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

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        RAH Color Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Global IP Law Group

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

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

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

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

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        IDB Ventures, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Cunningham Swaim

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Spider Search Analytics LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Fall Line Patents, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Antonelli Harrington & Thompson

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Mattress Firm Holding Corp.

Plaintiffs:

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

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

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

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

Claim:                        Infringement

Defendant:     Personal Capital Corporation

Plaintiff:        Smart Authentication IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Hybrid Audio, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        TMI Solutions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm; and Nelson Bumgardner

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Indira Talwani

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Acronis, Inc.
  • EVault, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO

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

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

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

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Openbucks Corp.

Plaintiff:        GTX Corp.

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

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Crane Merchandising Systems, Inc.

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:        EveryMD.com LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        TechCoastLaw

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Kenneth A. Marra

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • com, Inc.
  • Apple Inc.

Plaintiff:        CustomPlay, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya

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

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

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

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

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Edmond E. Chang

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Kraft Heinz Company
  • Baxter International Inc.

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

Patent:            6,049,835 (System for providing easy access to the World Wide Web utilizing a published list of preselected Internet locations together with their unique multi-digit jump codes).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Southern Motorcycle Supply, Inc. (S.D. Cal.; W.D.Wash.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        RFID Technology Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Lexos Media IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Venadium LLC

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

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        IDB Ventures, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Cunningham Swaim

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Vince Chhabria

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Personal Audio, LLC

Plaintiff:        Google Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        White & Case

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Spotify USA Inc.

Plaintiff:        Micoba LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

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

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

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Anuwave LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Modernizing Medicine, Inc.

Plaintiff:        BillingNetwork Patent, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law; and Noble IP

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     TableTop Media LLC

Plaintiff:        Millennium Commerce, LLC

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

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        OpenPrint LLC

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

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Vaultet LLC

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

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

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Tangelo IP, LLC

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

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Michael Best & Friedrich

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Timothy L. Brooks

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Spider Search Analytics LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

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

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

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        WorldPantry.com, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Mitchell + Company

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Pherah LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

Claims:           Infringement; Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:

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

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

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

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

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

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Shipping and Transit, LLC

Plaintiff:        OEC Logistics, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Otter Products

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

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

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Shipping and Transit, LLC

Plaintiff:        W. Interactive Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Lamkin IP Defense

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

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

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:     Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Word to Info, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Express Mobile, Inc.

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

Patents:          6,546,397 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine); 7,594,168 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine); and 9,471,287 (Systems and methods for integrating widgets on mobile devices).

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb & Partners

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        CryptoPeak Security, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Encoditech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

Claim:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • Ellie Mae, Inc.
  • Qatar Airlines QCSC

Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

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

Patents:          7,296,221 (System and method for remote, automatic reporting and verification of forms); 7,406,663 (Graphical input device with dynamic field width adjustment for input of variable data via a browser-based display); and 7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device).

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

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Vaultet LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:    JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiff:        First-Class Monitoring, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Cisco Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

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

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

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Ronnie L. White

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        Antennas Direct, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Harness Dickey & Pierce

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Guyzar LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Lexos Media IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Buether Joe & Carpenter

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        DDR Holdings, LLC

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

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

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

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Express Mobile, Inc.

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

Pls. Cnsl:        Sidley Austin

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

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        Cumberland Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        Digital Verification Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Culhane Meadows Haughian & Walsh

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

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

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

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

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:  

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

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

Pls. Cnsl:        Fenwick & West

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Trimble Inc.
  • Niantic, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Location Based Services, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ni Wang & Massand

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        Pherah LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

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

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

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        Serenitiva LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

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

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Voit Technologies, LLC

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

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

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

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

Plaintiff:        Mozly Tech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • McDonald’s Corporation
  • Abbott Laboratories

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

Patent:            6,049,835 (System for providing easy access to the World Wide Web utilizing a published list of preselected Internet locations together with their unique multi-digit jump codes).

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        Venadium LLC

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

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

 

I have made it a practice not to immediately blog about big Supreme Court cases. While there is a rush to be the first to publish, I have found that there is a significant difference in the value between immediate analysis and analysis after people take a breath and think about the implications of the case. So, having thought about the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC decision and its implications, my colleagues and I wanted to provide our thoughts on the impact of TC Heartland.

Broadly, of course, TC Heartland does not change a patentholder’s ability to sue or the scope of any patents; so, its impact is different from the recent Supreme Court’s Alice or Lexmark decisions. TC Heartland only limits where some defendants can be sued. It is an important result for regional companies or national companies with a limited or regional physical footprint. It is also significant for the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, and the other top five patent courts — including the Northern District of Illinois.

The TC Heartland Decision

The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) (the statute), states that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” In its ruling in TC Heartland, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that, in relation to the statute, “residence” refers only to the state of incorporation. This is in contrast to how district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had interpreted the statute for the past 20-plus years, where venue was proper anywhere the district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Who is Impacted by the Venue Changes?

1. E.D. Texas & the Other Top Five Patent Districts

While the TC Heartland case did not originate in East Texas, the decision will have serious implications there because it is patent holders’ favorite venue. For instance, in 2016, plaintiffs filed 1,679 patent complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Texas). The District of Delaware was second with 458 filings. The difference was even more stark in 2015: 2,549 patent cases filed in E.D. Texas and 544 patent cases filed in Delaware, which was again the second-busiest district.1 Although many defendants are incorporated in Delaware, many of the East Texas defendants had few ties to the district.

The number of filings in E.D. Texas will fall significantly. Unified Patents predicts that they will fall by almost 70%. In the first weeks since the decision came down, we are already seeing a sizable shift in filings away from E.D. Texas. Many of the cases are going to Delaware, but there are also a significant number spreading across the country, especially in the other top five or six patent districts — Central and North California, the Northern District of Illinois and New Jersey.

2. Regional Companies

Domestic companies now have to be sued where they are incorporated or where they committed allegedly infringing acts and have a permanent and continuous presence. Companies with regional physical footprints will see a change in their patent litigation profile. Some NPEs may not bother suing them because of the hassle of filing against multiple companies in district courts across the country. And to the extent they are sued, the suits will have to be filed where they are incorporated or where they have a permanent and continuous presence. That is a significant benefit in terms of cost, convenience and the potential home court advantage.

While patent holders who prefer to file in E.D. Texas appear to be the big losers in TC Heartland, it is likely that the winners are 1) the District of Delaware, where many companies are incorporated; 2) the Northern District of California, the home of many technology giants and startups; and 3) corporations without nationwide facilities or presence that will no longer be forced into patent litigation in far-flung states. Regardless, patent holders will need to address venue much differently in complaints going forward, with a focus on either the defendant’s state of incorporation or the defendant’s established place of business.

3. National Companies

Companies with national footprints will see far less change, particularly if they have physical locations in East Texas. And it is important to remember that Plano, just east of Dallas, is on the western border of East Texas domain. These companies can likely be sued anywhere, just like they could have been before TC Heartland. There are, however, open questions. For example, if a company is sued for a website technology that has no direct connection to East Texas, is venue proper in East Texas? The early 1990s case law has not answered internet questions because the issues did not exist.

4. Foreign Entities

Foreign entities can likely still be sued anywhere in the country where a court has personal jurisdiction. So, little may have changed for foreign entities.

5. Multi-District Litigation

With patent holders being required to sue defendants in districts across the country, we expect to see a significant uptick in MDL panel requests. Importantly, this could be how patent holders force litigation back to East Texas. If the patent holder files suits against a number of targets, including several in East Texas and then seeks MDL designation asking for the cases to be consolidated in East Texas for discovery, that could drive some of the cases back to Texas. Of course, if many of the cases end up in MDLs, it will significantly reduce the impact of TC Heartland.

6. International Trade Commission (ITC)

Another way to consolidate multiple cases, and get a swift result is to file an ITC action. ITC claimants can sue multiple, unrelated parties in a single ITC action, they are fast and the cases all sit in Washington, DC. The downside to the ITC is that it awards only injunctions — no damages — and it will only exclude product from entering the US. But patent holders are still free to settle on broader terms, including payment terms. And the patent holder can also file and stay district court litigations as a placeholder to seek money damages after the patent holder wins its ITC action. As with potential MDL’s, ITC actions could significantly limit the impact of TC Heartland.

* * *

So is TC Heartland the sea change that it has been made out to be? Despite what you may have read immediately after the decision, there is no absolute answer to that. As with the outcome of so many Supreme Court decisions, it really depends and it will take time to tell. First, it depends upon your particular company. For local or regional entities, there should be at least a temporary and maybe a long-term change. Those entities will have to be sued at home. For companies with a nationwide footprint, or a presence in East Texas, little may change. And if patent holders are successful in getting cases joined in multi-district litigations and sent to East Texas or Delaware or tried in the ITC on a regular basis, not much have changed for anyone.

The likely outcome is somewhere in between. Large campaigns will likely often be joined in multi-district litigation, but we expect them to be placed in districts across the country, not just East Texas and Delaware.

Like March, April filings were slow as NPEs waited for the TC Heartland decision from SCOTUS.  Frequent filers included Electronic Communication Technologies, Hawk Technology, Internet Media Interactive Corporation, Landmark Technology, Reflection Code, Smart Authentication IP and Soverain.

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.

Product Association Technologies LLC v. Clique Media Group, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Clique Media Group
  • eBay Inc.
  • Lyst Ltd.
  • Polyvore, Inc.
  • IAC Search and Media, Inc.
  • ShopStyle, Inc.
  • Shopzilla, Inc.
  • YAHOO! Inc.

Plaintiff:         Product Association Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:           6,154,738 (Methods and apparatus for disseminating product information via the internet using universal product codes).

Fall Line Patents, LLC v. American Airlines Group, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Airlines Group, Inc.
  • American Airlines, Inc.
  • Cinemark Holdings, Inc.
  • Cinemark USA, Inc.
  • GrubHub Holdings, Inc.
  • GrubHub, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Fall Line Patents, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Antonelli Harrington & Thompson

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

Reflection Code LLC v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., (E.D. Mich.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis; District Judge George Caram Steeh; District Judge Denise Page Hood; Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti; District Judge Terrence G. Berg; Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Energizer Holdings, Inc.
  • Bissell, Inc.
  • Mattel, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Reflection Code LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Jackier Gould

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

Dalen Products, Inc. v. Six Hogs, LLC, (E.D. Tenn.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Six Hogs, LLC

Plaintiff:         Dalen Products, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Luedeka Neely Group

Patent:           5,901,491 (Owl with movable head).

Smart Authentication IP, LLC v. Autodesk Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Autodesk Inc.
  • Etsy, Inc.
  • DFS Services LLC
  • Discover Bank
  • Discover Financial Services
  • CCP hf
  • CCP North America, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Smart Authentication IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kheyfits PC; and Van Cleef Law Office

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

No Magic, Inc. v. Atos IT Solutions and Services Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Defendants:

  • Atos IT Solutions and Services Inc.
  • Bull HN Information Systems, Inc.
  • Futurex, LP

Plaintiff:         No Magic, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Albritton Law Firm; and DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy

Patent:           8,929,552 (Electronic information and cryptographic key management system).

Soverain IP, LLC v. CenturyLink, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • CenturyLink, Inc.
  • Episerver AB
  • Episerver, Inc.
  • Datapipe, Inc.
  • AT&T Inc.
  • AT&T Services, Inc.
  • SDL International America Incorporated
  • SDL PLC
  • Charter Communications, Inc.
  • Navisite, LLC
  • Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC f/k/a Time Warner Cable, Inc.
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC
  • Target Corporation
  • Staples, Inc.
  • Kohl’s Corporation
  • Kohl’s Illinois, Inc.
  • Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Soverain IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Berger & Hipskind; and Capshaw DeRieux

Patents:          5,708,780 (Internet server access control and monitoring systems); 6,212,634 (Certifying authorization in computer networks); 7,191,447 (Managing transfers of information in a communications network); 8,606,900 (Method and system for counting web access requests); 8,935,706 (Managing transfers of information in a communications network); and 6,279,112 (Controlled transfer of information in computer networks).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC vs. Delta Community Credit Union, (N.D. Ga.; N.D. Miss; M.D. Tenn.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Debra M. Brown; Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden; District Judge Aleta A. Trauger

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Delta Community Credit Union
  • Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
  • Chipotle Services, LLC

Plaintiff:         Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Law Office of Charlena Thorpe; and Henderson Dantone

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

Mantis Communications, LLC v. Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Murphy’s Marketing Services, Inc.
  • Papa Murphy’s Company Stores, Inc.
  • Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc.
  • Papa Murphy’s International, LLC
  • Culver Franchising System, Inc.
  • Edible Arrangements International, LLC
  • Edible Arrangements, LLC
  • Regal Cinemas, Inc.
  • Regal CineMedia Corporation
  • Regal Entertainment Group, Inc.
  • Baskin-Robbins Franchised Shops LLC
  • Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC d/b/a Baskin Robbins

Plaintiff:         Mantis Communications, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Law Office of Ryan E. Hatch

Patents:          7,403,788 (System and method to initiate a mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system); 7,792,518 (System and method to initiate a mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system); 8,131,262 (System and method to initiate a mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system); 8,437,784 (System and method to initiate a mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system); 8,761,732 (System and method to initiate a mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system); 8,938,215 (System and method to initiate a mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system); and 9,092,803 (System and method to initiate a mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system).

Internet Media Interactive Corporation v. United Airlines, Inc., (N.D. Ill.).

Judges:           District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.; District Judge Andrea R. Wood

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • United Airlines, Inc.
  • Bunn-O-Matic Corporation

Plaintiff:         Internet Media Interactive Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

Patent:           6,049,835 (System for providing easy access to the World Wide Web utilizing a published list of preselected Internet locations together with their unique multi-digit jump codes).

Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. C&A Marketing, Inc., (S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon; District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg; District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks; District Judge Kenneth A. Marra

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • C&A Marketing, Inc.
  • Balsam Brands Inc.
  • Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
  • DailyLook, Inc.
  • TJX COS, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Assouline & Berlowe

Patent:           9,373,261 (Secure notification messaging with user option to communicate with delivery or pickup representative).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. GourmetGiftBaskets.com, Inc., (S.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia; Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     GourmetGiftBaskets.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

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

realZOOM LLC v. Calendar Holdings LLC d/b/a Calendars.com, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Calendar Holdings LLC d/b/a Calendars.com
  • Uniden America Corporation

Plaintiff:         realZOOM LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        One LLP

Patent:            7,774,712 (Methods and systems for displaying an enlarged image).

 

March filings were slow, presumably as NPEs waited for the TC Heartland decision from SCOTUS.  Frequent filers included Checkerboard Intellectual Property, Electronic Communication Technologies, Hawk Technology, Landmark Technology, Location Services IP, Soverain, Symbology and Venadium.

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.

M2M Solutions LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., (D. Del.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:        M2M Solutions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Barclay Damon; and Bayard

Patents:          8,504,007 (System and method for remote asset management); 8,577,358 (System and method for remote asset management); and 8,577,359 (System and method for remote asset management).

Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v. Retail Pro International, LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Retail Pro International, LLC
  • Toast, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kizzia Johnson

Patent:            9,053,498 (Systems and methods for indicating the existence of accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce).

Checkerboard Intellectual Property, LLC v. CaféPress Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • CafePress Inc.
  • Cimpress USA Incorporated
  • CustomInk, LLC
  • Office Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Checkerboard Intellectual Property, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Bayard; and Ni Wang & Massand

Patent:            6,529,214 (Interactive print job display system and method).

Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Batteries Online, Inc., (S.D. Fla.; N.D. Ind.) (multiple cases).

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

Claims:           Infringement; and Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:

  • Batteries Online, Inc.
  • Ellison Systems, Inc.
  • BTO Sports, Inc.
  • Gemvara Inc.
  • Stump Printing Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Assouline & Berlowe; and Barrett & McNagny

Patent:            9,373,261 (Secure notification messaging with user option to communicate with delivery or pickup representative); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); and 9,373,261 (Secure notification messaging with user option to communicate with delivery or pickup representative).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. BNSF Railway Company, (E.D. Tex.; D. Conn.; D. Ariz.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III; Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • BNSF Railway Company
  • Bozzuto’s, Inc.
  • Goodwill Industries of Northern Arizona

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Corcoran IP Law; Lockridge Grindal Nauen; Whitmyer IP Group; Keller Rohrback; and Lockridge Grindel Nauen

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

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Big Fish Games, Inc.
  • Ubisoft, Inc.
  • Box, Inc.
  • Nutanix, Inc.
  • Zendesk, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Nelson Bumgardner; and Prince Lobel Tye

Patents:          6,110,228 (Method and apparatus for software maintenance at remote nodes); and 6,564,229 (System and method for pausing and resuming move/copy operations).

Freeny et al v. Brother International Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Brother International Corporation
  • Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA, Inc.
  • Lexmark International, Inc.
  • Oki Data Americas, Inc.
  • Ricoh USA, Inc.
  • Xerox Corporation

Plaintiffs:

  • Bryan E Freeny
  • Charles C Freeny, III
  • James P Freeny

Pls. Cnsl:        Banys; and Truelove Law Firm

Patents:          6,490,443 (Communication and proximity authorization systems); 6,806,977 (Multiple integrated machine system); 7,110,744 (Communication and proximity authorization systems; and 7,301,664 (Multiple integrated machine system).

Venadium LLC v. Ally Financial, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Ally Financial, Inc.
  • E*TRADE Financial Corporation
  • Novartis Capital Corporation
  • Total System Services, Inc.
  • com, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Venadium LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Corcoran IP Law

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

Build A Sign, LLC v. Landmark Technology, LLC, (W.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff:        Build A Sign, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Wittliff Cutter

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

MyMail, Ltd. v. ESPN, Inc., (E.D. Tex.)

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     ESPN, Inc.

Plaintiff:        MyMail, Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl:        Buether Joe & Carpenter

Patents:          8,275,863 (Method of modifying a toolbar); and 9,021,070 (Dynamically modifying a toolbar).

Soverain IP, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Apple Inc.

Plaintiff:        Soverain IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Berger & Hipskind; and Capshaw DeRieux

Patents:          5,708,780 (Internet server access control and monitoring systems); 6,212,634 (Certifying authorization in computer networks); 6,279,112 (Controlled transfer of information in computer networks); 7,191,447 (Managing transfers of information in a communications network); 8,606,900 (Method and system for counting web access requests); and 8,935,706 (Managing transfers of information in a communications network).

Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Restocks, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Restocks, Inc.
  • Sears Holdings Management Corporation
  • Tuva Labs 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).

Location Services IP, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops d/b/a Bass Pro, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops d/b/a Bass Pro, Inc.
  • Tivity Health, Inc.
  • U-Haul International, Inc. d/b/a Web Team Associates, Inc.
  • Shell Information Technology International BV
  • Shell Oil Company
  • Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Location Services IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Collins Edmonds Schlather & Tower

Patents:          6,202,023 (Internet based geographic location referencing system and method); 6,356,834 (Geographic location referencing system and method); and 8,935,220 (Unified geographic database and method of creating, maintaining and using the same).

Kaldren LLC v. Citigroup Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Citigroup Inc.
  • General Mills, Inc.
  • D. Power and Associates, Inc.
  • NeilMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.
  • The Procter & Gamble Company
  • SunTrust Banks, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Kaldren LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Corcoran IP 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).

Blue Spike, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
  • Barnes & Noble, Inc.
  • Nook Digital, LLC

Plaintiff:        Blue Spike, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Garteiser Honea

Patents:          7,159,116 (Systems, methods and devices for trusted transactions); 7,475,246 (Secure personal content server); 7,779,261 (Method and system for digital watermarking); 7,813,506 (System and methods for permitting open access to data objects and for securing data within the data objects); 7,953,981 (Optimization methods for the insertion, protection, and detection of digital watermarks in digital data); 8,121,343 (Optimization methods for the insertion, protection, and detection of digital watermarks in digitized data); 8,161,286 (Method and system for digital watermarking); 8,171,561 (Secure personal content server); 8,307,213 (Method and system for digital watermarking); 8,739,295 (Secure personal content server); and 8,798,268 (System and methods for permitting open access to data objects and for securing data within the data objects).

Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     BigCommerce, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Diem LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Husky Finch; and Klemchuk

Patent:            7,770,122 (Codeless dynamic websites including general facilities).

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Atlantic City Electric Company, (D.N.J.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Atlantic City Electric Company
  • Federal Express Corporation
  • Merck & Co., Inc.
  • Quest Diagnostics Incorporated
  • Quick Check Corporation

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli; and Zimmerman Law Group

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).

February filings were slow, even compared to the two prior slow months.  Frequent filers included Blackbird Technologies, Freenys, Guyzar, Hawk Technology Systems, Shipping & Transit, 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.

Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Studio 3 Partners LLC d/b/a EPIX, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Studio 3 Partners LLC d/b/a EPIX
  • Mubi, Inc.
  • Netflix, Inc.
  • SoundCloud, Inc.
  • Starz Entertainment LLC
  • Vimeo, Inc.

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

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

Patent:            7,174,362 (Method and system for supplying products from pre-stored digital data in response to demands transmitted via computer network).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Piggly Wiggly, LLC, (N.D. Miss.; E.D. Tex.; S.D. Miss.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Debra M. Brown; Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III; District Judge David L. Russell; District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr.; Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Piggly Wiggly, LLC
  • HEB Grocery Company, LP
  • Tinker Federal Credit Union
  • Home Depot USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Henderson Dantone; and Corcoran IP Law

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

First-Class Monitoring, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Bank of America Corporation
  • Citigroup Inc.

Plaintiff:        First-Class Monitoring, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

realZOOM LLC v. L Brands, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

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

Plaintiff:        realZOOM LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        One LLP

Patent:            7,774,712 (Methods and systems for displaying an enlarged image).

Guyzar LLC v. Spiraledge, Inc. d/b/a SwimOutlet.com, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Spiraledge, Inc. d/b/a SwimOutlet.com
  • The Procter & Gamble Company

Plaintiff:        Guyzar LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli

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

Express Mobile, Inc. v. Alpine Consulting, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Alpine Consulting, Inc.
  • Forix LLC
  • KTree Computer Solutions Inc.
  • Optaros, Inc.
  • Svanaco, Inc.
  • BigCommerce, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Express Mobile, Inc.

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

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

Tangelo IP, LLC v. GameStop Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • GameStop Corporation
  • School Specialty, Inc.
  • Nordstrom, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Tangelo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

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

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

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Square, Inc.
  • PayPal, Inc.
  • Clover Network, Inc.
  • PayAnywhere, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Digital Verification Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Harper IP Group

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

Freeny, III et al v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Disney Online
  • Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Bryan E Freeny
  • Charles C Freeny, III
  • James P Freeny

Pls. Cnsl:        Banys; and Truelove Law Firm

Patent:            6,490,443 (Communication and proximity authorization systems).

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation, (W.D. Wis.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Briggs & Stratton Corporation
  • Johnson Financial Group
  • Kohler Co.
  • Lands’ End Inc.
  • Matco Tools Corp.

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli; and MWH Law Group

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).