff:        BillingNetwork Patent, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law; and Noble IP

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

Millennium Commerce, LLC v. Tabletop Media LLC (N.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     TableTop Media LLC

Plaintiff:        Millennium Commerce, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Law Office of Ryan E Hatch; and Ni Wang & Massand

Patent:            7,954,701 (Electronic fund transfer or transaction system).

OpenPrint LLC v. Oki Data Americas, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Oki Data Americas, Inc.
  • Panasonic Corporation of North America
  • HP Inc.

Plaintiff:        OpenPrint LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; Ni Wang & Massand; and Toler Law Group

Patents:          6,023,345 (Facsimile to E-mail communication system with local interface); 6,381,313 (Fax routing system and method using standard fax machine and personal computer); 6,639,974 (Fax routing system and method using standard fax machine and personal computer); 7,446,906 (Facsimile to E-mail communication system with local interface); 8,547,601 (Facsimile to E-mail communication system); 8,941,888 (Facsimile to E-mail communication system with local interface); 6,209,993 (Structure and fabricating method for ink-jet printhead chip); and 6,717,699 (Method for hybrid printing).

Vaultet LLC v. Cook’s Direct, Inc. (N.D. Ill.; E.D.N.Y.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cook’s Direct, Inc.
  • com, Inc.
  • Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC
  • Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
  • Starbucks Corporation
  • Skechers USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Vaultet LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law; Rabicoff Law; and Zimmerman Levi & Korsinsky

Patent:            7,814,009 (Anonymous on-line cash management system).

Tangelo IP, LLC v. HEB Grocery Company, LP (E.D. Tex.; N.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • HEB Grocery Company, LP
  • Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
  • Sam Ash Music Corporation

Plaintiff:        Tangelo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Van Cleef Law Office; and Ni Wang & Massand

Patent:            8,429,005 (Method for determining effectiveness of display of objects in advertising images).

Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. (E.D. Va.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Mark S. Davis; Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard; District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • com, Inc.
  • HTC America, Inc.
  • HTC Corporation

Plaintiff:        Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Michael Best & Friedrich

Patents:          8,135,398 (Method and apparatus for multimedia communications with different user terminals); 9,369,844 (System and method for providing locally applicable internet content with secure action requests and item condition alerts); 9,723,443 (System and method for providing locally applicable internet content with secure action requests and item condition alerts); and 9,729,918 (Method and system for efficient communication).

Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (W.D. Ark.).

Judge:             District Judge Timothy L. Brooks

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Spider Search Analytics LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

Patent:            7,454,430 (System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents).

WorldPantry.com, Inc. v. Landmark Technology, LLC (N. D. Cal.).

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        WorldPantry.com, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Mitchell + Company

Patent:            6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system).

Kaldren LLC v. Cigna Corporation (D. Del.; E.D.N.Y.; N.D. Ill.; E.D. Tex.; W.D. Wis.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Joan H. Lefkow; District Judge Edmond E. Chang; Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker; District Judge James D. Peterson

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cigna Corporation
  • The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
  • Rust-Oleum Corporation
  • Trippe Manufacturing Company d/b/a Tripp Lite
  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Inc.
  • Stemco LP
  • LaCrosse Technology, Ltd.
  • Madison Gas and Electric Company
  • Wausau Paper Corp.

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Toler Law Group; Corcoran IP Law; Zimmerman Law Group; and Media Litigation Firm

Patents:          6,820,807 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); 8,281,999 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); 6,098,882 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); and 6,176,427 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern).

Pherah LLC v. Volusion, LLC (E.D. Tex.; D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Volusion, LLC
  • Weebly, Inc.
  • Symphony Commerce, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Pherah LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            RE 44,652 (Computer-readable data product for managing sales information).

Coding Technologies, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D. Tex.; S.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Airlines, Inc.
  • Ben E. Keith Company
  • Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc.
  • Halliburton Company
  • Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
  • Mary Kay, Inc.
  • Omni Hotels Corporation
  • Omni Hotels & Resorts
  • Schlumberger Technology Corporation
  • Stewart & Stevenson LLC
  • Apache Corporation
  • BNSF Railway Company
  • Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
  • Huntsman Corporation
  • MRC Global, Inc.
  • Powell Industries, Inc.
  • Spectra Energy Corp.

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

June 2017 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

While the TC Heartland venue decision came down in late May, June filings remained a bit slow, presumably as plaintiffs sorted out where to file and the implications of TC Heartland generally, as well as responded to numerous venue or transfer motions in light of TC Heartland.  As with the late May, post-TC Heartland filings, East Texas filings stayed way down and the bulk of the non-Texas filings went to Delaware, as well as to a lesser degree California and Illinois district courts.  Frequent filers included CryptoPeak Security, Express Mobile, Interface IP, Landmark Technology, Shipping & Transit, Uniloc, and VOIT Technologies.

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.

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Google Inc. (E.D. Tex.; D. Del.; N.D. Cal.; C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:           Infringement; Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:

  • Google Inc.
  • H&R Block, Inc.
  • Apple Inc.
  • Hike Ltd.
  • Kik Interactive, Inc.
  • Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.
  • Nutanix, Inc.
  • Riot Games, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Etheridge Law Group; Nelson Bumgardner; O’Kelly Ernst & Joyce; Fenwick & West; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; and Prince Lobel Tye

Patents:          7,535,890 (System and method for instant VoIP messaging); 8,995,433 (System and method for instant VoIP messaging); 6,324,578 (Methods, systems and computer program products for management of configurable application programs on a network); 6,510,466 (Methods, systems and computer program products for centralized management of application programs on a network); 7,069,293 (Methods, systems and computer program products for distribution of application programs to a target station on a network); 7,690,556 (Step counter accounting for incline); 8,872,646 (Method and system for waking up a device due to motion); 8,199,747 (System and method for instant VoIP messaging); 6,110,228 (Method and apparatus for software maintenance at remote nodes); and 6,728,766 (Methods, systems and computer program products for license use management on a network).

OEC Logistics, Inc. v. Shipping & Transit, LLC (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Shipping and Transit, LLC

Plaintiff:        OEC Logistics, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Otter Products

Patents:          6,415,207 (System and method for automatically providing vehicle status information); 6,763,299 (Notification systems and methods with notifications based upon prior stop locations); 6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).

W. Interactive Inc. v. Shipping & Transit, LLC (N.D. Cal.).

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Shipping and Transit, LLC

Plaintiff:        W. Interactive Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Lamkin IP Defense

Patents:          6,317,060 (Base station system and method for monitoring travel of mobile vehicles and communicating notification messages); 6,415,207 (System and method for automatically providing vehicle status information); and 6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events).

Word to Info, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:     Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Word to Info, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patents:          5,715,468 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language); 6,138,087 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes and/or directed graphs); 6,609,091 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes and/or directed graphs); 7,349,840 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes, directed graphs and/or context memory); 7,873,509 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes, directed graphs, context memory, and/or purpose relations); 8,326,603 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language queries); and 8,688,436 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge by utilizing natural language responses).

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. BB&T Corporation (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • BB&T Corporation
  • Capital One, National Association
  • Choice Hotels International, Inc.
  • Gym-Mark, Inc.
  • The Kroger Co.
  • Phillips 66 Company

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).

Express Mobile, Inc. v. Brainvire Infotech, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Brainvire Infotech, Inc.
  • eGrove Systems Corporation
  • Icreon Tech, Inc.
  • Mobikasa, LLC
  • Salzer Technologies, Inc.
  • ePages GmbH
  • ePages Inc.
  • Webflow, Inc.
  • AppGyver Inc.

Plaintiff:        Express Mobile, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Brent Coon & Associates; and Devlin Law Firm

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); and 9,471,287 (Systems and methods for integrating widgets on mobile devices).

VOIT Technologies, LLC v. Branding Iron Western Store, Inc. d/b/a Safety Source Apparel (E.D. Tex.; W.D. Tex.; S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Ron Clark; District Judge Marcia G. Cooke; Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins; District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Branding Iron Western Store, Inc. d/b/a Safety Source Apparel
  • Mellow Johnny’s, LLC
  • JC Bath Corporation
  • Fishing Tackle Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners

Patent:           6,226,412 (Secure digital interactive system for unique product identification and sales).

CryptoPeak Security, LLC v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
  • Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
  • Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
  • Cabela’s Incorporated
  • First Citizens BancShares, Inc.
  • GameStop Corporation
  • Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
  • com, Inc.
  • MGM Resorts International
  • Papa John’s International, Inc.
  • Teladoc, Inc.
  • Tractor Supply Company

Plaintiff:        CryptoPeak Security, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patent:           6,202,150 (Auto-escrowable and auto-certifiable cryptosystems).

Encoditech LLC v. Plantronics, Inc. (D. Del.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Plantronics, Inc.
  • TTE Technology, Inc.
  • HARMAN International Industries, Incorporated
  • Fossil Group, Inc.
  • Recreational Equipment, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Encoditech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Ellie Mae, Inc. (D. Del.; S.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • Ellie Mae, Inc.
  • Qatar Airlines QCSC

Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Bradford Black; Farnan; Olavi Law; and Soni Law Firm

Patents:          7,296,221 (System and method for remote, automatic reporting and verification of forms); 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).

Vaultet LLC v. Disney Store USA, LLC (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Disney Store USA, LLC
  • Avis Rent A Car System LLC
  • American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Vaultet LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:           7,814,009 (Anonymous on-line cash management system).

First-Class Monitoring, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:    JP Morgan Chase & Co.

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).

Mirror Imaging LLC v. BOKF NA (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • BOKF NA
  • First National Bank of Omaha
  • First National Bank Texas

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patents:          6,963,866 (Method of obtaining an electronically stored financial document); 7,552,118 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document); 7,836,067 (Method of obtaining electronically-stored financial documents); and 9,141,612 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document).

Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Cisco Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; and Van Cleef Law Office

Patent:            8,035,479 (Mesh network door lock).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Jones Soda Co. et al. (W.D. Wash.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Jones Soda Co.
  • Jones Soda Co. (USA) Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

Patent:            6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system).

May 2017 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

May filings were slow until the end of the month.  After the TC Heartland venue decision came down, filings increased and diversified.  As you would expect, NPEs began filing most cases outside of the Eastern District of Texas.  Most of the non-Texas filings went to Delaware, but many were also dispersed across California and Illinois, in particular.  Frequent filers included DDR Holdings, Guyzar, Internet Media Interactive Corporation, Landmark Technology, Location Based Services, Rothschild, and Uniloc.

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.

Antennas Direct, Inc. v. Landmark Technology, LLC, (E.D. Mo.).

Judge:             District Judge Ronnie L. White

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        Antennas Direct, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Harness Dickey & Pierce

Patent:            6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system).

Guyzar LLC v. Genesco, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Genesco, Inc.
  • Olympus America, Inc.
  • Sony Corporation of America
  • Zinio, LLC
  • Zoho Corporation
  • Zoosk, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Guyzar LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

Patent:            5,845,070 (Security system for internet provider transaction).

Lexos Media IP, LLC v. AmeriMark Direct, LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • AmeriMark Direct, LLC
  • Boscov’s Department Store, LLC

Plaintiff:        Lexos Media IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Buether Joe & Carpenter

Patents:          5,995,102 (Server system and method for modifying a cursor image); 6,118,449 (Server system and method for modifying a cursor image); and 7,111,254 (System for replacing a cursor image in connection with displaying the contents of a web page).

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • com LLC
  • com BV
  • TicketNetwork, Inc.
  • Tourico Holidays, Inc.
  • Travel Holdings, Inc.
  • Shopify, Inc.

Plaintiff:        DDR Holdings, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Farnan; and Law Offices of Louis J. Hoffman

Patents:          7,818,399 (Methods of expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites through coordinated offsite marketing); 8,515,825 (Methods of expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites through coordinated offsite marketing); 9,043,228 (Specially programmed computer server serving pages offering commercial opportunities for merchants through coordinated offsite marketing); and 9,639,876 (Method and computer system for serving commerce information of an outsource provider in connection with host web pages offering commercial opportunities).

X Commerce, Inc. d/b/a Magento, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Express Mobile, Inc.

Plaintiff:        X Commerce, Inc. d/b/a Magento, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Sidley Austin

Patents:          6,546,397 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine); and 7,594,168 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine).

Cumberland Systems LLC v. The Rocket Science Group, LLC d/b/a MailChimp, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate  K. Nicole Mitchell; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • The Rocket Science Group, LLC d/b/a MailChimp
  • Startups.com, LLC
  • CashStar, Inc.
  • Mainstream Technologies, Inc.
  • NC Financial Solutions, LLC
  • iReverse Home Loans, LLC
  • Edmunds.com, Inc.
  • Marriot International, Inc.
  • True Media, LLC
  • Verizon Communications Inc.
  • Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Cumberland Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:            8,023,647 (Password self encryption method and system and encryption by keys generated from personal secret information).

Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC v. ADT LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • ADT LLC
  • D-Link Systems, Inc.
  • Honeywell International, Inc.
  • Logitech, Inc.
  • YI Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patents:          8,204,437 (Wireless image distribution system and method); 8,437,797 (Wireless image distribution system and method); and 8,594,722 (Wireless image distribution system and method).

Digital Verification Systems, LLC v. DocuFirst, LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • DocuFirst, LLC
  • Eversign, LLC
  • ESign Genie
  • PandaDoc, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Digital Verification Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Culhane Meadows Haughian & Walsh

Patent:            9,054,860 (Digital verified identification system and method).

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Infor, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Infor, Inc.
  • Akamai Technologies, Inc.
  • athenahealth, Inc.
  • ZenPayroll, Inc. d/b/a Gusto
  • Apple Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Nelson Bumgardner; Prince Lobel Tye; and Hayes Messina Gilman & Hayes

Patents:          6,110,228 (Method and apparatus for software maintenance at remote nodes); 6,564,229 (System and method for pausing and resuming move/copy operations); 6,324,578 (Methods, systems and computer program products for management of configurable application programs on a network); 6,510,466 (Methods, systems and computer program products for centralized management of application programs on a network); 6,728,766 (Methods, systems and computer program products for license use management on a network); 7,069,293 (Methods, systems and computer program products for distribution of application programs to a target station on a network); 6,661,203 (Battery charging and discharging system optimized for high temperature environments); and 7,092,671 (Method and system for wirelessly autodialing a telephone number from a record stored on a personal information device).

ZenPayroll, Inc., d/b/a Gusto v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al, (N.D. Cal.).

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:  

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:        ZenPayroll, Inc. d/b/a Gusto

Pls. Cnsl:        Fenwick & West

Location Based Services, LLC v. Trimble Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Trimble Inc.
  • Niantic, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Location Based Services, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ni Wang & Massand

Patent:            7,860,648 (Map display system and method); and 7,522,996 (Map display system and method).

Pherah LLC v. CamelBak Products, LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • CamelBak Products, LLC
  • Axon Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a TASER International
  • Beverages & More, Inc. d/b/a BevMo
  • Lindt & Sprungli (USA) Inc. d/b/a Ghiradelli
  • Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC
  • Red Bull North America Inc.

Plaintiff:        Pherah LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:            RE 44,652 (Computer-readable data product for managing sales information).

Serenitiva LLC v. Freshdesk Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Freshdesk Inc.
  • 3M Company
  • Bridgestone Americas, Inc.
  • Zendesk Inc.
  • com, Inc.
  • Lonely Planet USA, LLC
  • TalkDesk, Inc.
  • TaskUs, Inc.
  • mediaocean LLC

Plaintiff:        Serenitiva LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:            6,865,268 (Dynamic, real-time call tracking for web-based customer relationship management).

Kaldren LLC v. American Express Company, (S.D.N.Y.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • American Express Company
  • The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
  • HSBC USA, Inc.
  • JP Morgan Chase & Co.
  • PNY Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Corcoran IP Law; and Zimmerman Law Group

Patents:          6,098,882 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); 6,176,427 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); 6,820,807 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern); and 8,281,999 (Variable formatting of digital data into a pattern).

Voit Technologies, LLC v. Mac of All Trades, LLC, (M.D. Fla.; E.D. Tex.; W.D. Tex.; E.D.N.C.; W.D.N.C.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington; and Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III; District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III; District Judge Terrence W. Boyle

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Mac of All Trades, LLC
  • The Guitar Sanctuary, Inc.
  • World of Organics, Inc.
  • Medusa Skates, LLC
  • Del-Ton, Inc.
  • Decorative Iron of North Carolina, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Voit Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners; and Leak & Jamison

Patent:            6,226,412 (Secure digital interactive system for unique product identification and sales)

Mozly Tech LLC v. HubSpot, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • HubSpot, Inc.
  • LexisNexis, a Division of RELX, Inc.
  • RingCentral, Inc.
  • SAP America, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Mozly Tech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:            7,367,044 (System and method for network operation).

Internet Media Interactive Corporation v. McDonald’s Corporation, (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • McDonald’s Corporation
  • Abbott Laboratories

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corporation

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).

Venadium LLC v. Allstate Insurance Holdings LLC, (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.; District Judge Edmond E. Chang; District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.; District Judge Manish S. Shah; District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Allstate Insurance Holdings LLC
  • WW Grainger, Inc.
  • Hyatt Hotels Corporation
  • Paylocity Corporation
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Plaintiff:        Venadium LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Andreou & Casson; and Corcoran IP Law

Patent:            6,330,549 (Protected shareware).

 

LexBlog