The summer heat brought a surge in patent litigation against retailers, with NPEs targeting everything from e-commerce platforms to specialty retailers. Notable filers included Headwater Research, Near Field Electronics, Intellectual Ventures, Velocity Communication Technologies, and S3G Technology.

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.

Arbor Systems LLC v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc. (multiple cases)(E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Ethan Allen Retail, Inc.
  • Ashley Global Retail, LLC

Plaintiff: Arbor Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patents: 10,891,785; 9,836,883 (Systems and Methods for Fitting Product)

Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. The Home Depot, Inc. et al (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Home Depot Product Authority, LLC
  • Home Depot USA, Inc.
  • The Home Depot, Inc.

Plaintiffs: Intellectual Ventures I LLC; Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Steckler Wayne Love; Kasowitz

Patents: Multiple patents related to load balancing, secure identification, and computing systems

Market America, Inc. v. Mercato, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Mercato, Inc.

Plaintiff: Market America, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Vedder Price; Richards Layton & Finger

Patent: 7,197,475 (Multi-vendor internet commerce system for e-commerce applications and methods therefor)

Near Field Electronics LLC v. Foot Locker, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Foot Locker, Inc.
  • Levi Strauss & Co.
  • New Balance Athletics, Inc.
  • Panda Express, Inc.
  • Urban Outfitters, Inc.

Plaintiff: Near Field Electronics LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Shea Beaty

Patents: 6,691,201; 6,742,071; 6,959,350; 6,996,727; 7,373,531 (Various USB and signal detection technologies)

S3G Technology LLC v. Retail Services & Systems, Inc., d/b/a Total Wine & More (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Retail Services & Systems, Inc. d/b/a Total Wine & More

Plaintiff: S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents: 9,081,897; 9,304,758; 9,940,124 (Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine)

Virtual Creative Artists, LLC v. Hyatt Corporation (N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Hyatt Corporation (N.D. Ill.)
  • Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)

Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Direction IP Law

Patents: 9,477,665; 9,501,480 (Revenue-generating electronic multi-media exchange and process of operating same)

Wolverine Barcode IP LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: McDonald’s Corporation

Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

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

Zugara, Inc. v. Chanel, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Chanel, Inc.

Plaintiff: Zugara, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patent: 10,482,517 (Providing a simulation of wearing items such as garments and/or accessories)

June continued a busy early summer for NPEs. Notable filers included Adaptive Avenue Associates, Authentixx, Big Will Enterprises, Cedar Lane Technologies, Context Directions, Happy Products, Local Interest, Linfo IP, Near Field Electronics, Nostromo, Patent Armory, Random Chat, S3G Technology, and Wolverine Barcode IP.

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

Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. v. Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc.

Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Direction IP Law

Patents: 7,171,629 (Customizable web site access system and method therefore); 7,428,707 (CUSTOMIZABLE WEB SITE ACCESS SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREFORE)

Authentixx LLC v. 121 Media, LLC (E.D. Tex., S.D. Tex., N.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).      

Claims: Infringement

Judge: District Judge Jane J. Boyle

Defendants:

  • 121 Media, LLC 
  • BeatStars, Inc. 
  • Data World, Inc. 
  • Graham Media Group, Inc. 
  • Hart Energy Publishing LLP 
  • Hartman Newspapers, L.P. 
  • Houston Association of Realtors, Inc. 
  • iTexasPolitics, LLC 
  • Kirkus Media LLC 
  • Lee Enterprises, Inc. 
  • Maven Learning, Inc. 
  • Medianova, LLC 
  • Pickleball OpCo LLC
  • ProjectManager.com, Inc. 
  • Sage Capital Bank Account 
  • Southern Newspapers Inc.
  • Territorium, Inc. 
  • TexAgs
  • Uvation, LLC 

Plaintiff: Authentixx LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; DNL Zito

Patent: 10,355,863 (SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHENTICATING ELECTRONIC CONTENT)

Big Will Enterprises Inc. v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc.

Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Eureka Intellectual Property Law

Patents: 10,521,846 (Targeted advertisement selection for a wireless communication device (WCD)); 8,452,273 (SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING MOBILE THING MOTION ACTIVITY (MTMA) USING ACCELEROMETER OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE); 8,559,914 (Interactive Personal Surveillance and Security (IPSS) System); 8,737,951 (Interactive Personal Surveillance and Security (IPSS) Systems and Methods); 9,049,558 (Systems and Methods for Determining Mobile Thing Motion Activity (MTMA) Using Sensor Data of Wireless Communication Device (WCD) and Initiating Activity-Based Actions)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Canva US, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Canva US, Inc.

Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 8,438,485 (SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING, CUSTOMIZING, DISTRIBUTING, AND PRESENTING AN INTERACTIVE AUDIO PUBLICATION)

Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).            

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc. 
  • Patterson Motors of Longview, Inc. 
  • Patterson Motors of Marshall, Inc. 
  • Patterson Motors of Marshall Two, Inc. 
  • Peters Chevrolet, Inc. 
  • Wagner Cadillac Company, Ltd. 

Plaintiff: Context Directions LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Direction IP Law

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

Happy Products, Inc. v. Boscov’s Department Store, LLC et al (D.N.J.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc.
  • Boscov’s Department Store, LLC d/b/a Boscov’s
  • Unbeatable Sale.com, Inc.

Plaintiff: Happy Products, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Fox Rothschild; Devlin Law Firm; Squire Patton Boggs

Patent: RE48,479 (MULTIPLE VIEWING ANGLE MEDIA SUPPORT)

Local Interest, LLC v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.

Plaintiff: Local Interest, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 7,532,899 (SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING LOCATION-BASED SERVICES IN A WIRELESS NETWORK, SUCH AS LOCATING SETS OF DESIRED LOCATIONS); 8,774,834 (SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING LOCATION-BASED SERVICES IN A WIRELESS NETWORK, SUCH AS LOCATING SETS OF DESIRED LOCATIONS)

Linfo IP, LLC v. Mariner Finance, LLC (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Mariner Finance, LLC

Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 9,430,131 (System, Methods, and User Interface for Organizing Unstructured Data Objects)

Near Field Electronics LLC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judges: District Judge Michael J. Truncale; District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:   

  • CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
  • EAN Holdings, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Rent A Car
  • Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
  • PPG Industries, Inc.
  • Visionworks, Inc.
  • Visionworks Of America, Inc

Plaintiff: Near Field Electronics LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Devlin Law Firm; Shea Beaty

Patents: 6,691,201 (Dual mode usb-ps/2 device); 6,742,071 (Real-time i/o processor used to implement bus interface protocols); 6,959,350 (CONFIGURABLE USB INTERFACE WITH VIRTUAL REGISTER ARCHITECTURE); 6,996,727 (Power supply for universal serial bus interface with programmable bus pullup resistor); 7,373,531 (SIGNAL DETECTION METHOD, FREQUENCY DETECTION METHOD, POWER CONSUMPTION CONTROL METHOD, SIGNAL DETECTING DEVICE, FREQUENCY DETECTING DEVICE, POWER CONSUMPTION CONTROL DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS)

Nostromo LLC v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).   

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Fibar Group SA
  • Macy’s, Inc. d/b/a Macy’s 
  • Nice SpA
  • Sephora USA, Inc. 
  • Starbucks Corporation 
  • Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens 

Plaintiff: Nostromo LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Fabricant

Patent: 8,559,970 (Method for Providing Location-Based Information Services, Location-Based Information Services System, and Portable Electronic Device)

Patent Armory Inc. v. BHI Residential Long Term Corporation (D. Colo.).

Judge: Magistrate Judge Susan Prose

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: BHI Residential Long Term Corporation

Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patents: 7,023,979 (TELEPHONY CONTROL SYSTEM WITH INTELLIGENT CALL ROUTING); 9,456,086 (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MATCHING ENTITIES IN AN AUCTION)

Querytron LLC v. Etsy, Inc. (multiple cases)(S.D.N.Y.).   

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:   

  • Etsy, Inc.
  • Shutterstock, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Querytron LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 10,534,820 (ENHANCED BUYER-ORIENTED SEARCH RESULTS)

Random Chat LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc.

Plaintiff: Random Chat LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

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

Reframe Technologies LLC, v. Radisson Hospitality, Inc. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).   

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Radisson Hospitality, Inc.
  • Tesla, Inc.

Plaintiff: Reframe Technologies LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 7,552,870 (TRADING NETWORK RESOURCES)

S3G Technology LLC v. Pacific Sunwear of California, LLC (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Pacific Sunwear of California LLC d/b/a PacSun

Plaintiff: S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Parker Bunt & Ainsworth 

Patents: 11,662,995 (Network efficient location-based dialogue sequence using virtual processor); 8,572,571 (MODIFICATION OF TERMINAL AND SERVICE PROVIDER MACHINES USING AN UPDATE SERVER MACHINE); 9,081,897 (Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine); 9,940,124 (Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. (N.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge A. Joe Fish

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Albertsons Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

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

April showers bring May flowers and, at least this year, patent litigation against retailers, with NPEs targeting everything from e-commerce platforms to specialty retailers. Notable filers included AML IP, BrowserKey, Cedar Lane Technologies, DataCloud Technologies, Dynamic Data Innovations, Linfo IP, Malikie Innovations, Mearby Systems, Random Chat, S3G Technology, Torus Ventures, Virtual Creative Artists, WebSock Global Strategies, and Wolverine Barcode IP.

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

AML IP, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. 
  • Texas Born, LLC
  • Regal Cinemas, Inc.

Plaintiff: AML IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patents: 7,328,189 (Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens); 7,177,838 (Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens)

BrowserKey, LLC v. Regions Bank (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Regions Bank 
  • First Citizens Bank & Trust Company 
  • UBS AG
  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. 
  • Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff: BrowserKey, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Fabricant

Patent: 7,249,262 (Method for restricting access to a web site by remote users)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Global Financial Services, L.L.C. (S.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Global Financial Services, L.L.C.
  • Lion Street Financial LLC 
  • NatAlliance Securities, LLC 

Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

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

DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers, Inc. (multiple cases) (D. Del.).         

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • 1-800-Flowers, Inc. 
  • Teradata Corporation 

Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents: 6,560,613 (Disambiguating file descriptors); 6,651,063 (Data organization and management system and method); 7,209,959 (Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network); 7,398,298 (Remote access and retrieval of electronic files)

Dynamic Data Innovations LLC v. H-E-B, LP (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: H-E-B, LP f/k/a H-E-B Grocery Company, LP

Plaintiff: Dynamic Data Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patent: 9,632,676 (Systems and methods for navigating a set of data objects)

Linfo IP, LLC v. Beard Brand LLC (W.D. Tex., S.D. Tex.).         

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Beard Brand LLC 
  • BK Beauty, Inc.
  • Gossamer Gear Inc.
  • Interactive Life Forms, LLC 
  • MariGold Foods, LLC
  • Summer Moon Franchising LLC 
  • Tecovas, Inc. d/b/a Tecovas Boots, Inc.

Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

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

Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al v. Toast, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Toast, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
  • Malikie Innovations Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg; Cherry Johnson Siegmund James

Patents: 8,334,847 (SYSTEM HAVING USER INTERFACE USING OBJECT SELECTION AND GESTURES); 8,392,259 (METHODS AND APPARATUS TO OBTAIN TRANSACTION CONFIRMATION); 8,583,980 (LOW DENSITY PARITY CHECK (LDPC) CODE); 8,615,195 (MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE HAVING TOUCH ACTIVATED NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATIONS (NFC) CIRCUIT); 8,676,116 (ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH NFC ANTENNA ADJACENT DISPLAY AND RELATED METHODS); RE48,212 (STRUCTURED LOW-DENSITY PARITY-CHECK (LDPC) CODE)

Nearby Systems LLC v. Panera Bread Company et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Panera Bread Company
  • Panera, LLC
  • Panda Express, Inc.
  • Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.

Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rozier Hardt McDonough

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

Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. McDonald’s USA, LLC (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • McDonald’s USA, LLC
  • IKEA US Retail LLC

Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC 

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

Patent: 9,549,285 (Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices)

Random Chat LLC v. CarParts.com, Inc. (N.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Jane J. Boyle

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: CarParts.com, Inc.

Plaintiff: Random Chat LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

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

S3G Technology LLC v. Smoothie King Franchises, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Smoothie King Franchises, Inc.

Plaintiff: S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents: 10,387,140 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 11,662,995 (Network efficient location-based dialogue sequence using virtual processor); 9,304,758 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Torus Ventures LLC v. Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).   

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC
  • Alabama-Coushatta Tribal Economic Development Authority 
  • Alixa Rx LLC 
  • All American Flooring, Inc.
  • Altair Global Services, LLC 
  • Ameriplan Corporation 
  • Boardwalk Automobiles, Inc. 
  • Capital Title of Texas, LLC 
  • Cavender Stores, Ltd. d/b/a Cavender’s 
  • CH Direct LLC 
  • Ciraconnect, LLC 
  • Coburn Supply Company, Inc. 
  • East Texas Warehouse and Storage, LLC 
  • Estis Compression, LLC 
  • Fisher59, LLC 
  • Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber Company & Associated Com
  • Granite Properties, Inc. 
  • GSC Enterprises Incorporated 
  • Innovative IDM, LLC 
  • Institution Solutions I LLC 
  • J. Hillburn, Inc. 
  • Jasper Tire and Distributing Company, Inc. 
  • JB Warranties Corp.
  • Kosse Partners I, LLC
  • Lewis and Ellis, LLC 
  • Lodging Host Hotel Corp.
  • Lori’s Gifts, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 7,203,844 (Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control)

Virtual Creative Artists, LLC v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.

Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Direction IP Law

Patents: 9,477,665 (Revenue-generating electronic multi-media exchange and process of operating same); 9,501,480 (Revenue-generating electronic multi-media exchange and process of operating same)

WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Coburn Supply Company, Inc. (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).        

Claims: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Coburn Supply Company, Inc. 
  • Digital Tonic, LLC 
  • Fleetpride, Inc. 
  • GameStop, Inc.
  • Michaels Stores, Inc. 
  • Securus Technologies, LLC
  • Stirista, LLC 
  • Sysco Corporation 
  • TaskUs 
  • Xome, Inc.

Plaintiff: WebSock Global Strategies LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patent: 7,756,983 (Symmetrical bi-directional communication)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims: Infringement

Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc.

Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ramey

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

After a busy Q1, NPEs slowed considerably in April. Frequent filers included Adaptive Avenue Associates, Aloft Media, AML IP, Cedar Lane Technologies, OrderMagic, Patent Armory, S3G Technology, and VDPP.

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

Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Judges:      District Judge Sean D. Jordan; District Judge David Counts

Claims:     Infringement

Defendants:

  • Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.
  • Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Amazon.com Services LLC 
  • Amazon Web Services, Inc. 
  • Best Buy Co., Inc. 
  • BestBuy.com, LLC
  • Best Buy Stores, LP
  • Costco Wholesale Corporation 
  • Home Depot USA, Inc.
  • Walmart Inc.

Plaintiff:   Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:  Direction IP Law; Padmanabhan & Dawson

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

AML IP, LLC v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:        Infringement

Defendants:

  • AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
  • Wyndham Rewards, Inc.

Plaintiff:        AML IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Ramey

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

Calibrate Networks LLC v. Shopify, Inc. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).   

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Shopify, Inc.
  • Box, Inc. 
  • Airbnb, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Calibrate Networks LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

DigiMedia Tech, LLC v. Pinterest, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    Pinterest, Inc.

Plaintiff:        DigiMedia Tech, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Kent & Risley; Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           6,684,220 (Method and system for automatic information exchange); 7,287,088 (Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device by eliminating duplicate image transmissions); 7,587,514 (Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device); 8,073,965 (TRANSMISSION BANDWIDTH AND MEMORY REQUIREMENTS REDUCTION IN A PORTABLE IMAGE CAPTURE DEVICE); 8,868,778 (Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device)

Helical LLC v. Little Bird ApS (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).        

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

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Little Bird ApS
  • Marshall Group AB 
  • Meizhou Guo Wei Electronics Co., Ltd. 

Plaintiff:        Helical LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law

Patent:          9,445,183 (Sound System with Ear Device with Improved Fit and Sound)

The Morse Group, Inc. v. Aloft Media, LLC (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:           District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Claims:          Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:    Aloft Media, LLC

Plaintiff:        The Morse Group, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:       HolmstromKennedy

Patent:          10,372,793 (Hyperlink with graphical cue)

OrderMagic LLC v. Cafe and Bakery Group, LLC (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).        

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cafe and Bakery Group, LLC 
  • California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. 
  • Chick-Fil-A, Inc.  
  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. 
  • Deli Management, Inc. 
  • Inspire Brands, Inc. 
  • Mr Yum Holdings Pty Ltd.
  • Raising Cane’s Restaurants, LLC
  • BBQ Holdings LLC 
  • Thrive Restaurant Group LLC  

Plaintiff:        OrderMagic LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law

Patent:          7,831,475 (REMOTE ORDERING SYSTEM)

Patent Armory Inc. v. Gusto, Inc. (multiple cases) (S. Del.).         

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Gusto, Inc.  
  • Impossible Foods Inc. 
  • Inovalon Holdings, Inc. 

Plaintiff:        Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law; Garibian Law Offices

Patents:        10,237,420 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction); 10,491,748 (Intelligent communication routing system and method); 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 7,269,253 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing);

9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

S3G Technology LLC v. Wendy’s International, LLC (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Wendy’s International, LLC

Plaintiff:        S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:         10,831,468 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 11,210,082 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 11,662,995 (Network efficient location-based dialogue sequence using virtual processor); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

VDPP, LLC v. Brandmotion, LLC (E.D. Mich., W.D. Tex.).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge David R. Grand; Magistrate Judge Jonathan J. C. Grey

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Brandmotion, LLC
  • Office Depot, LLC

Plaintiff:       VDPP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

Patents:          10,951,881 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filer spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials); 9,716,874 (Continuous adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles for optimized 3Deeps stereoscopic viewing, control method and means therefor, and system and method of generating and displaying a modified video); 9,699,444 (Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials)

NPEs finished the quarter actively.* Frequent filers included AML IP, AuthPoint, Cedar Lane, DigiMedia Tech, Linfo IP, Patent Armory, Random Chat, Rothschild Patent Imaging, Secure Matrix, and WebSock Global.

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.

* Note I am catching up on a backlog because of some very busy IP litigation over the last year or so.

AML IP LLC v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.
  • Retail Services & Systems, Inc. d/b/a Total Wine 

Plaintiff:        AML IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

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

AR Design Innovations LLC v. Target Corporation (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Target Corporation

Plaintiff:        AR Design Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patent:           7,277,572 (Three-dimensional interior design system)

AuthPoint LLC v. GL Communications (D. Md.).

Judge:          District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow

Claims:     Infringement

Defendant:   GL Communications

Plaintiff:   AuthPoint LLC

Pls. Cnsl:      Rabicoff Law; DNL Zito

Patent:       8,699,395 (Method and device for inverse multiplexing of multicast transmission)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:         District Judge David Counts

Claims:     Infringement

Defendants:

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc.
  • Booking Holdings Inc. f/k/a Priceline Group Inc.

Plaintiff:   Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:      Rabicoff Law

Patent:       8,397,177 (Graphic-information flow method and system for visually analyzing patterns and relationships)

DigiMedia Tech, LLC v. eHarmony Inc. (multiple cases) (D. Del.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • eHarmony Inc.
  • CarGurus, Inc.

Plaintiff:        DigiMedia Tech, LLC 

Pls. Cnsl:        Kent & Risley; Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patents:          7,287,088 (Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device by eliminating duplicate image transmissions); 7,587,514 (Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device); 8,073,965 (Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device); 8,868,778 (Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device)

Ethor IP Corporation v. Goto Concept, LLC (E.D. Mo.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     Goto Concept, LLC

Plaintiff:        Ethor IP Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Tucker Ellis; Connor Lee & Shumaker

Patent:           10,460,363 (System, method and computer program for integrating diverse point of sale systems)

Linfo IP, LLC v. Texas Hill Country Olive Co. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).     

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Texas Hill Country Olive Co. 
  • DYLN Inc.

Plaintiff:        Linfo IP, LLC 

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

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

Local Interest, LLC v. PetSmart LLC (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     PetSmart LLC

Plaintiff:        Local Interest, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rozier Hardt McDonough

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

Patent Armory Inc. v. Battlbrands Holdings, Inc. (multiple cases) (D. Del.).      

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Battlbrands Holdings, Inc. 
  • Campus Protein, Inc.
  • Coca-Cola Bottlers’ Sales & Services Company LLC  
  • Uplift, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law; Garibian Law Offices

Patents:          10,237,420 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction); 10,491,748 (Intelligent communication routing system and method); 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 7,269,253 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing);

9,456,086 9Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

Random Chat, LLC v. Kay Jewelers, Inc. (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).         

Judge:          District Judge David Counts

Claims:     Infringement

Defendants:

  • Kay Jewelers, Inc. 
  • PayPal, Inc.
  • Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. 

Plaintiff:   Random Chat, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Ramey

Patent:       8,402,099 (Method for carrying out a multimedia communication based on a network protocol, particularly tcp/ip and/or udp)

Rothchild Patent Imaging LLC v. BH Security LLC (N.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Judge:           District Judge David C. Godbey

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:  

  • BH Security LLC
  • Bumble Inc.

Plaintiff:        Rothchild Patent Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Direction IP Law; DNL Zito

Patents:        8,437,797 (Wireless image distribution system and method); 8,798,544 (Wireless communications using coinciding multiple pairing criteria)

Secure Matrix LLC v. Cavender Stores, Ltd. d/b/a Cavender’s (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:

  • Cavender Stores, Ltd. d/b/a Cavender’s
  • Twin Liquors, LP 
  • Taco Cabana, Inc. 
  • Southwest Airlines Co. 
  • Souper Salad, LLC
  • Santikos Real Estate Services, LLC
  • San Antonio Shoe, Inc.
  • ROKA Sports, Inc.
  • Abatix Corp. 
  • Alphalete Athletics Limited Liability Company 
  • Grunt Style, LLC
  • H-E-B Grocery Company, LP 
  • Rarefied Atmosphere, Inc.
  • Indeed, Inc.
  • McCoy Corp. 

Plaintiff:        Secure Matrix LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law

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

Smart Order LLC v. Applebee’s Services, Inc. (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Judge:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Applebee’s Services, Inc. 
  • Panera Bread Company 
  • Target Corporation 
  • The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated 
  • The Wendy’s Company 
  • Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLC

Plaintiff:        Smart Order LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law

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

WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. J2 Web Services, Inc. (S.D.N.Y).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    J2 Web Services, Inc.

Plaintiff:        WebSock Global Strategies LLC 

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law

Patent:          7,756,983 (Symmetrical bi-directional communication)

NPEs started the year active.* Frequent filers included A.L.M. Holding Company, Alpha Modus, AML IP, Big Will Enterprises, Cedar Lane, H2 Intellect, HyperQuery,  Linfo IP, Modulus Systems, Nearby Systems, Patent Armory, Random Chat, S3G Technology, Torus Ventures (with a huge number of cases filed), and Web 2.0 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.

* Note I am catching up on a backlog because of some very busy IP litigation over the last year or so.

A.L.M. Holding Company et al v. Zydex Industries Private Limited et al (D. Del.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Zydex Inc.
  • Zydex Industries Private Limited

Plaintiffs:

  • A.L.M. Holding Co.
  • Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Husch Blackwell; Phillips McLaughlin & Hall 

Patents:         10,214,646 (Warm mix paving composition w/lubricating antistrip additive); 7,815,725 (Warm asphalt binder compositions containing lubricating agents); 7,981,466 (Warm mix asphalt binder compositions containing lubricating additives); 8,734,581 (Processing bituminous mixtures for paving at reduced temperatures); 9,175,446 (Processing bituminous mixtures for paving at reduced temperatures); 9,394,652 (Warm mix asphalt binder compositions containing lubricating additives)

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:   Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens

Plaintiff:        Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:       Dickinson Wright

Patents:        10,360,571 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 10,977,672 (Method and system for real-time inventory management, marketing, and advertising in a retail store); 11,042,890 (Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store)

AML IP, LLC v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).  

Judge:           District Judge David Counts

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation
  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  • Domino’s Pizza, Inc.  

Pls. Cnsl:        Torrid LLC

Plaintiff:       AML IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

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

Big Will Enterprises Inc. v. Osram GMBH et al (W.D. Tex.).

Defendants:

  • AutoZone, Inc.
  • OSRAM GmbH

Plaintiff:       Big Will Enterprises Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:       Eureka Intellectual Property Law

Patents:        10,521,846 (Targeted advertisement selection for a wireless communication device (WCD)); 8,452,273 (Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device); 8,559,914 (Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) system); 8,737,951 (Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods); 9,049,558 (Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using sensor data of wireless communication device (WCD) and initiating activity-based actions)

Cardtek International, Inc. v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC. (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    Chick-Fil-A, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Cardtek International, Inc.

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

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

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Cobra Trading, Inc. (E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex.).

Judge:           District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cobra Trading, Inc.
  • Doo Technology Singapore Pte. Ltd  
  • FMR LLC 
  • The Charles Schwab Corporation
  • Hilltop Securities Inc.
  • Cobra Trading, Inc.

Plaintiff:       Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law; DNL Zito

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

H2 Intellect LLC v. The Home Depot, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Home Depot Product Authority, LLC
  • Home Depot USA, Inc.
  • The Home Depot, Inc.
  • Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Amazon.com Services LLC
  • Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Plaintiff:        H2 Intellect LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Winston & Strawn

Patents:        11,948,171 (Exclusive delivery of content within geographic areas); 8,977,247 (Exclusive delivery of content within geographic areas); 9,286,625 (Exclusive delivery of content within geographic areas)

Happy Products, Inc. v. The Kroger Co. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:   The Kroger Co.

Plaintiff:        Happy Products, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:       Devlin Law Firm

Patent:          RE48,479 (Multiple viewing angle media support)

HyperQuery LLC v. Canva US, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:    Canva US, Inc.

Plaintiff:        HyperQuery LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law

Patent:          9,529,918 (System and methods thereof for downloading applications via a communication network)

Linfo IP, LLC v. The Knot Worldwide, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., W.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Knot Worldwide, Inc.
  • Waimate B LLC d/b/a Soludos
  • Blenders Eyewear, LLC  
  • J.Crew Group, LLC

Plaintiff:        Linfo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Law Office of David J. Hoffman

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

Modulus Systems LLC v. Ikea North America Services LLC (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendant:     IKEA North America Services, LLC

Plaintiff:        Modulus Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:           8,410,990 (Antenna with integrated RF module)

Nearby Systems LLC v. Papa Johns International, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Papa John’s International, Inc.
  • Smoothie King Franchises, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Rozier Hardt McDonough

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

Patent Armory Inc. v. GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. (N.D. Ill., D. Mass.).

Judge:           District Judge Georgia N. Alexakis

Claims:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
  • Southcoast Health System, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Patent Armory Inc. 

Pls. Cnsl:       Dickinson Wright; Rabicoff Law

Patents:        10,237,420 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction); 10,491,748 (Intelligent communication routing system and method); 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 7,269,253 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing);

9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Boohoo.com UK Limited (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).  

Judge:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • Boohoo.com UK Limited 
  • The Home Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff:       Pointwise Ventures LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Rabicoff Law

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

Random Chat, LLC v. Advance Auto Part, Inc. (W.D. Tex., S.D.N.Y.).

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Advance Auto Part, Inc.
  • Freshworks Inc.

Plaintiff:       Random Chat, LLC

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

Patent:          8,402,099 (Method for carrying out a multimedia communication based on a network protocol, particularly tcp/ip and/or udp)

Rokiot USA, LLC v. IKEA North America Services, LLC (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:         Infringement

Defendant:     IKEA North America Services, LLC

Plaintiff:        Rokiot USA, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza

Patents:          7,895,257 (Modular platform enabling heterogeneous devices, sensors and actuators to integrate automatically into heterogeneous networks); 8,631,063 (Modular platform enabling heterogeneous devices, sensors and actuators to integrate automatically into heterogeneous networks)

S3G Technology LLC v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
  • Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

Plaintiff:        S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:        10,387,140 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 11,662,995 (Network efficient location-based dialogue sequence using virtual processor); 9,304,758 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 8,572,571 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,081,897 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Torus Ventures LLC v. VA Claims Insider, LLC (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex.).

Judge:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • VA Claims Insider, LLC
  • Brinker International, Inc. 
  • Briza, Inc.  
  • Care N’ Care Insurance Company, Inc.  
  • CERIS Inc. 
  • HealthMarkets Insurance Agency, Inc, 
  • Moody National Bank 
  • Navsav, LLC 
  • Oceanwide Sail Expeditions, Inc 
  • One Source Risk Management And Funding, Inc  
  • Our Infinite Company 
  • Texas Mutual Insurance Company 
  • The Brokerage, Inc
  • The City National Bank of Sulphur Springs 
  • The Falls City National Bank 
  • First National Bank of Central Texas
  • The First National Bank of Livingston
  • The First National Bank of Shiner 
  • The Littleton Group Western Division, Inc. 
  • The Nitsche Group, Inc  
  • The State National Bank of Big Spring  
  • Tolleson Private Bank  
  • TWFG Insurance Services, LLC 
  • University Title Company  
  • Upshaw Insurance Agency, Inc 
  • VA Claims Insider, LLC 
  • Valley Land Title Company, Ltd
  • Verabank Community Development Corporation
  • VT Insurance Agency LLC 
  • WEBTPA Employer Services, LLC  
  • Whataburger Restaurants LLC  
  • Whitestone Reit Operating Company IV LLC 
  • Wingstop Restaurants Inc. 
  • Tectonic Financial, Inc  
  • Texas Gulf Bank National Association 
  • Texas Heritage National Bank  
  • Texas Life Insurance Company 
  • Republic Title of Texas, Inc. 
  • Sanford & Tatum Building, LLC 
  • SHA, LLC 
  • Southwestern National Bank 
  • Spot Insurance Agency, Inc. 
  • Startex Title Agency, LLC  
  • State National Insurance Company, Inc. 
  • Superior HealthPlan, Inc. 
  • T Bank, National Association 
  • TopGolf International, Inc. 
  • Pizza Hut, LLC f/k/a Pizza Hut, Inc.  
  • Pluckers, Inc 
  • Pronto Insurance & Financial Services, LTD 
  • PropertyInfo Corporation 
  • ProtectAll USA, LLC 
  • Quantum Energy Partners, LLC 

Plaintiff:        Torus Ventures LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:           7,203,844 (Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control)

Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al v. Christus Good Shepard Medical Center (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).      

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Christus Good Shepard Medical Center 
  • Longview Regional Medical Center 
  • St. Lukes Health Memorial Hospital 
  • Methodist Hospital Hill Country 
  • Ascension Providence Hospital
  • Advent Health Central Texas 
  • Baylor Scott & White Medical Center Hillcrest 
  • Seton Medical Center Harker Heights 

Plaintiffs:

  • Pennar Software Corporation
  • Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patent:           9,465,913 (Online repository for personal information)

Over the last five or more years, the Northern District has become the epicenter of intellectual property cases filed against an anonymous list of alleged infringers – often referred to as Doe defendants or Schedule A defendants – typically targeting online sellers of allegedly knock-off products. In fact, 83% of the Schedule A cases filed have been filed in Chicago since 2020. Those cases have made Chicago the busiest copyright district court for years running, and significantly increased the Northern District’s patent and trademark case filings as well. The cases started out as a trickle, until it became clear that the Northern District judges were largely allowing them. But more recently, Judge Kness has stayed proceedings in over 50 Schedule A cases. While it is just one judge on a large Northern District bench, it is enough to chill filings because plaintiffs know their complaints will be randomly assigned to a judge and, therefore, have an equal chance of being assigned to Judge Kness. A similar thing happened more than a decade ago when then Seventh Circuit Judge Posner was regularly sitting by designation in about one Northern District patent case per year and issued a few decisions requiring tying damages expert analysis to causation analysis that was arguably more than required by the Federal Circuit. After Judge Posner issued a few of those decisions, patent cases fell off substantially in Chicago.

What Are Schedule A Cases?

Schedule A litigation has been a primary weapon for intellectual property owners fighting online counterfeiting for more than 15 years. These cases typically involve a single plaintiff filing suit against numerous (often dozens or hundreds) of online sellers simultaneously. The defendants are not identified in public pleadings but rather in sealed “Schedule A” attachments, purportedly to prevent alleged infringers from disappearing with ill-gotten gains.

A hallmark of these cases is an ex parte temporary restraining order and / or preliminary injunction that freezes defendants’ online accounts—often without their knowledge or opportunity to respond. While this approach has been embraced by brands seeking efficient enforcement mechanisms, it has increasingly raised due process concerns among judges.

Stay Order from Judge Kness

Judge Kness’s stay order, implemented since at least late March, explicitly states his intention “to reassess [the court’s] previous approach in Schedule A litigation involving Lanham Act, Copyright Act, and Patent Act claims typically brought on an ex parte basis.” This pause potentially impacts dozens of cases where plaintiffs have moved for temporary restraining orders. In my experience it is exceptionally rare to have a judge stay all of a category of cases before him.

Judge Kness is reassessing several fundamental aspects of Schedule A litigation, including:

  • Whether ex parte proceedings are appropriate;
  • If granting TROs without defendant participation is a sound exercise of the Court’s discretion;
  • The propriety of mass joinder of numerous defendants in single cases; and
  • What portion of the cases, if any, should be sealed.

And Judge Kness is not the only Northern District judge that has voiced some level of doubt about the Schedule A cases. In January 2025, Judge Durkin publicly welcomed guidance from the Seventh Circuit on handling Schedule A cases. In November 2024, Judge Daniel rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to join 103 defendants in a single suit.

On the other hand, Chief Judge Kendall recently reversed her own decision denying a preliminary injunction in a Schedule A case, finding that refusing to join multiple defendants would result in “a series of multiplying cases” and create an undue burden on the court’s docket.

The Migration Begins

With Judge Kness’s stay order explicitly noting that plaintiffs were free to pursue their cases elsewhere, many brand owners are already refiling their complaints outside Chicago. Nike and Universal Studios voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits from Judge Kness’s docket within days of his stay orders.

What’s Next?

The fundamental tension in Schedule A litigation remains unresolved: intellectual property owners seek efficient mechanisms to combat widespread online counterfeiting, while courts must ensure due process and proper application of procedural rules.

As Judge Kness completes his reassessment, the resulting guidance may significantly reshape how, or at least where, brand owners pursue online counterfeiters. Whether his approach becomes a model for other Northern District judges will likely determine if Chicago maintains its status as the primary venue for Schedule A litigation or if those cases migrate to other jurisdictions.

NPEs entered 2025 continuing their Q4 wave of filings with many entities filing actions for each of the last three months. Frequent filers included AML IP, Cedar Lane Technologies, Consolidated Transaction Processing, Context Direction, DataCloud Technologies, EasyWeb Innovations, K.Mizra, Linfo IP, Nearby Systems, Patent Armory, QR Switch, Quantion, Random Chat, Secure Matrix, Valtrus Innovations, and Virtual Creative Artists.

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

AML IP LLC v. KURU Footwear, Inc. (D. Utah, W.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • 7-Eleven, Inc.
  • KURU Footwear, Inc.

Plaintiff:         AML IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

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

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Alterna Securities, Inc. (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Alterna Securities, Inc.
  • ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patents:          8,577,782 (Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants); 10,346,105 (Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server); 6,516,147 (Scene recognition method and system using brightness and ranging mapping)

Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).      

Judge:             District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 
  • Genuine Parts Company
  • Hibbett Retail, Inc. f/k/a Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc. 
  • Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc. 
  • Tractor Supply Company

Plaintiff:         Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Shea Beaty

Patents:          8,396,743 (Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information); 8,712,846 (Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information)

Context Direction LLC v. Huffines Chevrolet Lewisville, Inc. et al (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Huffines Chevrolet Lewisville, Inc. d/b/a Huffines Chevrolet
  • Huffines Dodge Plano GP, Inc.
  • Huffines G Plano, Inc.
  • Huffines H McKinney, LP
  • Huffines H Plano, Inc.
  • Huffines K McKinney, (GP), LLC

Plaintiff:         Context Direction LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Patents:          10,142,791 (Method and system for context awareness of a mobile device); 11,057,738 (Adaptive context detection in mobile devices); 9,807,564 (Method for detecting context of a mobile device and a mobile device with a context detection module)

DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Walgreen Co. (N.D. Ill., D. Del., E.D. Tex.).

Judges:           District Judge John F. Kness; District Judge Georgia N. Alexakis

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens
  • Etsy, Inc.
  • Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel
  • Designer Brands Inc.

Plaintiff:         DataCloud Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patents:          6,560,613 (Disambiguating file descriptors); 6,651,063 (Data organization and management system and method); 7,209,959 (Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network)

EasyWeb Innovations LLC v. BuiltWith Pty Ltd (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).   

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • BuiltWith Pty Ltd 
  • ContactOffice Group 
  • PocketSmith Ltd. 

Plaintiff:         EasyWeb Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Hecht Partners

Patent:            10,114,905 (Individual user selectable multi-level authorization method for accessing a computer system)

K.Mizra LLC v. Epson America, Inc. et al (C.D. Cal.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Epson America, Inc.
  • Seiko Epson Corporation

Plaintiff:         K.Mizra LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Payne & Fears; Sheridan Ross

Patents:          10,018,938 (Network system comprising customer replaceable unit); 7,570,400 (Document reading device); 9,769,342 (Electric apparatus)

Linfo IP LLC v. Air Oasis LLC (N.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., M.D. Fla.).

Judge:             District Judge David C. Godbey

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Air Oasis LLC
  • The Knot Worldwide, Inc.
  • Airplantshop.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Linfo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey; Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant

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

Nearby Systems LLC v. International Dairy Queen, Inc. et al (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Dairy Queen Corporation
  • International Dairy Queen, Inc.
  • Texas Dairy Queen Operators Council
  • Caleres, Inc. d/b/a Famous Footwear

Plaintiff:         Nearby Systems LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rozier Hardt McDonough

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

Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Macy’s, Inc.
  • The Kroger Co.
  • Staples, Inc. 
  • Costco Wholesale Corporation 
  • Nike, Inc.
  • IKEA US Retail LLC

Plaintiff:         Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

Patent:            9,549,285 (Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices)

Patent Armory Inc. v. General Electric Company (S.D.N.Y., D. Del.).  

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • General Electric Company
  • LetsGetChecked, INC. 
  • Corkcicle, LLC
  • EmployBridge Holding Company 
  • Esler Companies, LLC 
  • Expivia Interaction Marketing Group Inc.
  • Fullstory, Inc.
  • Grove Collaborative, Inc. 
  • HoneyLove Sculptwear, Inc. 
  • HRB Digital LLC 

Plaintiff:         Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patents:          10,237,420 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction); 10,491,748 (Intelligent communication routing system and method); 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 7,269,253 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

QR Switch, LLC v. Sam’s East, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).            

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Sam’s East, Inc.
  • Sam’s West, Inc. d/b/a Sam’s Club 
  • Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
  • Walmart, Inc. 
  • QTR Corporation
  • QuikTrip Corporation d/b/a QuikTrip 

Plaintiff:         QR Switch, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza

Patent:            8,532,632 (Cellphone changing an electronic display that contains a barcode); 9,294,542 (Systems and methods for changing an electronic display that contains a barcode)

Quantion LLC v. Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC (E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge David Counts

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Enea AB
  • Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC
  • Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
  • Hyatt Hotels Corporation

Plaintiff:         QUANTION LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:            7,734,283 (Internet accessing method from a mobile station using a wireless network)

Random Chat, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex.).

Judges)           District Judge David Counts; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:

  • Amazon.com, Inc.
  • URBN US Retail LLC f/k/a Anthropologie, Inc.
  • Aldo US, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Random Chat, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

Patent:            8,402,099 (Method for carrying out a multimedia communication based on a network protocol, particularly tcp/ip and/or udp)

Secure Matrix LLC v. Mattress Firm, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • American Airlines, Inc.
  • Brookshire Grocery Company
  • Cavender’s Out Of State Stores Ltd. 
  • Celebrating Home Direct LLC 
  • Coburn Supply Company, Inc. 
  • Dal-tile Corporation 
  • Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. 
  • Mattress Firm, Inc.
  • Penney OpCo LLC d/b/a JCPenney 
  • Posados Cafe, Inc.
  • Rent-A-Center, Inc.
  • Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc.
  • Taco Bueno Restaurants, Inc.
  • TGI Fridays Franchisor, LLC 
  • The Mens Wearhouse, LLC 
  • Twin Peaks Restaurants, LP 

Plaintiff:         Secure Matrix LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al v. The Home Depot, Inc. et al (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Home Depot USA, Inc.
  • The Home Depot, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
  • Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

Pls. Cnsl:        Fabricant

Patents:          7,068,597 (System and method for automatic load balancing in a data-over-cable network); 7,107,326 (Method and system for integrating ip address reservations with policy provisioning); 7,120,832 (Storage device performance monitor); 7,640,332 (System and method for hot deployment/redeployment in grid computing environment); 7,904,686 (Data security for use with a file system)

Virtual Creative Artists, LLC v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (W.D. Wash., W.D. Tex.).   

Judge:             David A. Ezra

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC 
  • Redfin Corporation 
  • Wayfair LLC

Plaintiff:         Virtual Creative Artists, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Mann Law Group; Direction IP Law

Patents:          9,477,665 (Revenue-generating electronic multi-media exchange and process of operating same); 9,501,480 (Revenue-generating electronic multi-media exchange and process of operating same)

NPEs finished the year busy.* Frequent filers included Alpha Modus, AML IP, ContactWave, DataCloud Technologies, Disintermediation Services, Linfo IP, PacSec3, Patent Armory, S3G Technology, Social Positioning Input Systems, Tiare Technology, Torus Ventures, and Wolverine Barcode IP.

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

* Note I am catching up on a backlog because of some very busy IP litigation over the last year or so.

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corporation et al (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:                       Infringement

Defendants:

  • Shelf Nine LLC
  • Wakefern Food Corporation

Plaintiff:         Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Dickinson Wright

Patents:          10,360,571 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 10,853,825 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 10,977,672 (Method and system for real-time inventory management, marketing, and advertising in a retail store); 11,042,890 (Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store); 11,301,880 (Method and system for inventory management in a retail store)

AML IP LLC v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Judge:             District Judge David Counts

Defendants:

  • Albertsons Companies, Inc.
  • Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC
  • Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. d/b/a Dunkin’ Donuts d/b/a Baskin Robbins
  • La Madeleine De Corps, Inc.

Plaintiff:         AML IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

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

ContactWave LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).   

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Macy’s, Inc.
  • Best Buy Co., Inc. 
  • Nordstrom, Inc.
  • Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens  
  • Walmart, Inc.

Plaintiff:         ContactWave LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:            9,531,665 (Information messaging system)

DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Groupon, Inc.

Plaintiff:         DataCloud Technologies, LLC 

Pls. Cnsl:        Rozier Hardt McDonough

Patent:            6,651,063 (Data organization and management system and method); 7,209,959 (Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network)

Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Living Spaces Furniture, LLC

Plaintiff:         Disintermediation Services, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Gillam & Smith; Global IP Law Group

Patent:            11,240,183 (Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms); 11,336,597 (Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms); 11,349,787 (Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms); 11,855,937 (Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms);

Linfo IP, LLC v. American Giant, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., S.D. Tex., N.D. Tex.).

Judges:           District Judge A. Joe Fish; District Judge Jane J. Boyle

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Air Oasis LLC
  • American Giant, Inc. 
  • LOOG Guitars, LLC 
  • Stellar Data Recovery Inc.
  • Tekzoom, Inc. d/b/a Perfume Empire

Plaintiff:         Linfo IP, LLC

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

Patent:            9,092,428 (System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content)

PacSec3, LLC v. CyberArk Software, Inc. (S.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     CyberArk Software, Inc.

Plaintiff:         PacSec3, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

Patent:            7,523,497 (Packet flooding defense system)

Patent Armory Inc. v. Backcountry.com, LLC (D. Del., D. Mass., E.D. Pa., N.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., E.D. Va., N.D. Ill., S.D. Tex., W.D. Tex.).

Judges:           District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl; Judge Ada Brown; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay; District Judge Andrea R. Wood; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; District Judge David C. Godbey

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Backcountry.com, LLC
  • Benefit Cosmetics LLC
  • Biobot Analytics, Inc.
  • Carbon Health Inc. 
  • Citibank NA 
  • Comerica Bank
  • Computer Aid, Inc.
  • Computer Aid, Inc.
  • Continuum Global Solutions, LLC
  • Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.
  • Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. 
  • Delta Air Lines, Inc.
  • Digital Federal Credit Union
  • Dominion Dental Services, Inc.
  • First Technology Federal Credit Union d/b/a First Tech Federal Credit Union
  • General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.
  • General Nutrition Corporation
  • GrubHub Inc.
  • Likewize Corp.
  • Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
  • Optimax Ltd.
  • The American Automobile Association, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law; Garibian Law Offices; Dickinson Wright; DNL Zito

Patent:            10,237,420 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction); 10,491,748 (Intelligent communication routing system and method); 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 7,269,253 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

S3G Technology LLC v. Walgreen Co. (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens

Plaintiff:         S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:          10,831,468 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 11,210,082 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 11,662,995 (Network efficient location-based dialogue sequence using virtual processor); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC v. PetPace LLC (D. Mass.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     PetPace LLC

Plaintiff:         Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lambert Shortell & Connaughton

Patent:            9,261,365 (Device, system and method for remotely entering, storing and sharing addresses for a positional information device)

Tiare Technology, Inc. v. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc. et al (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Carl’s Jr. Restaurants LLC
  • CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Tiare Technology, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Davis Firm 

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

Torus Ventures LLC v. Gainsco Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Gainsco Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. 
  • Germania General Agency, Inc 
  • Globe Life Inc.
  • Golden Bank National Association 
  • Gringo’s Mexican Kitchen No. 1 Inc
  • Guaranty Bank & Trust, NA
  • Higginbotham Insurance Group, Inc
  • Hotchkiss Insurance Agency, LLC 
  • Incline Insurance Group, LLC
  • Insurance Agents Alliance Of Texas, Inc 
  • Gulf States Financial Services, Inc 
  • Interflex Payments LLC
  • Invited Foundation 
  • Iscential Inc.
  • Kleberg Bank, National Association 
  • La Familia Agency LLC d/b/a La Familia Auto Insurance 
  • Landry’s Payroll, Inc.
  • Legend Bank
  • Liberty Bankers Life Insurance Company 
  • Lone Star National Bank

Plaintiff:         Torus Ventures LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:            7,203,844 (Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control)

Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (multiple cases) (W.D. Tex.).          

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Costco Wholesale Corporation
  • CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 

Plaintiff:         Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

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

NPEs skipped the usual lull heading into the holidays as filings stayed high.* Frequent filers included Alpha Modus, AML IP, Andra Group, Content Aware, Fall Line Patents, Linfo IP, Patent Armory, S3G Technology, Torus Ventures, and Virtual Creative Artists.

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.

* Note I am catching up on a backlog because of some very busy IP litigation over the last year or so.

Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Brookshire Grocery Co. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Brookshire Grocery Company

Plaintiff:         Alpha Modus, Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Dickinson Wright

Patents:          10,360,571 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 10,853,825 (Method for monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses thereof); 10,977,672 (Method and system for real-time inventory management, marketing, and advertising in a retail store); 11,042,890 (Method and system for customer assistance in a retail store); 11,301,880 (Method and system for inventory management in a retail store)

AML IP LLC v. Aveda Corporation (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:   

  • Advance Auto Parts, Inc.  
  • AutoZone, Inc.  
  • Aveda Corporation
  • Chick-Fil-A, Inc.
  • CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
  • Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens
  • Whatabrands LLC
  • The Finish Line, Inc.

Plaintiff:         AML IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

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

Andra Group, LP v. Fossil Group, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).            

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Fossil Group, Inc. 
  • GameStop, Inc. 
  • Signet Jewelers, Ltd.
  • Zale Corporation 

Plaintiff:         Andra Group, LP

Pls. Cnsl:        BrusterSorey & Hoover

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

Content Aware, LLC v. Algolia SAS (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).            

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:   

  • Algolia SAS 
  • Nosto Solutions Ltd. 
  • The Home Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Content Aware, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

Fall Line Patents, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (multiple cases) (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:   

  • 7-Eleven, Inc.
  • Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports & Outdoors, Inc. 
  • Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
  • Advance Stores Company, Incorporated  
  • Aldi Inc.
  • Aldi (Texas) LLC 
  • AutoZone, Inc. 
  • Best Buy Co., Inc.
  • Best Buy Stores, LP
  • Brookshire Grocery Company
  • Brinker International, Inc. 
  • Chili’s, Inc.  
  • CBOCS, Inc.
  • CBOCS Properties, Inc.
  • CBOCS Texas, LLC  
  • Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. 
  • Darden Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Darden Restaurants
  • Darden Restaurants, Inc. 
  • Olive Garden of Texas, LLC  
  • RARE Hospitality International, Inc. 
  • DoorDash Essentials, LLC 
  • DoorDash, Inc.  
  • EAN Holdings, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Rent A Car  
  • EAN Services, LLC 
  • Enterprise Holdings, Inc. 
  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc. 
  • Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC 
  • SFM, LLC d/b/a Sprouts Farmers Market  
  • Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.  

Plaintiff:         Fall Line Patents, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Antonelli Harrington & Thompson

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

Linfo IP, LLC v. Dyln, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge David Counts

Claims: Infringement

Defendant:     Dyln, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Linfo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ramey

Patent:            9,092,428 (System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content)

Oribel Pte Ltd. v. Carters Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Carter’s, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Oribel Pte LTD.

Pls. Cnsl:        Ahmad Zavitsanos & Mensing; Quisenberry Law

Patent:            10,736,437 (Portable activity center)

Patent Armory Inc. v. Campaign Monitor Pty Ltd. (E.D. Tex., D. Colo., W.D. Tex., E.D. Va., W.D. Wis.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Auctane, Inc.
  • Avid Ratings, Inc. 
  • Banner Health
  • Campaign Monitor Pty Ltd.
  • Carnival Corporation
  • Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. 
  • Cognizant Technology Solutions US Corporation
  • Farmers Group, Inc.  
  • Genworth Financial, Inc.
  • Northwestern Mutual LLC 

Plaintiff:         Patent Armory Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:            10,237,420 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction); 10,491,748 (Intelligent communication routing system and method); 7,023,979 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 7,269,253 (Telephony control system with intelligent call routing); 9,456,086 (Method and system for matching entities in an auction)

S3G Technology LLC v. BJs Restaurants, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

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

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     BJ’s Restaurants, Inc.

Plaintiff:         S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:          11,662,995 (Network efficient location-based dialogue sequence using virtual processor); 8,572,571 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,081,897 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Torus Ventures LLC v. First Texas National Bank (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     First Texas National Bank

Plaintiff:         Torus Ventures LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:            7,203,844 (Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control)

Virtual Creative Artists, LLC v. Cars.com, LLC (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:             District Judge John F. Kness

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:     Cars.com, LLC

Plaintiff:         Virtual Creative Artists, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Patent:            10,339,576 (Revenue-generating electronic multi-media exchange and process of operating same)