June was a busy month for retail patent litigation. Frequent filers targeting retailers included Nearby Systems LLC, Near Field Electronics LLC, and Boomcloud 360.

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.

Boomcloud 360, Inc. v. Walmart Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Walmart Inc.
  • Best Buy Co., Inc.
  • Target Corporation d/b/a Target

Plaintiff: Boomcloud 360, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Russ August & Kabat

Patents: 10,313,820 (Sub-band spatial audio enhancement); 10,721,564 (Subband spatial and crosstalk cancellation for audio reproduction); 10,757,527 (Crosstalk cancellation b-chain)

Minotaur Systems LLC v. Carmax, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Carmax, Inc.
  • Avis Budget Group, Inc.
  • Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff: Minotaur Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 9,652,023 (Power management system)

Near Field Electronics LLC v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
  • Home Depot USA, Inc.
  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
  • Macy’s, Inc. d/b/a Macy’s
  • The Michaels Companies, Inc.
  • Shake Shack Inc.
  • AT&T Mobility LLC
  • Fox Restaurant Concepts LLC d/b/a Flower Child
  • Aldo US, Inc.
  • Bath & Body Works, LLC
  • Hot Topic, Inc.
  • KnitWell Group LLC
  • Torrid LLC
  • Victoria’s Secret & Co.
  • Food Ventures North America, Inc. d/b/a Wild Fork Foods

Plaintiff: Near Field Electronics LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Shea Beaty

Patents: 6,691,201 (Dual mode USB-PS/2 device); 6,742,071 (Real-time I/O processor used to implement bus interface protocols); 6,959,350 (Configurable USB interface with virtual register architecture); 6,996,727 (Power supply for universal serial bus interface with programmable bus pullup resistor); 7,373,531 (Signal detection method, frequency detection method, power consumption control method, signal detecting device, frequency detecting device, power consumption control device and electronic apparatus)

Nearby Systems LLC v. Starbucks Corporation (multiple cases)(E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Starbucks Corporation
  • Foot Locker Retail, Inc.
  • Murphy USA Inc.
  • Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.
  • Lululemon USA Inc.

Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 10,469,980 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 11,937,145 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 12,185,177 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 9,532,164 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices)

UpChat LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • 7-Eleven, Inc.
  • Hello Group, Inc.
  • KRAFTON, Inc.
  • Rakuten Group, Inc.
  • Suol Innovations Ltd.

Plaintiff: UpChat LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 10,182,157 (Systems and methods for communicating)

May brought a notable wave of cases targeting retailers and their supply chains, with NPE activity continuing at a steady pace. Frequent filers and themes this month included Nearby Systems (mapping technology), SmartOrder (restaurant/retail ordering systems), and Innercap Technologies (capsule delivery apparatus). Retailers in the home improvement, grocery, drug, and food service sectors were all targeted.

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.

Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. v. Ace Hardware Corporation (N.D. Ill.)

Judge: District Judge Virginia M. Kendall

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Ace Hardware Corporation

Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Direction IP Law

Patents: 7,171,629 (Customizable web site access system and method therefore); 7,428,707 (Customizable web site access system and method therefore)

Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Northeast Grocery, Inc. et al (S.D.N.Y.)

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Northeast Grocery, Inc.
  • Price Chopper Operating Co., Inc.
  • The Golub Corporation

Plaintiff: Advanced Transactions, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Daignault Iyer

Patent: 7,065,555 (System and method related to generating and tracking an email campaign)

Innercap Technologies, Inc. v. Target Corporation (D. Minn.)

Judge: Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz; District Judge Nancy E. Brasel

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Target Corporation d/b/a Target

Plaintiff: INNERCAP Technologies, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Bradford Andresen Norrie & Camarotto

Patent: 7,670,612 (Multi-phase, multi-compartment capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same)

Nearby Systems LLC v. Walgreen Co. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.)

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens
  • Dollar Tree, Inc.
  • Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 10,469,980 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 11,937,145 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 12,185,177 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 9,532,164 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices)

SmartOrder LLC v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.)

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chick-Fil-A, Inc.
  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  • Domino’s Pizza, Inc.
  • Papa John’s International, Inc.
  • Starbucks Corporation
  • Yum! Brands, Inc.

Plaintiff: SmartOrder LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 9,390,424 (System and method for improving customer wait time, customer service, and marketing efficiency in the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries)

April was an active month for patent filings against retailers and consumer-facing businesses. NPE activity remained brisk, with frequent filers Patent Armory and Rabicoff Law-affiliated entities continuing to generate volume across multiple districts. Notably, Sport Squad (JOOLA) launched an aggressive offensive campaign against pickleball paddle competitors across at least six districts. Retailers in the brick-and-mortar and e-commerce space faced suits targeting loyalty/token-based commerce systems, location services, and in-store customer assistance 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.

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Circle K Stores Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Circle K Stores Inc.

Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl: Prince Lobel Tye

Patents: 10,360,571 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 11,042,890 (Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store); 11,301,880 (Method and system for inventory management in a retail store); 12,026,731 (Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products); 12,423,718 (Methods and systems for providing customer assistance in a retail store);

AML IP, LLC v. Cinemark USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex.).

Judges: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay; District Judge Ed Kinkeade; District Judge Reed O’Connor

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cinemark USA, Inc.
  • Marriott International, Inc. d/b/a Courtyard by Marriott Middleton
  • RaceTrac, Inc.
  • Callaway Golf Company
  • Brinker International Payroll Company, LP
  • CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP
  • Dave & Buster’s, Inc.

Plaintiff: AML IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 7,177,838 (Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens)

Atlas Global Technologies LLC v. Walmart Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Walmart Inc.

Plaintiff: Atlas Global Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy

Patents: 10,020,919 (Protection methods for wireless transmissions); 10,348,471 (Control information for multi-user transmissions in WLAN systems); 10,965,425 (Control information for multi-user transmissions in WLAN systems); 9,628,310 (Long training field sequence construction)

Ecomm Innovations, LLC v. Levi Strauss & Co. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Levi Strauss & Co.

Plaintiff: Ecomm Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Daignault Iyer

Patents: 7,409,635 (Display/layout methods and apparatuses including content items and display containers); 7,657,458 (Vendor-driven, social-network enabled review collection system and method); 7,752,081 (Social-network enabled review system with subject-owner controlled syndication); 7,761,343 (Social-network enabled review system with subject identification review authoring form creation); 7,765,470 (Display/layout methods and apparatuses including content items and display containers); 7,822,646 (Social-network enabled review system with subject-owner controlled syndication management); 7,881,975 (Methods and systems using client-side scripts for review requests); 8,266,007 (Methods and systems for delivering customized advertisements)

Headwater Research LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Amazon.com Services LLC

Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Russ August & Kabat

Patents: 11,966,464 (Security techniques for device assisted services); 8,832,777 (Adapting network policies based on device service processor configuration); 9,491,564 (Mobile device and method with secure network messaging for authorized components)

INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Walmart Inc.

Plaintiff: INNERCAP Technologies, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Farnan; Folio Law Group

Patent: 7,670,612 (Multi-phase, multi-compartment capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same)

Local Interest, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation

Plaintiff: Local Interest, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 7,532,899 (System for providing location-based services in a wireless network, such as locating sets of desired locations); 8,774,834 (System for providing location-based services in a wireless network, such as locating sets of desired locations)

MOV-ology LLC v. Moonshot Ventures Inc. d/b/a Basin (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Moonshot Ventures Inc. d/b/a Basin

Plaintiff: MOV-ology LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Prince Lobel Tye; Sorey & Hoover

Patents: 9,280,531 (Marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned electronic forms); 9,286,282 (Obtaining data from abandoned electronic forms)

Patent Armory Inc. v. Alto Experience, Inc. (N.D. Tex., M.D. Fla., W.D. Tex.).

Judges: District Judge Brantley Starr; District Judge Reed O’Connor; Magistrate Judge Melissa Damian; District Judge David Counts

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Alto Experience, Inc.
  • JetSuiteX, Inc.
  • State National Companies, Inc.
  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
  • Sprinklr, Inc.

Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Crewse Law Firm; Beusse Sanks

Patents: 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. et al v. ADI Global Distribution Inc. (E.D. Tex., S.D. Tex., N.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • ADI Global Distribution Inc.
  • Trane Technologies Company LLC
  • Whirlpool Corporation
  • Lennox International Inc.
  • Tonal Systems, Inc.
  • LG Electronics USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs: Portus Singapore Pte Ltd.; Portus Pty Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patents: 8,914,526 (Local and remote monitoring using a standard web browser); 9,961,097 (System for remote access of a user premises)

Secure Matrix LLC v. Academy Sports & Outdoors (multiple cases) (S.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports & Outdoors
  • Landry’s LLC f/k/a Landry’s, Inc.
  • Primary Arms, LLC
  • Retail Concepts, Inc.

Plaintiff: Secure Matrix LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 8,677,116 (Systems and methods for authentication and verification)

Sport Squad, Inc. d/b/a JOOLA v. Paddletek, LLC (N.D. Cal., D. Colo., S.D. Fla., D. Ariz., D. Del., E.D. Mo.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Paddletek, LLC
  • Proton Sports Inc.
  • Diadem Sports LLC
  • Vegas Pickleball LLC d/b/a RPM Pickleball
  • Franklin Sports Inc.
  • Engage Pickleball, LLC
  • All For Padel SL
  • ProXR, LLC
  • Facolospickleball LLC
  • Friday Labs, LLC
  • All Racquet Sports, LLC  
  • Volair C Corp., Inc. 

Plaintiff: Sport Squad, Inc. d/b/a JOOLA

Pls. Cnsl: K&L Gates

Patents: 12,465,826 (Game paddle); 12,357,891 (Game paddle)

VB Assets, LLC v. Google LLC et al (D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Google LLC
  • Alphabet, Inc.
  • YouTube, LLC
  • Android, Inc.
  • XXVI Holding Inc.

Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Farnan; Alston & Bird; Greenbaum Law

Patents: 10,297,249 (System and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface); 10,510,341 (Ssystem and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface); 10,755,699 (System and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface); 11,087,385 (Voice commerce); 12,236,456 (System and method for delivering targeted advertisements and/or providing natural language processing based on advertisements); 7,818,176 (System and method for selecting and presenting advertisements based on natural language processing of voice-based input); 8,073,681 (System and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface); 8,515,765 (System and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface); 8,527,274 (System and method for delivering targeted advertisements and tracking advertisement interactions in voice recognition contexts); 8,886,536 (System and method for delivering targeted advertisements and tracking advertisement interactions in voice recognition contexts); 9,269,097 (System and method for delivering targeted advertisements and/or providing natural language processing based on advertisements)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. Subway IP LLC (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Subway IP LLC

Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 9,280,689 (Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions)

X One, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, DoorDash, H-E-B, Pizza Hut (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC
  • Domino’s Pizza, Inc.
  • Domino’s Pizza LLC
  • DoorDash Essentials, LLC
  • DoorDash, Inc.
  • H-E-B, LP f/k/a H-E-B Grocery Company, LP
  • NeighborFavor, Inc. d/b/a Favor
  • Pizza Hut, LLC
  • Pizza Hut of America, LLC

Plaintiff: X One, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Garteiser Honea

Patents: 10,299,071 (Server-implemented methods and systems for sharing location amongst web-enabled cell phones); 10,750,310 (Temporary location sharing group with event based termination); 11,778,415 (Location sharing application in association with services provision); 9,854,402 (Formation of wireless device location sharing group); 9,942,705 (Location sharing group for services provision)

NPEs continued their aggressive filing pace in March 2026, with several familiar names making repeat appearances. Activemap LLC led the charge with a dozen retailer defendants in a single filing wave in the Eastern District of Texas, while Induction Devices LLC targeted a mix of retailers and financial institutions. DataCloud Technologies, Nearby Systems, and Random Chat also remained active filers. The Eastern District of Texas continued to be the venue of choice for patent assertion entities targeting the retail sector.

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.

Activemap LLC v. Half Price Books Records Magazines, Inc., et al. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Half Price Books Records Magazines, Inc.
  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
  • Lucky Opco LLC
  • National Vision Inc.
  • Nordstrom, Inc.
  • Luxottica of America Inc.
  • The Children’s Place, Inc.
  • The Tile Shop, LLC
  • Chanel, Inc.
  • Compass, Inc.
  • The Gap, Inc.
  • Petco Health & Wellness Company, Inc.

Plaintiff: Activemap LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Garteiser Honea

Patents: 10,444,943 (Interactive electronically presented map); 10,908,782 (Interactive electronically presented map); 8,468,464 (Interactive electronically presented map)

Andra Group, LP v. The Finish Line, Inc. d/b/a Finish Line and JD Sports (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: The Finish Line, Inc. d/b/a Finish Line and JD Sports

Plaintiff: Andra Group, LP

Pls. Cnsl: Bruster; Sorey & Hoover

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

Cambria Company LLC v. Cosentino Industrial, SAU, et al. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • C&C North America Inc.
  • Cosentino Industrial, SAU

Plaintiff: Cambria Company LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Winston & Strawn

Patents: 10,195,762 (Processed slabs, and systems and methods related thereto); 10,252,440 (Processed slabs, and systems and methods related thereto); 12,370,718 (Processed slabs, and systems and methods related thereto)

GoTV Networks LLC v. The Home Depot, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: The Home Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff: GoTV Networks LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Daignault Iyer

Patents: 10,254,378 (Mobile device localization based on relative received signal strength indicators); 11,317,238 (Monitoring outdoor and indoor regions with mobile devices); 8,009,619 (Server-side wireless communications link support for mobile handheld devices); 9,766,080 (Systems and methods for indoor and outdoor mobile device navigation)

Induction Devices LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Marriott International, Inc. d/b/a Courtyard by Marriott Middleton
  • The TJX Companies, Inc.
  • Costco Wholesale Corporation
  • Wayfair LLC

Plaintiff: Induction Devices LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Shea Beaty

Patents: 7,449,926 (Circuit for asynchronously resetting synchronous circuit); 7,899,145 (Circuit, system, and method for multiplexing signals with reduced jitter); 8,190,885 (Non-volatile memory sub-system integrated with security for storing near field transactions); 8,370,543 (Busy detection logic for asynchronous communication port); 8,543,628 (Method and system of digital signal processing)

Linfo IP, LLC v. Whaleco, Inc. d/b/a Temu (S.D.N.Y.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Whaleco, Inc. d/b/a Temu

Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Law Office of David J. Hoffman

Patent: 9,430,131 (System, methods, and user interface for organizing unstructured data objects)

Nearby Systems LLC v. Kohl’s Corporation (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Kohl’s Corporation
  • Exxon Mobil Corporation
  • Chevron USA Inc.
  • Valvoline Inc.

Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 10,469,980 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 11,937,145 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 12,185,177 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 9,532,164 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices)

OrderMagic LLC v. Chop’t Creative Salad Company LLC (S.D.N.Y., D. Del., S.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chop’t Creative Salad Company LLC
  • Order.com, LLC
  • ClusterTruck, Inc.
  • ezCater, Inc.
  • HungerRush, LLC

Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Silverman McDonald & Friedman

Patent: 7,831,475 (Remote ordering system)

Patent Armory Inc. v. Enterprise Financial Services Corp. (multiple cases) (D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Enterprise Financial Services Corp.
  • GNC Holdings, LLC
  • Skydio, Inc.

Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Silverman McDonald & Friedman

Patents: 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Nike, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Clarifai, Inc.
  • Nike, Inc.
  • CloudSight, Inc.
  • Fast Simon, Inc.
  • Houzz Inc.

Plaintiff: Pointwise Ventures LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Silverman McDonald & Friedman

Patent: 8,471,812 (Pointing and identification device)

PrivateTag Innovations LLC v. O’Reilly Group, LLC (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: O’Reilly Group, LLC

Plaintiff: PrivateTag Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Hill Kertscher & Wharton

Patents: 10,623,392 (Systems and methods for RFID security); 7,952,481 (Systems and methods for RFID security); 9,628,466 (Systems and methods for performing secure financial transactions)

Random Chat, LLC v. Kohl’s Corporation (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant:

  • Kohl’s Corporation
  • Dell Technologies Inc.
  • Walmart Inc.

Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 8,402,099 (Method for carrying out a multimedia communication based on a network protocol, particularly TCP/IP and/or UDP)

Reframe Technologies LLC v. Lucid Group, Inc. (multiple cases) (D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Lucid Group, Inc. f/k/a Churchill Capital Corporation IV
  • Moo Inc.
  • Odacite, Inc.
  • Toad & Co. International, Inc.

Plaintiff: Reframe Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Silverman McDonald & Friedman

Patent: 7,552,870 (Trading network resources)

Secure Matrix LLC v. Buff City Soap, LLC (multiple cases) (N.D. Tex.).

Judges: District Judge Karen Gren Scholer; District Judge Brantley Starr

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Buff City Soap, LLC
  • Grill Group 2017, LLC

Plaintiff: Secure Matrix LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Crewse Law Firm

Patent: 8,677,116 (Systems and methods for authentication and verification)

Scientiam Solutions, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Bass Pro, LLC
  • Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shop and/or Cabela’s
  • BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops

Plaintiff: Scientiam Solutions, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Gillam & Smith; Cederoth Law Offices

Patents: 10,685,468 (Systems, processes, and computer program products for creating geo-location-based visual designs and arrangements originating from geo-location-based imagery); 11,060,821 (Camouflage patterns, arrangements and methods for making the same)

VDPP, LLC v. Target Corporation (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Target Corporation d/b/a Target
  • IKEA Store

Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patents: 7,030,902 (Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures); 9,948,922 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens

Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 9,280,689 (Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions)

NPEs remained active in February, with several cases targeting major retailers and their supply chains. Frequent filers included VDPP, AML IP, Andra Group, Piney Woods Mobility, Portus Singapore, DataCloud Technologies, and Calibrate Networks, among others.

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.

AML IP, LLC v. United Airlines, Inc. (S.D. Tex., N.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • United Airlines, Inc.
  • American Airlines, Inc.
  • Alaska Airlines, Inc.
  • Allegiant Air, LLC

Plaintiff: AML IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 7,177,838 (Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens)

Andra Group, LP v. C & J Clark America, Inc. d/b/a Clarks (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • C & J Clark America, Inc. d/b/a Clarks
  • Earthbound Holding, LLC d/b/a Earthbound Trading Co.
  • Vineyard Vines, LLC
  • Vineyard Vines Retail, LLC

Plaintiff: Andra Group, LP

Pls. Cnsl: Bruster; Sorey & Hoover

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

Athena Security, LLP v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff: Athena Security, LLP

Pls. Cnsl: Russ August & Kabat

Patents: 7,702,742 (Mechanism for enabling memory transactions to be conducted across a lossy network); 7,966,654 (Computerized system and method for policy-based content filtering); 8,250,357 (Tunnel interface for securing traffic over a network); 9,503,421 (Security information and event management)

Calibrate Networks LLC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Accenture PLC
  • CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
  • McDonald’s Corporation
  • PepsiCo, Inc.
  • Sephora SA

Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 9,584,633 (Method and system for managing network communications)

GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. Expedia, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge David Counts

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Expedia, Inc.

Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 9,130,900 (Assistive agent)

Joto Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • BasicNet SpA
  • CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
  • Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.
  • Justwatch GmbH
  • Societe des Produits Nestle SA
  • Storytel Sweden AB

Plaintiff: Joto Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 9,639,608 (Comprehensive user/event matching or recommendations based on awareness of entities, activities, interests, desires, location)

Nearby Systems LLC v. Gap Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: The Gap, Inc.

Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 10,469,980 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 11,937,145 (Mashing Mapping Content Displayed on Mobile Devices); 12,185,177 (Mashing Mapping Content Displayed on Mobile Devices); 9,532,164 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices)

Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. et al v. Amazon.com Services, LLC (E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex., (S.D. Tex., D. Utah).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Amazon.com Services LLC
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  • Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a GE Appliances
  • Daikin Comfort Technologies North America, Inc.
  • iFIT, Inc. f/k/a ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.

Plaintiffs: Portus Pty Ltd.; Portus Singapore Pte Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patents: 8,914,526 (Local and remote monitoring using a standard web browser); 9,961,097 (System for remote access of a user premises)

Querytron LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff: Querytron LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 10,534,820 (Enhanced buyer-oriented search results)

Tiare Technology, Inc. v. Dominos Pizza, Inc. et al (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Davis Firm

Patents: 10,157,414 (Patron service system and method); 11,195,224 (Patron service system and method); 8,682,729 (Patron service system and method)

VDPP, LLC v. Best Western International, Inc. (D. Ariz., N.D. Ill., N.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Krissa M. Lanham; Judge: District Judge Brantley Starr

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Best Western International, Inc.
  • Cobra Electronics Corporation
  • Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
  • LG Electronics USA, Inc.
  • Costar Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Costar Video Systems, LLC

Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Andrew M. Ling PC; Ramey; Poulin Willey Anastopoulo

Patents: 7,030,902 (Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures); 9,948,922 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials); 9,716,874 (Continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles for optimized 3Deeps stereoscopic viewing, control method and means therefor, and system and method of generating and displaying a modified video); 7,323,982 (Method and system to control movable entities); 10,021,380 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials); 9,426,442 (Continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles for optimized 3Deeps stereoscopic viewing, control method and means therefor, and system and method of generating and displaying a modified video); 9,699,444 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials)

NPEs and patent holders continued targeting major retailers in January. Frequent filers included Patent Armory, Wolverine Barcode IP, Content Aware, Intellectual Ventures, VDPP, and Cedar Lane Technologies. Retailers across the spectrum—from big-box to specialty—found themselves named as defendants in infringement actions.

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.

Content Aware, LLC v. EyeBuyDirect, Inc. et al (E.D. Tex.).

Judges: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • EyeBuyDirect, Inc.
  • Meesho Technologies Private Limited
  • Reliance Retail Limited

Plaintiff: Content Aware, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 11,107,098 (System and method for content recognition and data categorization)

Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: United Parcel Service, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC
  • Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Prince Lobel Tye; Sorey & Hoover

Patents: 11,363,564 (Paging in a wireless network); 7,199,715 (System and method for tracking ID tags using a data structure of tag reads); 7,336,176 (Position indicating system); 7,623,439 (Cyclic diversity systems and methods); 8,594,122 (Transmit announcement indication)

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Sephora USA, Inc.

Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 10,469,980 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 11,937,145 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 12,185,177 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 9,532,164 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices)

Patent Armory Inc. v. Multiple Financial Institutions (D. Md., D. Del., E.D. Tex., E.D.N.Y., D. Colo., E.D. Va., W.D. Wis.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Automated Precision, Inc.
  • Turo Inc.
  • Wag Labs, Inc.
  • Capvis AG
  • FourLeaf Federal Credit Union
  • Suffolk Federal Credit Union
  • Broadview Federal Credit Union
  • Bellco Credit Union
  • Columbia Banking System, Inc.
  • Southern Bank
  • Capital Credit Union

Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patents: 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction); 7,256,899 (Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing)

Payvox LLC v. CardFree Inc. et al (D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • CardFree Inc.
  • Touchpoint Restaurant Innovations, Inc.

Plaintiff: Payvox LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Silverman McDonald & Friedman

Patent: 10,762,555 (Systems and methods for automated mass media commerce)

Stratacor LLC v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Alibaba Group Holding Limited

Plaintiff: Stratacor LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rubino IP

Patent: 11,257,115 (Providing additional digital content or advertising based on analysis of specific interest in the digital content being viewed)

VDPP, LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc. et al (E.D. Tex., S.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Home Depot USA, Inc.
  • Penney OpCo LLC d/b/a JCPenney
  • Frontier Airlines, Inc.
  • Jamba Juice, LLC

Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patents: 7,030,902 (Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures); 9,948,922 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  • Jamba Juice, LLC
  • Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
  • Sam’s West, Inc. d/b/a Sam’s Club

Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 9,280,689 (Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions)

The holiday season brought a flurry of patent litigation activity targeting retailers, with particular focus on e-commerce platforms, payment systems, and retail technology. Frequent filers included Alpha Modus, Near Field Electronics, VDPP LLC, and Cedar Lane Technologies, along with continued activity from various NPEs targeting retail operations and technology implementations.

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.

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. H&M Fashion USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: H&M Fashion USA, Inc.

Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl: Prince Lobel Tye

Patents: 11,042,890 (Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store); 11,049,120 (Method and system for generating a layout for placement of products in a retail store); 11,301,880 (Method and system for inventory management in a retail store); 12,026,731 (Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products); 12,354,121 (Methods and systems for shopping in a retail store)

BelAir Electronics, Inc. v. Amazon.com Services LLC (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Amazon.com Services LLC
  • AT&T Inc.
  • AT&T Services, Inc.
  • Walmart Inc.

Plaintiff: BelAir Electronics, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Haller Law

Patents: 10,097,676 (Protective mask of mobile phone); 7,194,291 (Protective mask of mobile phone); 7,941,195 (Protective mask of mobile phone)

Cardtek International, Ltd. v. Target Corporation (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Target Corporation d/b/a Target

Plaintiff: Cardtek International, Ltd. a/k/a Cardtek International, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: The Heartfield Law Firm; Cadwell Clonts Reeder & Thomas; Hicks Johnson

Patents: 10,628,818 (Payment convergence system and method); 7,039,593 (Payment convergence system and method); 8,600,770 (Payment convergence system and method)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Prosperum Securities, LLC (N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex.).

Judges: District Judge Andrea R. Wood; District Judge Joan B. Gottschall; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Prosperum Securities, LLC
  • Uhlmann Price Securities, LLC
  • Bank of America Corporation
  • HSBC Holdings plc

Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 8,577,782 (Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants)

Kids2, LLC v. Carter’s Inc. et al (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Carter’s, Inc.
  • Carter’s Retail, Inc.
  • Skip Hop, Inc.
  • The William Carter Company

Plaintiff: Kids2, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Foley & Lardner; MT2 Law Group – Mann Tindel Thompson

Patent: 7,740,560 (Stationary child exercise apparatus with bouncing pad)

Near Field Electronics LLC v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Albertsons Companies, Inc.
  • Aritzia Inc.
  • Aritzia LP
  • Catalyst Brands LLC d/b/a JCPenney
  • Genesco, Inc.
  • J. Crew Group, LLC
  • Leslies Poolmart, Inc. d/b/a Leslies Pro
  • Oxford Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff: Near Field Electronics LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Shea Beaty

Patents: 6,691,201 (Dual mode usb-ps/2 device); 6,742,071 (Real-time i/o processor used to implement bus interface protocols); 6,959,350 (Configurable USB interface with virtual register architecture); 6,996,727 (Power supply for universal serial bus interface with programmable bus pullup resistor); 7,373,531 (Signal detection method, frequency detection method, power consumption control method, signal detecting device, frequency detecting device, power consumption control device and electronic apparatus)

Secure Matrix LLC v. Dress Barn Omni, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Dress Barn Omni, Inc.

Plaintiff: Secure Matrix LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Silverman McDonald & Friedman

Patent: 8,677,116 (Systems and methods for authentication and verification)

The Only Card, LLC v. The Citizens Bank of Georgia (N.D. Ga.).

Judge: District Judge Richard W. Story

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: The Citizens Bank of Georgia

Plaintiff: The Only Card, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Law Offices of John W. Carpenter; Austin & Sparks

Patent: 8,152,059 (Secure commercial transactions system)

VDPP, LLC v. Burger King Company LLC (S.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Burger King Company LLC
  • Inter IKEA Systems BV
  • Costco Wholesale Corporation
  • McDonald’s Corporation
  • Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens
  • Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
  • Southwest Airlines Co.

Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Bill Ramey

Patents: 7,030,902 (Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures); 9,948,922 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials)

Retail patent litigation activity quieted a bit in November, although several frequent filers continued their campaigns against retailers and their supply chains. Notable activity included cases from Alpha Modus targeting major retail operations and VDPP’s continued assertion of 3D display technology patents.

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.

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Adroit Worldwide Media, Inc. (C.D. Cal., E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Adroit Worldwide Media, Inc.
  • Industria de Diseno Textil, S.A. a/k/a Inditex, S.A.
  • Zara USA, Inc.
  • Stratacache, Inc.
  • V-Count Global Holding, Ltd.

Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl: Prince Lobel Tye

Patents: 10,853,825 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 10,977,672 (Method and system for real-time inventory management, marketing, and advertising in a retail store); 11,042,890 (Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store); 11,049,120 (Method and system for generating a layout for placement of products in a retail store); 11,301,880 (Method and system for inventory management in a retail store); 12,026,731 (Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products); 12,039,550 (Method for enhancing customer shopping experience in a retail store); 12,354,121 (Methods and systems for shopping in a retail store); 12,423,718 (Methods and systems for providing customer assistance in a retail store)

Cart Source LLC v. The Home Depot, Inc. (M.D. Fla.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: The Home Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff: Cart Source LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Malloy & Malloy

Patent: 11,673,427 (Caster anti-tilt device)

Fasteners for Retail, Inc. d/b/a siffron v. Bruegmann USA, Inc. (S.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Bruegmann USA, Inc.

Plaintiff: Fasteners for Retail, Inc. d/b/a Siffron

Pls. Cnsl: Renner Otto; Heim Payne & Chorush; Honigman

Patents: 10,952,547 (Retail merchandise tray); 11,350,769 (Retail merchandise tray); 12,357,114 (Retail merchandise shelving system and deck panels for same); 12,369,730 (Retail shelving system); 12,390,024 (Retail shelving system); 12,396,575 (Retail shelving system); 8,152,006 (Merchandise security system)

VDPP, LLC v. Dukane Corporation (N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., S.D.N.Y., N.D. Tex.).

Judges: District Judge Jeremy C. Daniel; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; District Judge Reed O’Connor; District Judge Brantley Starr

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Dukane Corporation
  • FCA US LLC
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
  • Macy’s Corporation Services, LLC d/b/a Macy’s
  • Nordstrom, Inc.
  • Delta Air Lines, Inc.
  • Alaska Air Group, Inc
  • Olympus America Inc.
  • Speco Technologies
  • Victoria’s Secret & Co.
  • Starbucks Corporation
  • 7-Eleven, Inc.
  • Canon USA, Inc.

Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Choken Welling; Ramey; Carden & Tracy; Law Offices of David J. Hoffman

Patents: 10,951,881 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3DEEPS filer spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials); 9,716,874 (Continuous adjustable 3DEEPS filter spectacles for optimized 3DEEPS stereoscopic viewing, control method and means therefor, and system and method of generating and displaying a modified video); 9,426,452 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3DEEPS filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials); 7,030,902 (Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures); 9,948,922 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3DEEPS filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials); 10,021,380 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3DEEPS filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials)

NPE activity targeting retailers remained steady in October 2025, with several frequent filers continuing their campaigns. Notable plaintiffs included Alpha Modus, Nearby Systems, VDPP, Wolverine Barcode IP, and various entities represented by Rabicoff Law.

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.

Adaptive Avenue Assocs., Inc. v. Fabletics, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Sean D. Jordan

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Fabletics, Inc.

Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Direction IP Law

Patents: 7,171,629 (Customizable web site access system and method therefore; 7,428,707 (Customizable web site access system and method therefore)

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
  • Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC
  • 7-Eleven, Inc.

Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl: Prince Lobel Tye

Patents: 10,360,571 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 10,977,672 (Method and system for real-time inventory management, marketing, and advertising in a retail store); 11,042,890 (Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store); 11,049,120 (Method and system for generating a layout for placement of products in a retail store); 11,301,880 (Method and system for inventory management in a retail store); 12,026,731 (Method for personalized marketing and advertising of retail products); 12,039,550 (Method for enhancing customer shopping experience in a retail store); 12,354,121 (Methods and systems for shopping in a retail store); 12,423,718 (Methods and systems for providing customer assistance in a retail store)

Erlandsson v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (D. Or.).

Judge: Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.

Plaintiff: Alexander Erlandsson

Pls. Cnsl: Kolitch Romano Dascenzo Gates

Patent: 8,981,887 (Magnetic tool and part holder and method of making the same)

Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al v. Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (W.D.N.C.).

Claims: Declaratory Judgment

Defendant: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
  • Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson; Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila

Patents: 7,171,629 (Customizable web site access system and method therefore);

7,428,707 (Customizable web site access system and method therefore)

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  • Nordstrom, Inc.
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 10,469,980 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices); 11,937,145 (Mashing Mapping Content Displayed on Mobile Devices); 12,185,177 (Mashing Mapping Content Displayed on Mobile Devices); 9,532,164 (Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices)

Reframe Technologies LLC v. Lifetime Brands, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Lifetime Brands, Inc.

Plaintiff: Reframe Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 7,552,870 (Trading network resources)

Secure Matrix LLC v. Star Furniture Company, LLC (S.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., N.D. Tex.).

Judges: District Judge A. Joe Fish; Judge: District Judge Sam A. Lindsay; Judge: District Judge Mark Pittman

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Star Furniture Company, LLC
  • Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc.
  • J Hilburn, Inc.
  • TForce Logistics Inc.
  • Mouser Electronics, Inc.
  • Petmate Holdings Co.

Plaintiff: Secure Matrix LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; DNL Zito

Patent: 8,677,116 (Systems and methods for authentication and verification)

UpChat LLC v. Panera Bread Company (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Panera Bread Company

Plaintiff: UpChat LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 10,182,157 (Systems and methods for communicating)

VDPP, LLC v. Marriott International, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Marriott International, Inc. d/b/a Courtyard by Marriott Middleton

Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patents: 7,030,902 (Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures); 9,948,922 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3DEEPS filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. Starbucks Company (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Starbucks Company

Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 9,280,689 (Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions)

NPEs were very active in September with numerous cases filed against retailers. Notable plaintiffs included Alpha Modus, Headwater Research, Cedar Lane Technologies, VDPP, and Random Chat.

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.

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. The Kroger Co. (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Judge:  Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:  Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Kroger Co.
  • Creative Realities, Inc.
  • Allerin Tech Pvt Ltd.
  • MNTN, Inc.
  • Mood Media LLC
  • RetailNext Inc.

Plaintiff:  Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:  Prince Lobel Tye

Patents:  10,360,571 (METHOD FOR MONITORING AND ANALYZING BEHAVIOR AND USES THEREOF); 10,853,825 (METHOD FOR MONITORING AND ANALYZING BEHAVIOR AND USES THEREOF); 10,977,672 (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REAL-TIME INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, MARKETING, AND ADVERTISING IN A RETAIL STORE); 11,042,890 (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE IN A RETAIL STORE); 11,049,120 (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING A LAYOUT FOR PLACEMENT OF PRODUCTS IN A RETAIL STORE); 11,301,880 (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INVENTORY MANAGEMENT IN A RETAIL STORE); 12,026,731 (METHOD FOR PERSONALIZED MARKETING AND ADVERTISING OF RETAIL PRODUCTS); 12,039,550 (METHOD FOR ENHANCING CUSTOMER SHOPPING EXPERIENCE IN A RETAIL STORE); 12,354,121 (METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SHOPPING IN A RETAIL STORE)

Headwater Research LLC v. Walmart Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:  Infringement

Defendants:

  • Walmart Inc.
  • Target Corporation
  • Uber Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff:  Headwater Research LLC

Pls. Cnsl:  Russ August & Kabat

Patents:  10,321,320 (Wireless Network Buffered Message System); 9,198,117 (Network System With Common Secure Wireless Message Service Serving Multiple Applications on Multiple Wireless Devices); 9,615,192 (MESSAGE LINK SERVER WITH PLURAL MESSAGE DELIVERY TRIGGERS)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Beech Hill Securities, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., W.D.Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Beech Hill Securities, Inc. (SDNY)
  • Cantor Fitzgerald, LP (SDNY)
  • City National Rochdale, LLC (SDNY)
  • Clear Street, LLC (SDNY)
  • Corinthian Partners, LLC (SDNY)
  • Citibank NA (WDTX)

Plaintiff:  Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:  Rabicoff Law

Patent:  8,577,782 (TRADING WITH CONDITIONAL OFFERS FOR SEMI-ANONYMOUS PARTICIPANTS)

VDPP, LLC v. The TJX Companies, Inc. (S.D.Fla., W.D.Tex., E.D.N.Y., W.D.Wis.).

Claims:  Infringement

Defendants:

  • The TJX Companies, Inc.
  • Subway IP LLC
  • Janam Technologies LLC
  • Innovative Video Technology, Inc.
  • Dynamic Displays, Inc.

Plaintiff:  VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:  Ramey; Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant; Law Offices of David J. Hoffman

Patents:   7,030,902 (ETERNALISM, A METHOD FOR CREATING AN APPEARANCE OF SUSTAINED THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOTION-DIRECTION OF UNLIMITED DURATION, USING A FINITE NUMBER OF PICTURES); 9,426,452 (FASTER STATE TRANSITIONING FOR CONTINUOUS ADJUSTABLE 3DEEPS FILTER SPECTACLES USING MULTI-LAYERED VARIABLE TINT MATERIALS); 9,699,444 (FASTER STATE TRANSITIONING FOR CONTINUOUS ADJUSTABLE 3DEEPS FILTER SPECTACLES USING MULTI-LAYERED VARIABLE TINT MATERIALS); 9,716,874 (CONTINUOUS ADJUSTABLE 3DEEPS FILTER SPECTACLES FOR OPTIMIZED 3DEEPS STEREOSCOPIC VIEWING, CONTROL METHOD AND MEANS THEREFOR, AND SYSTEM AND METHOD OF GENERATING AND DISPLAYING A MODIFIED VIDEO); 9,948,922 (FASTER STATE TRANSITIONING FOR CONTINUOUS ADJUSTABLE 3DEEPS FILTER SPECTACLES USING MULTI-LAYERED VARIABLE TINT MATERIALS)

Random Chat, LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc. (W.D.Tex., D.Utah).

Judge:  District Judge David Counts

Claims:  Infringement

Defendants:

  • Lumen Technologies, Inc.
  • KURU Footwear, Inc.

Plaintiff:  Random Chat LLC

Pls. Cnsl:  Ramey

Patent:  8,402,099 (METHOD FOR CARRYING OUT A MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATION BASED ON A NETWORK PROTOCOL, PARTICULARLY TCP/IP AND/OR UDP)

Yopima, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc. (W.D.Tex., E.D.N.Y.).

Claims:  Infringement

Defendants:

  • DoorDash, Inc.
  • Grubhub Holdings, Inc.
  • Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime
  • NeighborFavor, Inc. d/b/a Favor
  • Curb Mobility, LLC

Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:  Ramey; Law Offices of David J. Hoffman

Patent:  9,119,038 (SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPARATIVE GEOFENCING)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. The Kroger Co. (multiple cases) (W.D.Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Kroger Co.
  • Macy’s, Inc.
  • Paysafecard.com USA Inc.

Plaintiff:  Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:  Ramey

Patent:  9,280,689 (METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONDUCTING OFFLINE COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS)

Context Directions LLC v. Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. (multiple cases) (E.D.Tex.).

Judge:  District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:  Infringement

Defendants:

  • Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P.
  • Tyler Motor Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:  Context Directions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:  Direction IP Law

Patents:  10,142,791 (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTEXT AWARENESS OF A MOBILE DEVICE); 9,807,564 (Method for Detecting Context of a Mobile Device and a Mobile Device with a Context Detection Module)