The View from Alexandria: New Perspectives at the USPTO

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal Seminars

In late May, I attended the sixteenth annual Rocky Mountain IP Institute. I also spoke at the Institute about best practices for communicating between in-house team and outside counsel (more on that later). The Rocky Mountain IP Institute has grown to be one of the largest two IP conferences in the country. More importantly than that, for years it has been one of the best, if not the best, IP conference in the country in terms of quality and varied content. If you practice IP law and need / want to learn about what is going on in any area of IP, the Institute is the place to be at the end of May every year. The opening plenary session was a presentation by Joseph Matal, Associate Solicitor at the U.S. Patent Office and former interim director of the Patent Office. Matal’s remarks were very interesting. Here are some highlights:

  • He referenced the Wright Brothers’ fundamental patents describing their inventions of controlling the pitch, yaw and roll of an aircraft. While others had invented components of the airplane before or contemporaneous with the Wright Brothers, no one had figured out how to control them in flight.
    • Patent protection was critical to the Wright Brothers and remains so today for inventive, transformative inventions, inventors and companies.
  • No system should be defined by its flaws.
  • It is critical for the Patent Office and its systems to be “reliable and predictable.”
  • It took 67 years to issue patent 1M under the new numbering system. It took about 15 years to go from 4M to 5M in 1991. Going from 8M to 9M took about three years. Patent 10M is expected to issue later this year. The speed of innovation is dramatically increasing, at least as measured by patenting.
  • The Patent Office has a stable workforce. More than 100 examiners have been with the Patent Office for more than thirty years.
  • Patent pendency has declined to about 15.5 months for a first office action and 24 months for a final action. The Patent Office plans to get faster achieving at least the PTA goals of 14 months for a first action and 36 months for final issuance.
  • PTAB proceedings:
    • The goal of the PTAB was to dig out from the mess of slow and complex inter partes reexams.
    • The idea under the AIA was that there would be unknowns that would come up after the PTAB was created. So, the PTAB was given relatively broad ability to set its rules to address those unknowns as they arose. An example of this is the PTAB’s recent request for public comment regarding normalizing the PTAB’s claim construction standard with the district court’s standard.
    • The PTO is looking at revising its expanded panel process.
    • The ultimate goals are to focus on reliability and predictability. The PTO wants stakeholders to know what they are getting and what to expect in PTAB processes.
    • The SAS case was “somewhat surprising.” The Justice Department thought the PTO would win the case, although, or because, the statute was silent on the issue.
      • There is value in it, however, because it makes sure that all issues are resolved at the PTAB making a cleaner distinction between the PTAB and the district court. It also removes burden from the district court.
      • The PTAB will have to guard against “kitchen sink” petitions with one or two strong arguments and numerous weak claims, he suspects the PTAB will reject the entire petition to force petitioners to bring strong petitions that focus on the real invalidity issues.

I look forward to returning to the seventeenth edition of the Rocky Mountain IP Institute in May 2019. You should join me.

April 2018 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

April continued the 2018 trend of very slight increases, while NPE activity remained slow, presumably waiting for an Oil States decision to determine whether PTAB proceedings were constitutional (spoiler alert – they are constitutional, at least on the narrow ground put before the Supreme Court).  Frequent filers included CXT Systems, Grecia, Hawk Technology, Internet Media Interactive, Landmark Technology, Linksmart Wireless Technology, Reflection Code, Secure Cam, and Symbology.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.  Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to your suggestions for improving the report.

Reflection Code LLC v. Mucci Farms Ltd. et al. (E.D. Mich.).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis; District Judge Denise Page Hood

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Mucci Farms Ltd.
  • Mucci International Manufacturing Inc.
  • Mucci Pac USA Ltd.

Plaintiff:        Reflection Code LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

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

Vindolor, LLC v. Buc-ee’s, Ltd. (W.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Buc-ee’s, Ltd.
  • Euromarket Designs Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel
  • Spec’s Family Partners, Ltd. d/b/a/ Spec’s Wine, Spirits & Finer Foods
  • Retail Services & Systems, Inc. d/b/a Total Wine & More

Plaintiff:        Vindolor, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Mort Law Firm

Patent:            6,213,391 (Portable system for personal identification based upon distinctive characteristics of the user).

Moore & Giles, Inc. v. Landmark Technology, LLC (W.D. Va.).

Judge:             District Judge Norman K. Moon

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        Moore & Giles, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Woods Rogers

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

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Otter Products, LLC (D. Colo.; D. Del.; N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty; District Judge Ruben Castillo

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Otter Products, LLC
  • 3M Company d/b/a Filtrete
  • Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. d/b/a Entenmann’s
  • Brunswick Corporation d/b/a Life Fitness
  • Hammacher Schlemmer & Company, Inc.
  • eAccess Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli; Stamoulis & Weinblatt; and Andreou & Casson

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); and 8,936,190 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device).

The Tie Bar Operating Co., LLC d/b/a The Tie Bar v. Landmark Technology, LLC (S.D.N.Y.).

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        The Tie Bar Operating Co., LLC d/b/a The Tie Bar

Pls. Cnsl:        Kirkland & Ellis

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

Baxter Auto Parts, Inc. v. Landmark Technology, LLC (D. Or.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        Baxter Auto Parts, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Klarquist Sparkman

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

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. First Data Corporation (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • First Data Corporation
  • Hub Group, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corp.

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

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).

Secure Cam, LLC v. Project Nursery, LLC (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Project Nursery, LLC

Plaintiff:        Secure Cam, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Brandt Law Firm; and Ranallo Law Office

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

Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Aerovias de Mexico, SA de CV (C.D. Cal.; E.D.N.Y.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott; District Judge George H. Wu; Magistrate Judge John D. Early; District Judge Andrew J. Guilford; Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom; District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Aerovias de Mexico, SA de CV
  • Grupo Aeromexico SAB de CV
  • Air Canada
  • Air France-KLM SA
  • Alaska Air Group, Inc.
  • United Airlines, Inc.
  • United Continental Holdings, Inc.
  • American Airlines Group, Inc.
  • British Airways, PLC
  • Emirates
  • The Emirates Group
  • Delta Air Lines, Inc.
  • WestJet Airlines Ltd.
  • WestJet Operations Corp.
  • Southwest Airlines Co.
  • Panasonic Avionics Corporation
  • Sonifi Solutions, Inc.
  • Gogo Inc.
  • Gogo LLC
  • Deep Blue Communications, LLC
  • DCI-Design Communications LLC

Plaintiff:        Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Russ August & Kabat; and Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein

Patent:            RE 46,459 (User specific automatic data redirection system).

Hawk Technology Systems LLC v. Larson’s Piggly Wiggly d/b/a as Cash Saver (N.D. Miss.; E.D. Tex.; N.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Michael P. Mills; Magistrate Judge Roy Percy; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Larson’s Piggly Wiggly d/b/a as Cash Saver
  • La Familia Agency LLC d/b/a La Familia Auto Insurance
  • City of Coppell, Texas

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Henderson Dantone; Corcoran IP Law

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

Grecia v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (S.D.N.Y.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiff:        William Grecia

Pls. Cnsl:        Wawrzyn & Jarvis

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

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Arhaus, LLC (N.D. Ohio; S.D. Ohio) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge John R. Adams; District Judge Susan J. Dlott

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Arhaus, LLC
  • General Factory Supplies Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

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

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

CXT Systems, Inc. v. Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors
  • The Container Store Group, Inc.
  • Pier 1 Imports, Inc.

Plaintiff:        CXT Systems, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Brown Rudnick; and Truelove Law Firm

Patents:          6,412,012 (System, method, and article of manufacture for making a compatibility-aware recommendations to a user); 6,493,703 (System and method for implementing intelligent online community message board); 6,571,234 (System and method for managing online message board); 7,016,875 (Single sign-on for access to a central data repository); 7,257,581 (Storage, management and distribution of consumer information); 8,260,806 (Storage, management and distribution of consumer information); and RE 45,661 (Online content tabulating system and method).

March 2018 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

March again saw a very slight increase as the NPEs continued waiting on Oil States.  Frequent filers included Aeritas, Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, Grecia, Finjan, Hawk Technology, Hybrid Audio, Internet Media Interactive, Landmark Technology, Lit, Location Based Services, Tangelo IP, 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.

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

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Logitech Europe SA
  • Logitech Inc.
  • Uniloc Luxembourg SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.
  • Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Prince Lobel Tye; and Etheridge Law Group

Patents:          6,993,049 (Communication system); 8,484,089 (Method and system for a hosted digital music library sharing service); 8,606,856 (Digital media asset identification system and method); 6,580,422 (Remote computer display using graphics primitives sent over a wireless link); and 6,622,018 (Portable device control console with wireless connection).

Mod Stack LLC v. Aculab, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Aculab, Inc.
  • inContact, Inc.
  • Intermedia.net, Inc.
  • Jive Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Mod Stack LLC

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

Patent:           7,460,520 (Apparatus and method for using multiple call controllers of voice-band calls).

Inventory Liquidators Corporation d/b/a Regent Products Corporation v. Landmark Technology, LLC (N.D. Ill.).

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        Inventory Liquidators Corporation d/b/a Regent Products Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Dykema Gossett

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

Location Based Services, LLC v. Contour, LLC (D. Utah; C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Ted Stewart; District Judge R. Gary Klausner; Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Contour, LLC
  • Thinkware Systems USA Inc.
  • JVCKenwood USA Corporation

Plaintiff:        Location Based Services, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ni Wang & Massand; Shaver & Swanson; Feinberg Day Alberti Lim & Belloli; and Ni Wang & Massand

Patent:            8,311,733 (Interactive key frame image mapping system and method).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. BL Restaurant Operations, LLC (E.D. Mich.; E.D. Pa.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Sean F. Cox; Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub; District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • BL Restaurant Operations, LLC
  • Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, LP

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Marc Shulman & Associates; Fiore & Barber; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen

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

Tangelo IP, LLC v. Houdini Inc. (C.D. Cal.).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge John D. Early; District Judge James V. Selna

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Houdini Inc.

Plaintiff:        Tangelo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Law Office of Ryan E. Hatch; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

Aeritas, LLC v. Taco Bell Corp. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Taco Bell Corp.
  • McDonald’s Corporation
  • McDonald’s USA, LLC

Plaintiff:        Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        DelGiorno IP Law

Patents:          8,055,285 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,390,435 (Mixed-mode interaction); and 9,888,107 (Mixed-mode interaction).

JM Smith Corporation v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (D.S.C.).

Judge:             District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant      CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Plaintiff:        JM Smith Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Holcombe Bomar; and Southeast IP Group

Patent:            7,398,999 (Visual verification of prescription medication and information and warning label).

Grecia v. Walgreen Co. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.; District Judge Charles P. Kocoras

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Walgreen Co.
  • ALDI Inc.
  • Sears Holdings Corporation
  • True Value Company

Plaintiff:        William Grecia

Pls. Cnsl:        Wawrzyn & Jarvis

Patent:            8,533,860 (Personalized digital media access system–PDMAS part II).

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Beazer General Services, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Beazer General Services, Inc.
  • Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
  • Barnes & Noble, Inc.
  • NOOK Digital, LLC f/k/a barnesandnoble.com LLC

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corp.

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

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).

Finjan, Inc. v. Carbon Black, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Carbon Black, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Finjan, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel

Patents:          6,154,844 (System and method for attaching a downloadable security profile to a downloadable); 6,804,780 (System and method for protecting a computer and a network from hostile downloadables); 8,141,154 (System and method for inspecting dynamically generated executable code); and 8,677,494 (Malicious mobile code runtime monitoring system and methods).

Lit v. Caterpillar Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Ruben Castillo; District Judge Ronald A. Guzman; District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Caterpillar Inc.
  • Dover Corporation
  • Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated
  • Motorola Mobility, LLC
  • Ulta Beauty, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Samuel Lit

Pls. Cnsl:        Wawrzyn & Jarvis

Patent:            8,793,330 (Information display system and method).

IoT Consortium of Plano Texas, LLC v. Sound Around, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Sound Around, Inc.

Plaintiff:        IoT Consortium of Plano Texas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Beard & Harris; and Ross IP Group

Patent:            7,286,799 (Remote caller identification (ID) device).

Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Macys.com, LLC
  • Macy’s, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Nintendo of America Inc. et al. (W.D. Wash.).

Claim:                        Infringement

Defendants:

  • Nintendo Co., Ltd.
  • Nintendo of America Inc.

Plaintiff:        Hybrid Audio, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; and Law Offices of Timothy J. Warzecha

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

February 2018 Retail Patent Litigation Report

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Retail Litigation Report

February saw a slight uptick in NPE activity, although it remained light presumably as everyone waited for the Supreme Court to decide Oil States.  Frequent filers included Codec Technologies, Epic IP, Location Based Services, Spider Search Analytics, and Tangelo IP.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.  Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to your suggestions for improving the report.

Epic IP LLC v. Fareportal Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Fareportal Inc.
  • JAND, Inc.
  • Sharp Electronics Corporation

Plaintiff:        Epic IP LLC

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

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

Intellectual Tech LLC v. Sendum Wireless Corporation (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Sendum Wireless Corporation

Plaintiff:        Intellectual Tech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Klemchuk

Patent:            7,791,455 (Method and apparatus for autonomous detection of a given location or situation).

Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.; N.D.Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Sephora USA, Inc.
  • adidas America, Inc.
  • The Home Depot, Inc.
  • Staples, Inc.
  • LVMH Watch & Jewelry USA Inc.

Plaintiff:        Spider Search Analytics LLC , Inc. d/b/a TAG Heuer

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law; and Ferraiuoli

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

Proximity Sensors of Texas, LLC v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge John D. Love

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Apple Inc.

Plaintiff:        Proximity Sensors of Texas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Nelson Bumgardner

Patent:            7,050,043 (Optical apparatus).

WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Donuts Inc.
  • Name.com, Inc.
  • eNom, LLC

Plaintiff:        WhitServe LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patents:          5,895,468 (System automating delivery of professional services); and 6,182,078 (System for delivering professional services over the internet).

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC et al. (N.D. Cal.).

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:

  • Level 3 Communications, LLC
  • PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC

Plaintiffs:

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

Pls. Cnsl:        Fenwick & West

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).

Mesa Digital LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge John Z. Lee; District Judge Thomas M. Durkin; District Judge Manish S. Shah; District Judge Edmond E. Chang

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Amazon.com, Inc.
  • BlackBerry Corporation
  • Lenovo (United States) Inc.
  • Sony Corporation of America

Plaintiff:        Mesa Digital LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patents:          9,031,537 (Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device); and 9,646,444 (Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device).

Codec Technologies LLC v. Cinemark USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.; S.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cinemark USA, Inc.
  • Texas Instruments Incorporated
  • Mattel, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Codec Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:            6,825,780 (Multiple codec-imager system and method).

Optimize Technology Solutions, LLC v. Performance Inc. d/b/a Performance Bicycle Shop (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Performance Inc. d/b/a Performance Bicycle Shop

Plaintiff:        Optimize Technology Solutions, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Sprinkle IP Law Group; and Toler Law Group

Patent:            6,330,592 (Method, memory, product, and code for displaying pre-customized content associated with visitor data).

Spycurity LLC v. Dialogic Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Dialogic Inc.
  • Edgewater Networks, Inc.
  • Genband US LLC
  • KVH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Spycurity LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            5,809,118 (System and method for triggering actions at a host computer by telephone).

Location Based Services, LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc. (D. Del.)

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Sony Electronics Inc.
  • Cobra Electronics Corporation

Plaintiff:        Location Based Services, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Bayard; and Ni Wang & Massand

Patent:            8,311,733 (Interactive key frame image mapping system and method).

Tangelo IP, LLC v. Arbonne International, LLC (D. Del.; S.D.N.Y.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Arbonne International, LLC
  • Houdini Inc.
  • Hammacher Schlemmer & Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Tangelo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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).

LexBlog