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)