• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Brother International Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-01070
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Canon USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01071
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Dell Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01072
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Eastman Kodak Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-01075
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Epson America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01073
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Google Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01067
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Hewlett-Packard Co. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-01074
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01076
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Lantronix Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01068
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Oki Data Americas Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01077
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Ricoh Americas Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-01078
• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Xerox Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-01079
Plaintiff Dynamic Hosting is a Texas limited liability company based in Tyler.
The patents-in-suit are:
• U.S. Patent No. 5,826,026 issued Oct. 20, 1998, for an Internet Message Communicator with Direct Output to a Hard Copy Device; and
• U.S. Patent No. 6,216,156 issued April 10, 2001, for an Internet Message Communicator with Direct Output to a Hard Copy Device.
The allegedly infringing products include printers made or sold by defendants using Google Cloud Print. The allegedly infringing printers have hardware and/or software components that are especially designed to be used with Google Cloud Print.
Dynamic Hosting is seeking compensatory damages, costs, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Matthew J. Antonelli of Antonelli Harrington & Thompson LLP in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiff, along with Stafford Davis of Tyler.
• Freeny et al v Aerohive Networks Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01066
The plaintiffs are Charles C. Freeny III, Bryan E. Freeny and James P. Freeny. They are individuals residing in Texas.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,110,744 issued Sept. 19, 2006, for Communication and Proximity Authorization Systems. The named inventor of the ‘744 Patent is Charles C. Freeny Jr., deceased. The plaintiffs are the sons of Charles C Freeny Jr. and owners and assignees of the ‘744 Patent.
Defendants allegedly infringe the ‘744 Patent through their networking products.
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Christopher D. Banys of Banys PC in Palo Alto, Calif., is lead attorney for the plaintiffs, with Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview as local counsel.
Net Navigation Systems LLC v Brocade Communication Systems Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00773
Plaintiff Net Navigation Systems is a Texas limited liability company based in Round Rock.
U.S. Patent No. 6,625,122 issued Sept. 23, 2003, for a Selection of Data for Network Transmission; and
U.S. Patent No. 6,434,145 B1 issued Aug. 13, 2002, for a Processing of Network Data by Parallel Processing Channels.
Defendant Brocade has allegedly infringed the Net Navigation patents by making and selling network products capable of providing priority to different data flows based on bandwidth, such as the Brocade MLX Series of switches and routers.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Steven R. Daniels of Farney Daniels PC in Georgetown is lead attorney for Net Navigation.
Wingard et al v Pete Mankins Nissan and Nissan North America Inc. Case No. 5:14-cv-00149
The plaintiffs are Peter F. Wingard and Netlatch LLC. Wingard is a resident of Georgia. Netlatch is a Florida limited liability company based in Georgia.
Defendant Pete Mankins is located in Texarkana, Texas.
According to the suit, Wingard pioneered the technology behind keyless ignition systems, which enable engines in vehicles to be started with the use of a key code and in some instances without inserting the coded key into the ignition. Generally, keyless ignition is achieved when a “key fob” transmits a unique code to a car’s receiver and the unique code transmitted by the key fob matches the unique code stored in the car’s memory.
Wingard claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,530,431 issued June 25, 1996, for an Anti-Theft Device for Protecting Electronic Equipment.
The ‘431 Patent is directed to apparatuses and methods for providing security for electronic equipment, in particular to secure electronic equipment by configuring the electronic equipment to power up only in the presence of a unique code transmitted to the electronic equipment from an external source, according to the suit.
According to the suit, Pete Mankins and Nissan use, sell and import vehicles incorporating the keyless ignition systems, such as Keyless Start, Nissan Intelligent Key with Push Button Ignition, Smart Entry, Keyless Access System, Keyless Entry System, Push Button Start or names of like import.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and a permanent injunction. A jury trial is demanded.
Charlena Thorpe of The Law Office of Charlena Thorpe in Duluth, Ga., is the attorney for the plaintiffs.