April was another busy month for NPE filings. Frequent filers included Hawk Technology, Kobace, Landmark Technology and Shipping & Transit.

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 ways to improve the report for you.

Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Tyson’s Mens Wear Inc., (C.D. Cal.; S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Tyson’s Mens Wear Inc.
  • Coastermatic Inc.
  • Chapel Headware LLC
  • Chapel Headware LP
  • Makeup Geek, LLC
  • Notifii, LLC
  • NFI Industries, Inc. a/k/a NFI Interactive Logistics, LLC
  • Ride Charge, Inc. d/b/a GoCurb.com
  • McNutt Automotive Logistics, LLC d/b/a McNuttTransport.com
  • State Logistics Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Shipping and Transit, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Newport Trial Group; Schneider Rothman IP Law Group; and Leslie Robert Evans & Associates

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).

Pls. Cnsl:        Leslie Robert Evans & Associates

Landmark Technology, LLC v. G Stage Love.com Inc., (S.D. Cal.).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks; District Judge John A. Houston

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     G Stage Love.com Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

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

LGRT Pro LLC v. Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel, (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel
  • Ethan Allen Global, Inc.
  • Mattress Firm, Inc.
  • Pier 1 Imports, Inc.
  • Select Comfort Corporation

Plaintiff:        LGRT Pro LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Corcoran IP Law

Patent:            6,895,554 (Method of document assembly).

Kobace LLC v. Balsam Hill LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Balsam Hill LLC
  • Bailey Banks & Biddle, Inc.
  • Dese Enterprise Inc. d/b/a Amiclubwear
  • Montgomery Ward, Inc.
  • US Auto Parts Network, Inc.
  • Foot Locker Retail, Inc.
  • Online Stores, LLC
  • Arlington Contact Lens Service, Inc.
  • Belk, Inc.
  • Zumiez, Inc.
  • Cabela’s Incorporated
  • com, Inc.
  • Sports Warehouse
  • Claire’s Stores Incorporated
  • Action Village, Inc.
  • Staples, Inc.
  • RevZilla Motorsports, LLC
  • Helzberg Diamond Shops, Inc.
  • Genesco, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Kobace LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:            8,626,818 (System and method for generating user contexts for targeted advertising).

Location Services IP, LLC v. Angie’s List, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Angie’s List, Inc.
  • Burger King Corp.
  • Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
  • KFC Corporation
  • Pizza Hut, Inc.
  • Taco Bell Corp.
  • Yum! Brands, Inc.
  • Target Corporation
  • Walgreen Co.
  • Quality is Our Recipe, LLC
  • The Wendy’s Co.
  • Wendy’s International, LLC

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).

Express Mobile Inc. v. BigCommerce, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     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).

T-Rex Property AB v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. et al, (N.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • AC Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Georgia AC Holdings, Inc.
  • Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

Plaintiff:        T-Rex Property AB

Pls. Cnsl:        Carstens & Cahoon; and Farney Daniels

Patents:          6,430,603 (System for direct placement of commercial advertising, public service announcements and other content on electronic billboard displays); 7,382,334 (Digital information system); and RE 39,470 (Digital information system).

Retrospection Marketing LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC, (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • BPS Direct, LLC
  • Foot Locker, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Retrospection Marketing LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        One LLP; and The Stafford Davis Firm

Patent:            7,296,062 (Method for generating a presentation for re-locating an information page that has already been called).

Cascades AV LLC v. Snell Limited d/b/a Snell Advanced Media, (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:             District Judge John W. Darrah

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     Snell Limited d/b/a Snell Advanced Media

Plaintiff:        Cascades AV LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Flachsbart & Greenspoon

Patent:            9,071,723 (AV timing measurement and correction for digital television).

Bounce Exchange, Inc. v. Zeus Enterprise Ltd. et al, (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Gurwitch Products LLC
  • Metadot Corp.
  • Omni Hotels Management Corporation
  • Zeus Enterprise

Plaintiff:        Bounce Exchange, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Fish & Richardson

Patents:          8,645,212 (Detection of exit behavior of an internet user); and 9,141,976 (Detection of exit behavior of an internet user).

eCeipt LLC v. GNC Holdings, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     GNC Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff:        eCeipt LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            8,643,875 (Receipt handling systems, print drivers and methods thereof).

Arunachalam v. International Business Machines Corporation et al, (D. Del.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     International Business Machines Corporation

Plaintiff:        Lakshmi Arunachalam

Pls. Cnsl:        Lakshmi Arunachalam, pro se

Patent:            7,340,506 (Value-added network switching and object routing)

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

Judge:             District Judge Sara L. Ellis

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     Aldi Inc.

Plaintiff:        Internet Media Interactive Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law; and Noble IP

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).

Ray Niro passed away Monday at the age of 73 in Italy. Most readers will know Ray Niro as the original patent plaintiff’s lawyer. Ray was bigger than life, as was his reputation — both good and bad depending upon where you view the NPE issue from. You can get the details on Ray’s significant litigation history from many places this week — including the Wall Street Journal and touching tributes from his friends, like Gene Quinn. I would not necessarily count Ray as a friend, more a formidable adversary. I was often opposite Ray and his firm defending my clients against his. I heard from him at times outside of cases when he disagreed with my views on NPEs. Differences aside, Ray was a tremendous trial and courtroom attorney. I have been opposite Ray in the courtroom and I have mooted cases as Ray in preparation for trial. Both were a great challenge — opposing Ray’s top notch advocacy and attempting to mimic it. More importantly, he meant the world to his family and the many lawyers that he mentored at his firm. That was easy to see during Ray’s career and it is even more clear from the many tributes that are being written this week.

I attended the 14th annual Rocky Mountain IP & Technology Institute at the beginning of June. This panel looked at the PTAB case law and related Federal Circuit decisions over the last year.  Here are the highlights:

  • Institution trends
    • 87% institution rate in fiscal 2013 trending downward and settling in fiscal 2015-16 around two-thirds of petitions being instituted.
      • This is at least partly because of more stringent application rules.
    • New PTAB rule allows declarations supporting patent owners’ preliminary responses. That could further decrease institution rates, although there is no data on this yet.
    • There are slightly lower institution rates for medical device & pharma claims, likely because of relatively higher quality of those patents generally.
    • Average invalidity rate for instituted claims is 84%.
      • Invalidity rate for instituted claims has held relatively steady since the beginning of the proceedings.
      • 73% of instituted IPRs end in invalidation of all instituted claims.
    • Common reasons that petitions fail:
      • Failure to explain how prior art applies to the claims (29%)
      • Failure to explain why it would be obvious to combine prior art references and support the explanation (21%).
        • The PTAB requires evidence-based explanations. An unsupported expert statement in a paragraph is not enough.
      • 27% fail for avoidable defects
        • 8% — failure to prove prior art was published
        • 8% — improperly incorporating by reference to avoid word counts
        • 5% — failure to file within the one-year period (this is typically a privity issue, not just missing a deadline)
        • 4% — failure to show that a claim limitation was inherently disclosed
          • Again, evidence-based explanations are necessary
        • 1% — failure to prove prior art priority date
        • 1% — failure to name real party in interest
      • Federal Circuit generally does not review institution decisions. Apple v. Achates Reference Publishing
      • Relying on provisional applications – Ariosa Diagnostics v. Illumina (PTAB)
        • The petition identified several bases that the reference was prior art, but never picked one and explained why it qualified.
        • The petition showed that some elements of the claims were in the provisional, but not that each element of the claim was taught in the provisional.
      • Patentee admissions are not prior art themselves – LG Electronics v. Core Wireless Licensing (PTAB)
      • Publication dates must be proved – TRW Automotive v. Magna Electronics
        • The PTAB rejected conclusory arguments that a copyright notice or an ISBN number on an IEEE publication proved publication. Actual evidence of publication is required.
      • The PTAB will not do the work for you – Apple v. ContentGuard Holdings (PTAB)
        • Petition denied because procedural defects with claim mapping and nested citations required PTAB “to play archeologist with the record.”
      • Address real party in interest (“RPI”) in the petition – Corning v. PPC Broadband (PTAB)
        • Failure to name RPIs is a statutory violation that can only be corrected if the petitioner’s one year bar date has not passed.
      • Petitioner always has burden of persuasion regarding RPI – com v. Appistry (PTAB)
        • If patent owner challenges RPI disclosure, petitioner must respond. This is true even at the petition stage where no reply is allowed. It will be important to request a reply on that issue.
      • PTAB can ignore experts – Ex Parte Belden (PTAB)
        • The PTAB gave no weight to conclusory expert testimony, even though it was unrebutted.
        • Experts must do more than block quote arguments and bless them. The declaration should explain and support the petitioner’s argument.
        • The Board is critical of petitions and expert declarations that mimic each other.
      • If you could have anticipated an argument, you need to address it up-front.
      • Clearly explain obviousness – Direct TV. V. Qurio (PTAB)
        • Obviousness arguments must be supported by a thorough explanation, including evidence-based proof.
        • The petition must also address each of the Graham factors.
      • Covered Business Method Review (“CBM”)
        • Every entity filing a CBM must have been sued for standing.
        • Petitioner must show that at least one claim is incidentally related to a financial product or service – ServiceNow v. BMC Software (PTAB)
          • Disclosure in the specification is not enough. You must point to the claims themselves.

I am cross-posting this on my Chicago IP Litigation Blog because of its general applicability.

 

I attended the 14th annual Rocky Mountain IP & Technology Institute at the beginning of June. An interesting addition to this year’s Institute was the panel of PTAB personnel, including the following:

  • Nathan Kelley, PTO Solicitor and former Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge
  • Patrick Bucher, Administrative Patent Judge
  • Melissa Haapala, Administrative Patent Judge
  • K Kalan, Administrative Patent Judge

Here are highlights of the discussion:

  • Post-grant proceedings remain the most popular proceedings before the PTAB.
    • Post-grant petitions for electrical/computer technologies are down slightly.
    • Post-grant petitions for medical devices are up slightly.
  • IPR petitions have challenged approximately ½ of the total claims in the challenged patents.
  • New PTAB rules:
    • Patent owners may submit testimonial evidence (expert declarations) with their preliminary response.
    • The PTAB is switching from page counts to word counts.
  • Types of PTAB decisions:
    • Precedential decisions – relatively few decisions are precedential.
      • The Board or a member of the public can nominate an opinion to be considered to become precedential.
      • The Chief Judge considers nominated opinions and circulates opinions to the Board for a vote. A majority vote is required.
      • Director of the Patent Office Michelle Lee has veto power over the Board vote.
      • Most recent precedential decisions:
        • Garmin v. Cuozzo Speed Techs
        • Bloomberg v. Markets-Alert Pty
        • Oracle v. Click-to-Call Techs.
        • MasterImage 3D v. RealD
        • Lumentum Holdings v. Capella Photonics
      • Common pitfalls in petition drafting:
        • Put everything you need, or may need, in your petition.
          • There are limited chances to put in new evidence during the process, but they are fraught with challenges.
        • Cite to evidence in the record to support all arguments.
        • You cannot incorporate evidence by reference without discussing the evidence.
        • Do not try to do too much in a single petition such that you cannot sufficiently explain and support your arguments.
        • Incivility between parties is frowned upon.
      • What references are most at risk for not being sufficiently proven to be prior art:
        • Patents and printed publications are generally easy to prove.
        • Other documents such as a thesis, abstracts circulated at a conference, a user guide, a draft of IEEE standards or information from the Internet Archive can be challenging to prove.
      • When will the Patent Office intervene in a Federal Circuit appeal?
        • PTO looks at each appeal and has intervened in between 1/3 and 1/2 of appeals.
        • Note that the PTAB requires that the notice of appeal list the appealed issue. The reason for that is that it allows the PTO Solicitor to begin to decide whether the PTO wants to intervene.
        • The PTO is also likely to intervene when the appellee does not oppose the appeal.
        • The PTO’s decisions to intervene are advisory only. They go to the Solicitor General who makes an ultimate decision.
        • Some sophisticated practitioners will call the Solicitor to point out reasons to intervene, particularly issues that may not be immediately evident from the initial papers.
      • Tips for good oral advocacy before the PTAB:
        • Be prepared to leave your script and answer the Board’s questions.
          • The value of the process is answering the questions, not remaking your key points.
          • It is critical to immediately answer the judge’s question right when they ask it.
        • Focus on the main argument because you do not have a lot of time.
        • Demonstratives should be narrowly tailored to be useful.
        • Do not make new arguments.

I am cross-posting this on my Chicago IP Litigation Blog because of its general applicability.

 

I attended the 14th annual Rocky Mountain IP & Technology Institute at the beginning of June. As usual, one of the highlights of the Institute was the judges panel. This year’s panel was a group of federal magistrate judges discussing IP litigation. As usual, it was a lively panel that delved deep into the issues they discussed. The judges were:

  • Judge Hildebrand (D. Minn.)
  • Judge Wang (D. Col.)
  • Judge Payne (E.D. Tex.)

The judges covered a number of topics, including:

  • 101 motions
    • 101 challenges have similar win rates whether they are filed early (as Rule 12 motions) or later (as summary judgment motions).
    • Judge Wang
      • District of Colorado judges are unlikely to stay discovery pending an early 101 motion. So, you may get an earlier decision, but you will not delay the beginning of discovery.
      • The Court will want to know whether discovery and/or claim construction are necessary to decide the motion. To the extent you can get a stay, the best way to do that is to come to the scheduling conference with a concrete explanation and plan about what is needed for the motion and how it will impact the case.
    • Judge Payne
      • He jokes that the data presented regarding 101 win rates suggests that there are fewer unpatentable patents asserted in Eastern Texas.
      • 101 motions tend to start from the conclusion that the claims are abstract and then seek to justify that.
      • When Judge Payne gets an early 101 motion, he starts from a presumption that the patient patent is valid and is asked to invalidate it based solely upon attorney argument. He is more able to understand the intricacies of the claims and the technology at or after claim construction when he has been aided by party experts and the Court’s appointed technical advisor. In light of that, he is more able to decide 101 motions on summary judgment.
      • He points to the E.D. of Texas’s rule requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding whether claim construction is required to decide the motion.
      • After Alice, the E.D. Texas created a requirement for a letter brief requesting an early 101 motion, anticipating a flood of those motions. The Court has abandoned that requirement in favor of the meet and confer regarding claim construction.
    • Judge Hildebrand
      • The District of Minnesota has seen a drop off in patent cases and, therefore, does not have a statistically significant sample of 101 motions to draw conclusions from.
      • The judges are, however, open to creative scheduling to allow for cost-savings and early decisions.
    • 2015 Federal Rules Amendments
      • Proportional discovery rule
        • Judge Hildebrand
          • Proportional discovery is a two-way street.
          • Parties need to throw out/revisit boiler plate discovery objections and discovery requests.
          • The more discovery requests/discovery disputes clearly reflect that the parties have had a collaborative discussion about the scope and rationality of discovery, the better the court is able to resolve disputes and issues.
          • The “art of the meet and confer is sadly neglected.” It is routinely evident from the papers that the right people never sat down and conferred. “More often than not” Judge Hildebrand sends parties back for further meeting and conferring, sometime with further guidance but often without.
          • Parties need to explain the value of the discovery they want to the case. It cannot just be a demand for boilerplate discovery.
          • She uses a scheduled monthly status hearing in many cases.
        • Judge Wang
          • The proportionality rule will significantly impact discovery. In Colorado, informal pre-motion discovery conferences are required. Often, it is clear that that conference is the first live discussion the parties are really having.
          • It is important to have a meaningful meet and confer.
          • Have a real, detailed discussion about electronic discovery during the Rule 26 process before the case begins. Doing it six months into a case is much more difficult and leads to more disputes.
          • She will set monthly calls with parties in some cases to discuss discovery issues and keep the case moving.
          • Do not wait to bring discovery issues to the court until they are emergencies.
          • She needs more than attorney argument about burden or what has to be done for e-discovery. She needs specific facts and details regarding burdens, procedures, etc.
          • Discovery requests should be as specific and narrow as possible. If you make specific, narrow requests and later show you do not have everything that you need, she will let you get additional discovery with a good explanation.
        • Judge Payne
          • Understand precisely what you want before filing discovery motions. It is not enough to recite your opponent’s bad acts and then ask the court to stop it.
          • The court needs specific information about what is needed/missing, what the burden is and a proposed resolution. And both parties need to provide that.
          • He has not seen a huge change yet based upon proportionality, but it is good that a discussion about why discovery is relevant to the claims and defenses as pled is required.
          • In terms of awarding fees, it is very hard to determine what appropriate fees/costs are for discovery.
          • In court, it is easier to defend the path of doing something than it is to defend doing nothing.
          • Defendants have “pretty much won the battle” as to where source code is produced. There are now more fights over the conditions under which it is produced – hours of access, the number of lines copied, whether the producing party can know what is copied and when they get that information.
        • New pleading standards
          • Judge Payne
            • The standards are not “heightened.” The Advisory Committee notes make that clear.
            • Regardless, the Eastern District’s contentions resolve any issues regarding specificity and detail in short order.

I am cross-posting this on my Chicago IP Litigation Blog because of its general applicability.

I attended the 14th annual Rocky Mountain IP & Technology Institute at the beginning of June. As usual, Mark Lemely reviewed the last year in patent law at the Federal Circuit. Here are some highlights:

  • 101 jurisprudence
    • 42 cases holding patents invalid as unpatentable; 2 cases upholding validity. That is one more than last year.
    • Many Federal Circuit §101 cases are unreported.
    • Some clear rules:
      • General, well-known computer technology/hardware is not going to be patentable.
      • Digitizing a well-known human process will not be patentable.
      • Asking for claim construction is not enough, without a citing to a specific claim construction that would save the claim from a 101 argument.
      • Medical diagnostics technologies are not immune from 101 challenges.
    • Enfish
      • Enfish has similarities to DDR – both have claims written to be an actual advancement to computer technology.
      • Enfish is a self-referential database. That is arguably new – there may be reason to question whether, in fact, it is new.
      • The court says they must focus upon whehter the point of the claim is directed to an abstract idea, not just if there is an abstract idea in an element.
      • The claims were written in means plus function format which incorporates technology from the specification into the claim limitations.
    • In re TLI
      • This case shows that the Federal Circuit has not completely shifted its views after Enfish. The claims were directed toward organizing photos on a phone.
      • Organizing photos is an abstract idea. The court says inventing a camera phone might not have been abstract, but simply organizing pictures on the phone is abstract.
    • § 112 — Indefiniteness
      • Where there are four ways to calculate a number (the slope of strain hardening coefficient) and the patent does not pick one, the term is indefinite.
      • There is also indefiniteness in software claims:
        • Means plus function terms in patent claims must be connected to algorithms or high-level explanations of the software in the specification.
        • Williamson v. Cisco – Federal Circuit overruled the presumption that “means” language is means plus function and non-“means” language is not.
          • The Court held that replacing “means” with “module” is not enough. It is still means plus function. Because the specification did not provide the algorithm for the “module.”
        • The Federal Circuit also held “compliance mechanism” was means plus function language and invalidated because there was not a corresponding algorithm or software description.
      • So, you may overcome 101 with means language, but if you do that you must disclose the relevant algorithms to avoid 112 invalidity.
    • Obviousness
      • Circuit Check v. QHQ – The missing prior art element is etching the circuit board. Cited prior art is rock carving/engraving. The Federal Circuit held that rock carving was not analogous art.
      • Nike (appeal from PTAB) – The PTAB did not make any factual findings and, therefore, remands even though the Federal Circuit agreed regarding the PTAB’s obviousness analysis.
      • Apple v. Samsung – Prior art regarding slide to unlock. Apple argued that the prior art taught away because it required swiping finger in the opposite direction. Federal Circuit says it is not enough that the reference did something difference. Teaching away requires saying/showing that the patented aspect would not work or should not be used.
        • Also, evidence that the expert wanted the functionality himself is not sufficient evidence of long-felt consumer need.
        • No evidence of a nexus between copying and that the slide to unlock feature was the reason consumers bought the phone.
      • PTAB proceedings
        • Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision to throw out an entire reply brief because it contained a new argument. The Court reasoned that it was not required to search through the reply and separate arguments that were proper and those that were not.
      • Claim construction
        • Prosecution disclaimers
          • The Federal Circuit disfavors disclaimers and holds them to a high standard.
          • OpenWave v. Apple – Repeated disparagement in the specification of computer modules was a disclaimer.
        • In re Cuzzo – We are waiting to learn whether the broadest reasonable interpretation at the PTAB will survive.
        • Claim construction cannot be refined after a jury verdict, although you can refine up until the verdict.
        • Nuance v. ABBYY – Where a party argued for ordinary meaning, that party cannot argue for a new construction after losing a jury verdict.
          • The district court required streamlining the trial to three of eight patents. Nuance acquiesced without objection. The Court held that Nuance did not get a second trial on the other five patent because it had not objected. A “boiler plate reservation of rights” was not sufficient to preserve Nuance’s additional patent claims.
        • Eon v. Silver Springs Networks – The district court held “portable” and “mobile” had ordinary meanings. Patentee claims that meters attached to houses are portable and mobile because they can be removed and walked to a truck. The Federal Circuit held that the district court had to construe the term because there was a dispute. The Federal Circuit did not remand because it was able to hold that no reasonable jury would conclude that a meter bolted to a house was either a mobile or a portable device.

I am cross-posting this on my Chicago IP Litigation Blog because of its general applicability.

 

My colleague Dawn Rudenko Albert wrote a valuable article about the impact of the Brexit on IP rights. While it is not specifically about Chicago IP litigation, it answers questions that many Chicago IP litigants are asking. I am also cross-posting this on my Chicago IP Litigation Blog. Here is Dawn’s article:

 Although the United Kingdom (UK) vote to leave the European Union (EU) will ultimately impact intellectual property (IP) rights in both territories, the UK remains a member of the EU until the exit terms are formalized, so there is no immediate impact and will likely be none for several years. The Treaty on European Union, Article 50, provides for a minimum of two years to formalize the UK’s exit from the EU.

Potential Future Brexit Impact on Trademarks and Designs

Once the exit terms are finalized, the transitional IP terms will likely include mechanisms for the conversion of EU rights to UK rights, such as conversion to national applications or perhaps enactment of legislation extending European Union Trademarks (EUTM) and European Community Designs to the UK. These mechanisms will likely come at a cost, including additional filing fee requirements for conversion, and also create certain risks, including opposition or challenge against attempts to extend rights to the UK by existing UK registrants and establishing genuine use of the marks in the UK and the EU to maintain and renew registrations in each.

Potential Future Brexit Impact on Patents

The European Patent Convention is independent of the European Union, so the UK’s position in the European patent system is not affected by Brexit. An inventor will still be able to designate the UK and seek protection in the UK by filing a European patent application. The same will not be true for the Unified Patent System, which was on course to take effect about May 2017. The UK’s exit will delay implementation of the system, maybe for several years. As with trademarks and designs, a unitary patent will likely not extend to the UK. A separate European patent or a UK national patent will be required.

Considerations Now

Although too early to understand the full impact of Brexit on intellectual property, it is not too early to identify the intellectual property and rights that will likely be affected and take steps to ensure maximum protection going forward. For example, do you have plans to expand into the UK using your EUTM? Can you establish genuine use for possible conversion? Do you have licenses or other agreements that cover the EU or specific EU laws? If so, do these agreements need to be amended to reference the UK or UK-specific laws? Consideration of these and similar issues now will ensure that you are in a strong position when the UK ultimately leaves the EU.

March continued 2016’s upward trend of NPE filings.  Of particular note, there were more new NPEs – as opposed to frequent filers – in March than in January or February.  Frequent filers included Hawk Technology, Landmark Technology, PanTaurus and Shipping & Transit.

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 ways to improve the report for you.

EveryMD.com LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation, (C.D. Cal.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     LinkedIn Corporation

Plaintiff:        EveryMD.com LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        TechCoastLaw

Patent:            9,137,192 (Method and apparatus for generating web pages for members).

PanTaurus LLC v. Aladdin Knowledge Systems, Ltd., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Aladdin Knowledge Systems, Ltd.
  • Gemalto Inc.
  • SafeNet, Inc.
  • Harris Corporation
  • Motorola Solutions, Inc.
  • Pitney Bowes Inc.
  • Pulse Secure, LLC
  • Vormetric, Inc.
  • WatchData Technologies USA Inc.

Plaintiff:        PanTaurus LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli LLC

Patent:            6,272,533 (Secure computer system and method of providing secure access to a computer system including a stand-alone switch operable to inhibit data corruption on a storage device).

Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., (S.D. Fla.; C.D. Cal.; N.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge James I. Cohn; District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks; Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon; Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick; District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell

Claims:           Infringement; and Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:

  • Global Experience Specialists, Inc.
  • CSA Transportation, Inc.
  • Whenever Communications, LLC
  • The Beauty Supply Warehouse, Inc.
  • Adorama, Inc.
  • Apollo Future Technology, Inc.
  • FTL Apparel, LLC

Plaintiff:        Shipping and Transit, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Leslie Robert Evans & Associates; Newport Trial Group; and Mitchell + Company

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).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Canada Drugs LP, (S.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel; Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Canada Drugs LP

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Banie & Ishimoto

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

Stonemark Technologies LLC v. Office Depot, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Office Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Stonemark Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Russ August & Kabat; and Spangler Law

Patents:          7,050,654 (Methods for generating composite images including positioning grid); 7,236,647 (Methods and apparatuses for generating composite images including warping); 7,315,659 (Methods for generating composite images including filtering and embroidery price calculation); and 7,835,591 (Methods and apparatus for generating composite images).

T-Rex Property AB v. ANC Sports Enterprises, LLC, (D. Minn.; W.D. Tex. ) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Robert Pitman

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • ANC Sports Enterprises, LLC
  • Eye Corp (USA) Inc.

Plaintiff:        T-Rex Property AB

Pls. Cnsl:        Farney Daniels

Patents:          6,430,603 (System for direct placement of commercial advertising, public service announcements and other content on electronic billboard displays); 7,382,334 (Digital information system); and RE 39,470 (Digital information system).

Location Services IP, LLC v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc. d/b/a Subway, (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. d/b/a Subway
  • Franchise World Headquarters, LLC d/b/a Subway Restaurants d/b/a Subway
  • Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc.
  • Subway Subs, Inc.
  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
  • United Healthcare, Inc.
  • UnitedHealth Group, 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).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Del Papa Distributing Company, Inc., (E.D. Tex., D. Nev.; N.D. Ill.; M.D.N.C.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Del Papa Distributing Company, Inc.
  • Panorama Towers Condominium Unit Owners’ Association, Inc.
  • 1720 S. Michigan Condominium Association
  • Goodwill Industries of Northwest North Carolina, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Andrade Law Firm; Law Office of David Bailey; Media Litigation Firm; Lewis & Roberts; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen

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

Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. FTD Companies, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • FTD Companies, Inc
  • J Crew Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Intellectual Ventures II LLC
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Nix Patterson & Roach

Patents:          5,969,324 (Accounting methods and systems using transaction information associated with a nonpredictable bar code); 6,633,900 (Mobile crew management system for distributing work order assignments to mobile field crew units); 6,782,370 (System and method for providing recommendation of goods or services based on recorded purchasing history); and RE 43,715 (System and method for integrating public and private data).

Tangelo IP, LLC v. Snap-On Incorporated, (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Snap-On Incorporated
  • Snap-On Tools Company, LLC
  • Dollar General Corporation
  • Brooks Brothers Group, Inc.
  • Famous Brands International
  • Fields Gifts, Inc.
  • Jeg’s Automotive, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Tangelo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Collins Edmonds Schlather & Tower

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

Guyzar, LLC v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. d/b/a The Wall Street Journal, (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Dow Jones & Company, Inc. d/b/a The Wall Street Journal
  • Fitbit, Inc.
  • com LLC
  • Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC d/b/a USA Today
  • Groupon, Inc.
  • com, LP
  • Karmaloop, LLC
  • LivingSocial, Inc.
  • Lonely Planet Global, Inc.
  • New Avon, LLC
  • Office Depot, Inc.
  • com, Inc.
  • Polyvore, Inc.
  • The New York Times Company
  • Travelzoo Inc.
  • Viacom International Inc.
  • com, Inc.
  • Vox Media, Inc. d/b/a SB Nation
  • Zulily, LLC

Plaintiff:        Guyzar, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli LLC

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

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Societe Air France, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Societe Air France
  • Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Black & Hamill; and Farnan

Patents:          7,080,325 (Graphical device for comprehensive viewing and input of variable data via a browser-based display); 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).

Verify Smart Corp. v. Twitter, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Twitter, Inc.
  • USAA
  • com, Inc.
  • Dropbox, Inc.
  • Basecamp, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Verify Smart Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Zimmerman Weiser & Paray

Patent:            8,285,648 (System and method for verifying a user’s identity in electronic transactions).

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Facebook, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Facebook, Inc.
  • Viber Media Sarl
  • WhatsApp Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Cesari and McKenna; and Tadlock Law Firm

Patent:            8,571,194 (System and method for initiating a conference call).

Youtoo Technologies, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., (N.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge David C Godbey

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Twitter, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Youtoo Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Steptoe & Johnson; Friedman Suder & Cooke; and Niro Haller & Niro

Patents:          8,464,304 (Content creation and distribution system); 8,601,506 (Content creation and distribution system); and 9,083,997 (Recording and publishing content on social media websites).

Quest NetTech Corporation v. Artix Entertainment LLC, (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Artix Entertainment LLC
  • Budget Travel, LLC
  • Emerald Expositions LLC
  • Enervex, Inc.
  • Enterplay LLC
  • The Garden Shows Production Company Inc.
  • Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC
  • hhgregg, Inc.
  • Madavor Media, LLC d/b/a JazzTimes
  • ZAM Network LLC

Plaintiff:        Quest NetTech Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        The Dacus Firm

Patent:            5,508,731 (Generation of enlarged participatory broadcast audience).

Anuwave, LLC v. Amarillo National Bank, (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Amarillo National Bank
  • Austin Bank, Texas NA
  • Cathay Bank
  • Citizens National Bank of Texas
  • Community National Bank
  • East West Bank
  • First Lockhart National Bank
  • Fort Sill National Bank
  • Inter National Bank
  • Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc.
  • Jacksboro National Bank d/b/a MyBankTexas.com
  • Regions Bank
  • Regions Financial Corporation
  • Security Bank
  • Texas Bank
  • US Bancorp
  • US Bank National Association d/b/a US Bank
  • WestStar Bank

Plaintiff:        Anuwave, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli LLC

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

AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. Yahoo! Inc., (E.D.N.Y.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Yahoo! Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • AlmondNet, Inc.
  • Datonics, LLC
  • Intent IQ, LLC

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

Patents:          7,822,639 (Added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising); 7,979,307 (Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements); 8,244,574 (Method, computer system, and stored program for causing delivery of electronic advertisements based on provided profiles); 8,244,582 (Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements); 8,244,586 (Computerized systems for added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising); 8,494,904 (Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements); 8,671,139 (Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery); 8,677,398 (Systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network); 8,775,249 (Method, computer system, and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements); and 8,959,146 (Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery).

The NPEs increased their activity a bit in February after a pleasantly slow December and January.  The majority of cases continued to be filed by frequent filers, including Hawk Technology, JSDQ Mesh, PanTaurus, Phoenix Licensing and Shipping & Transit.

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 ways to improve the report for you.

T-Rex Property AB v. iPort Media Networks, LLC, (N.D. Ill.; S.D.N.Y.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Amy J. St. Eve; District Judge Edmond E. Chang

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • iPort Media Networks, LLC
  • Destination Media, Inc.
  • Blue Outdoor, LLC

Plaintiff:        T-Rex Property AB

Pls. Cnsl:        Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella; and Farney Daniels

Patents:          6,430,603 (System for direct placement of commercial advertising, public service announcements and other content on electronic billboard displays); 7,382,334 (Digital information system); and RE 39,470 (Digital information system).

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia.com, (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Expedia.com
  • Hotels.com, LP
  • CruiseShipCenters, LP
  • Expedia, Inc.
  • eBay Inc.
  • Travelocity USA, LP
  • Travago GmbH
  • Expedia, Inc.
  • Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.
  • Hotwire, Inc.
  • TripAdvisor, Inc.
  • Hipmunk, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl:        Laminack Pirtle and Martines; and Ramey & Schwaller

Patent:            6,690,400 (Graphic user interface for resources management of super operating system based computers).

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Funai Electric Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff:        Personalized Media Communications, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Capshaw DeRieux; Kheyfits PC; and Susman Godfrey

Patents:          7,747,217 (Signal processing apparatus and methods); 7,752,649 (Signal processing apparatus and methods); 7,752,650 (Signal processing apparatus and methods); 7,856,649 (Signal processing apparatus and methods); 8,675,775 (Signal processing apparatus and methods); and 8,711,885 (Signal processing apparatus and methods).

Shipping and Transit, LLC v. eBuys, Inc., (C.D. Cal.; S.D. Fla.; N.D. Cal.; S.D.N.Y.; D. Utah) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement; Declaratory Judgment

Judges:           District Judge Kenneth A. Marra; Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins; District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg; Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon; District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas; Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow; Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants:

  • eBuys, Inc.
  • Pharmapacks, LLC
  • CJ Pony Parts, Inc.
  • What She Buys
  • Shutterfly, Inc. d/b/a tinyprints.com
  • VelaTrack, Inc.
  • E&L Corporation d/b/a Cameta Camera
  • Tatcha, LLC
  • Jackthreads, Inc.
  • Del Sol, LC

Plaintiff:        Shipping and Transit, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Newport Trial Group; Leslie Robert Evans & Associates, Mitchell + Company; McCarter & English; and Workman Nydegger

Patents:            7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle); 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).

JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. TECO Energy, Inc. et al, (M.D. Fla.).

Judges:           District Judge James S. Moody, Jr.; Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Tampa Electric Company
  • TECO Energy, Inc.

Plaintiff:        JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller Law

Patents:          7,286,828 (Method of call routing and connection); 7,916,648 (Method of call routing and connection); RE 43,675 (Wireless radio routing system); and RE 44,607 (Wireless mesh routing method).

Grecia v. DISH Network, LLC, (N.D. Cal.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     DISH Network, LLC

Plaintiff:        William Grecia

Pls. Cnsl:        Siprut

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

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, (D. Conn.; N.D. Tex.; W.D. La.; D. Colo.; D. Md.; N.D. Ohio) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Michael P. Shea; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay; District Judge William M. Nickerson

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Vincent’s Medical Center
  • Amarillo National Bank
  • School Board of Caddo Parish
  • Pioneer Group d/b/a Bronco Billy’s Sports Bar and Casino
  • University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, LLC
  • Great Lakes Outdoor Supply, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lockridge Grindal Nauen; Whitmyer IP Group; Law Office of David Bailey; Henderson Dantone; Rosenblatt & Gosch; Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey; and The Law Office of Yousef M Faroniya

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

PanTaurus LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • A10 Networks, Inc.
  • Allegro Software Development Corporation
  • Aviat Networks, Inc.
  • Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
  • EF Johnson Technologies, Inc.
  • Firetide, Inc.
  • Fortinet, Inc.
  • Neopost USA, Inc.
  • Riverbed Technologies, Inc.
  • Schneider Electric USA, Inc.
  • Thales e-Security, Inc.
  • ViaSat, Inc.
  • Vocera Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff:        PanTaurus LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ferraiuoli LLC

Patent:            6,272,533 (Secure computer system and method of providing secure access to a computer system including a stand-alone switch operable to inhibit data corruption on a storage device).

Red River Innovations LLC v. Mrs. Fields Gifts, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Mrs. Fields Gifts, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Red River Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Black & Hamill; and Findlay & Craft

Patent:            7,958,138 (Method and apparatus for enhancing electronic reading by identifying relationships between sections of electronic text).

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Company, (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • ConocoPhillips Company
  • The Allstate Corporation

Plaintiff:        Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Austin Hansley PLLC

Patents:          6,886,750 (Method and apparatus for accessing electronic data via a familiar printed medium); and 8,910,876 (Method and apparatus for accessing electronic data via a familiar printed medium).

Phoenix Licensing, LLC et al v. Cigna Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cigna Corporation
  • LendingClub Corporation
  • LoanDepot, Inc.
  • Marriot International, Inc.
  • CVS Health Corporation
  • SilverScript Insurance Company
  • Minnesota Life Insurance Company
  • Securian Financial Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • LPL Licensing, LLC
  • Phoenix Licensing, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Russ August & Kabat

Patents:          5,987,434 (Apparatus and method for transacting marketing and sales of financial products); 6,999,938 (Automated reply generation direct marketing system); 7,890,366 (Personalized communication documents, system and method for preparing same); 8,073,735 (System and method for automating financial document compliance); 8,234,184 (Automated reply generation direct marketing system); 8,738,435 (Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services); 7860744 (System and method for automatically providing personalized notices concerning financial products and/or services); 8,352,317 (System for facilitating production of variable offer communications; and 7,856,375 (Customized communication document creation system and method).

NPE’s started 2016 slow,  just like December 2015.  The majority of cases were filed by frequent filers, including Hawk Technology, Shipping & Transit and T-Rex Property.

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 ways to improve the report for you.

6115187 Canada, Inc. d/b/a ImmerVision, Inc. v. Samsung Techwin America et al., (D. Del.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • KLM Marketing, LLC
  • Samsung Techwin America
  • Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff:        6115187 Canada, Inc. d/b/a ImmerVision, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel

Patent:            6,844,990 (Method for capturing and displaying a variable resolution digital panoramic image).

Opal Run LLC v. C & A Marketing, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     C&A Marketing, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Opal Run LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Andrade Law Firm

Patent:            6,704,120 (Product template for a personalized printed product incorporating image processing operations).

T-Rex Property AB v. Branded Cities Network, LLC et al., (D. Ariz.; D. Minn.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge David K Duncan; Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron; District Judge Susan Richard Nelson

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Branded Cities Network, LLC
  • Branded Cities Phoenix, LLC
  • El Media Holdings USA, LLC
  • Reach Sports Marketing Group, Inc.

Plaintiff:        T-Rex Property AB

Pls. Cnsl:        Farney Daniels; and Hartman Titus

Patents:          6,430,603 (System for direct placement of commercial advertising, public service announcements and other content on electronic billboard displays); 7,382,334(Digital information system); and RE 39,470 (Digital information system).

Shipping and Transit LLC v. Marine Layer, Inc., (C.D. Cal.; S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez; Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm; District Judge R. Gary Klausner; Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg; District Judge William J. Zloch

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Marine Layer, Inc.
  • 123Stores, Inc.
  • Arhaus, LLC
  • com, LLC d/b/a Hats.com
  • Langston Co.
  • Noonday Collection, Inc. a/k/a Noonday Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff:        Shipping and Transit LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Newport Trial Group; and Leslie Robert Evans & Associates

Patent:            7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle); 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); and 6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events).

Skky, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. et al, (D. Minn.).

Judges:           District Judge Donovan W. Frank; Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Facebook, Inc.
  • Instagram, LLC

Plaintiff:        Skky, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Robins Kaplan

Patents:          7,548,875 (Media delivery platform); 8,892,465 (Media delivery platform); 9,037,502 (Media delivery platform); 9,118,693 (Media delivery platform); 9,124,717 (Media delivery platform); 9,124,718 (Media delivery platform); 9,203,870 (Media delivery platform); 9,203,956 (Media delivery platform); 9,215,310 (Media delivery platform); and 9,219,810 (Media delivery platform).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Shelby County Board of Education, (W.D. Tenn.; N.D. Ill.; W.D. Tex.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Iain D. Johnston; District Judge Frederick J. Kapala

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Shelby County Board Of Education
  • Northside Independent School District
  • Big Picture II, Inc.
  • Best Buy Co., Inc.
  • Olive Garden of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Olive Garden USA 1332
  • Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.
  • Texoma Community Credit Union

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Henderson Dantone; Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker; Media Litigation Firm; and The Andrade Law Firm

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

e.Digital Corporation v. Nest Labs, Inc., (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Nest Labs, Inc.

Plaintiff:        e.Digital Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Handal & Associates

Patents:          9,002,331 (System and method for managing mobile communications); and 9,178,983 (System and method for managing mobile communications).

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

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm; District Judge John F. Walter

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     eBay Inc.

Plaintiff:        EveryMD.com LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        TechCoastLaw

Patent:            8,499,047 (Method, apparatus and business system for online communication with online and offline recipients).