March was moderately busy with several frequent fliers, including: ArrivalStar, Eclipse IP and Princeton Digital. 

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

The trolls started January with a bang.  Several trolls started their first cases or filed significant additional cases, including:  Express Card, EMG Technology, Diet Goal Innovations, and c4cast.  A few frequent fliers also remained busy:  Eclipse IP, GeoTag, and Lodsys.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its

The trolls took it easy for the holidays.  A few frequent fliers stayed busy:  Eclipse IP, Landmark, Lodsys, MacroSolve, Pragmatus, Clear With Computers, and Cronos. 

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

The uptick from July continued in August, with many of the July filers EMG Technology, Parallel Iron, and Cronos filing more suits.  Additionally, Lodsys saw two declaratory judgment suits filed against it.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a



Patent trolls took their summer vacation in July, but returned to work in August.  There was a bit of a lull toward the end of the month, but it was still active. As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database. Docket Navigator is a powerful 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 and 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. SFA Systems, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., (3 E.D. Texas cases)

  • Claim: Infringement
  • Defendants:
    • Amazon.com, Inc.
    • Buy.Com, Inc.
    • Dollar Tree, Inc.
    • Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
    • DSW, Inc.
    • Meijer, Inc.
    • New York & Company
    • Rite Aid Corporation
    • Symantec Corporation
    • Target Corporation
    • TigerDirect, Inc.
    • Zappos.com, Inc.
    • Zappos Development, Inc.
    • BarnesandNoble.com LLC
    • Barnes & Noble, Inc.
    • Gander Mountain Company
    • Newegg.com Inc.
    • Newegg Inc.
    • Overton’s Inc.
    • BigMachines, Inc.
    • CareStream Health, Inc.
    • Enterasys Networks, Inc.Ricoh Americas Corporation
  • Plaintiff: SFA Systems, LLC
  • Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
  • Patent: 7,941,341
  • Comments: This is a suit based upon a newly issued patent filed against the existing entities in a prior suit accusing technology that identifies additional items a user may want to purchase based upon prior actions on a website.

Technology Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 1-11-cv-00690 (D. Del.)

  • Claim:              Infringement
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Plaintiff: Technology Innovations, LLC
  • Counsel: Goldstein & Lipski and Morris James
  • Patents: 5,517,407 and 7,429,965
  • Comment: Device for including enhancing information with printed information and method for electronic searching thereof

Meridian Enterprises Corporation v. Rewards Network, Inc., 4-11-cv-01377 (E.D. Mo.)

  • Claim:              Infringement
  • Defendant: Rewards Network Inc
  • Plaintiff: Meridian Enterprises Corporation
  • Counsel: Brown & James and Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry
  • Patent: 6,222,914
  • Comment: System and method for administration of an incentive award system having a delayed award payment using a credit instrument
    Continue Reading August 2011 Retail Patent Litigation Report

Patent trolls seemed to take summer vacations in July.  It was a happily quiet month, although there were a number of retail product suits filed that I do not track in this report — let me know if you would like information about those cases.  I suspect the cases will pick up in August

This is the first edition of a new Blog feature: a periodic report on recently filed retail patent litigations. I am going to start out preparing it monthly, but depending upon the number of cases I may move to a quarterly post. I will focus on cases brought against retailers, or one or two links in the chain upstream. For now, I will leave out cases accusing a retail product because that would expand the report to almost every case.

I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database. Docket Navigator is a powerful 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 and changes you would like to see. I am preparing it as a service for retailers who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape. So, I am very open to ways to improve the report.

ArrivalStar S.A. & Melvino Technologies

  • Defendants (4):Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.; Nicole Miller Palm Beach, Inc.; Seven For All Mankind, LLC; and William Rast Retail, LLC*
  • Court: S.D. Florida, Judge Ungaro (Complaint)
  • U.S. Patent Nos.: 6,486,801; 6,714,859; 6,748,320; 6,904,359; 6,952,645; 7,030,781; and 7,400,970
  • Accusations: ArrivalStar is accusing systems that electronically update users about, among other things, the location and delivery of packages.  This is one of more than a dozen cases filed by ArrivalStar this year, although they generally have not targeted retailers or their supply chain directly.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McMahon Law Firm
  • Notes: ArrivalStar and Melvino Technologies filed other cases in June in Florida and Chicago, but they were not retail-specific, although they asserted the same patents.

CodePro Innovations, LLC

  • Defendants (4): Blockbuster; Kohl’s Illinois; Redbox; and The JC Penney Co.
  • Court: N.D. Texas, Judge Solis (Complaint)
  • U.S. Patent Nos.: 5,717,866 and 5,924,078
  • Accusations: CodePro is accusing unspecified systems that use customer-entered copon codes at point-of-sale to provide and track customer discounts.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dietz & Jarrard


Continue Reading June 2011 Retail Patent Litigation Report