Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

David Yates Feb. 6, 2015, 1:54pm


MARSHALL DIVISION

Jan. 30

Case No. 2:15-cv-00097-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. Fortinet, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00099-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. Hiro Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00100-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. IC Intracom USA, LLC

Case No. 2:15-cv-00101-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. Digital Data Communications GmbH

Case No. 2:15-cv-00102-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. Netgear, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00103-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00104-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. SMC Networks, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00105-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. TP-Link USA Corporation

Case No. 2:15-cv-00106-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. TRENDnet Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00107-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00108-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. Zhone Technologies, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00109-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. Zoom Telephonics, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00110-RWS-RSP Wetro Lan LLC v. ZyXEL Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff Wetro Lan maintains its principal place of business in Plano.

This is a patent infringement action to stop defendants’ infringement of U.S. patent No. 6,795,918 (the ‘918 patent) entitled “Service Level Computer Security.”

The plaintiff is seeking an adjudication that one or more claims of the ‘918 patent have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant; and an award to plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate plaintiff for the defendant’s acts of infringement together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff’s counsel is Austin Hansley of Dallas.

 

Feb. 2

Case No. 2:15-cv-00111-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00112-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Marathon Petroleum Corporation

Case No. 2:15-cv-00113-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Murphy Oil Corporation

Case No. 2:15-cv-00114-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. OGE Energy Corp.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00115-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. PG&E Corporation

Case No. 2:15-cv-00116-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. The Southern Company

Case No. 2:15-cv-00117-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Spectra Energy Corp

Case No. 2:15-cv-00118-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. TC Pipelines GP, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00119-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Western Refining Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00120-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. The Williams Companies, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00121-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Allergan, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00122-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Amgen Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00123-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Baxter International Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00124-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Bayer AG et al

Case No. 2:15-cv-00125-RWS-RSP Data Carriers, LLC v. Biogen Idec Inc.

Plaintiff Data Carriers maintains its principal place of business in Tyler.

This is an action for patent infringement of U.S. patent No. 5,388,198 (the

‘198 patent) entitled “Proactive Presentation Of Automating Features To A Computer User.”

The ‘198 patent provides a method for proactively automating an operation of an application program on a general purpose computer comprising an input device, a central processing unit, a display device and memory means, said memory means including a plurality of feature templates, feature presentation and implementation routines, by automatically intervening in a user’s manipulations of the input device to present automating features.

The plaintiff is seeking an adjudication that one or more claims of the ‘198 patent have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant; and an award to plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate plaintiff for the defendant’s acts of infringement together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff’s counsel is Austin Hansley of Dallas.

 

Feb. 3

Case No. 2:15-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Eclipse IP LLC v. Hasbro, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00130-JRG-RSP Eclipse IP LLC v. Lenox Corporation

Case No. 2:15-cv-00131-JRG-RSP Eclipse IP LLC v. L'Occitane, Inc.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00132-JRG Eclipse IP LLC v. Multi Group Logistics, Inc.

Eclipse is a Florida limited liability company with a place of business located at

Boynton Beach.

On Jan. 25, 2011, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and lawfully issued

U.S. patent No. 7,876,239 (the ‘239 patent) entitled “Secure Notification Messaging

Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia.”

On Jan. 20, 2009, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and lawfully issued

U.S. patent No. 7,479,899 (the ‘899 patent), entitled “Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative.”

Eclipse requests that the court enter judgment against defendants as follows:

- An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the Patents-In-Suit;

- An award of damages to be paid by Defendant adequate to compensate Eclipse for Defendants’ past infringement of the Patents-In-Suit and any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial;

- An award to Eclipse of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, including enhanced damages up to and including trebling of Eclipse’s damages for defendants’ willful infringement, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

- Such other and further relief as this Court or a jury may deem proper and just.

Plano attorney Craig Tadlock represents the plaintiff.

More News