MARSHALL DIVISION
Feb. 23
Orostream LLC v. ABS-CBN International 2:15-cv-00248-JRG
Orostream LLC v. AOL Inc.2:15-cv-00249-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Barnesandnoble.com LLC 2:15-cv-00250-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Fox News Network 2:15-cv-00251-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Gaiam, Inc. 2:15-cv-00252-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Medianavico LLC 2:15-cv-00253-JRG
Orostream LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. 2:15-cv-00254-JRG
Orostream LLC v. NFL Enterprises LLC 2:15-cv-00255-JRG
Orostream LLC v. NHL Interactive Cyberenterprises 2:15-cv-00256-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Popcornflix.com, LLC 2:15-cv-00257-JRG
Orostream LLC v. RLJ Entertainment, Inc. 2:15-cv-00258-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Target Corporation 2:15-cv-00259-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Vevo LLC 2:15-cv-00260-JRG
Orostream LLC v. WWE Inc. 2:15-cv-00261-JRG
Orostream LLC v. Zuffa, LLC 2:15-cv-00262-JRG
Plaintiff Orostream is a Plano company.
On Oct. 27, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,828,837 (“the ‘837 Patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘837 Patent is titled “Computer Network System and Method for Efficient Information Transfer.”
Chicago attorney David Bennett of Direction IP Law represents the plaintiff.
Feb. 24
Quest Nettech Corporation v. Skybridge Americas, Inc. 2:15-cv-00270-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. Realtime Media, LLC 2:15-cv-00271-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. ProPac Marketing, Inc. 2:15-cv-00272-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. Promotion Activators Management, LLC 2:15-cv-00273-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. Marketing Drive, LLC 2:15-cv-00274-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. KFL Interactive, LLC 2:15-cv-00275-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. Gage Marketing Group, LLC 2:15-cv-00276-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. Exposure Marketing & Promotions, Inc. 2:15-cv-00277-RWS
Quest Nettech Corporation v. Nies/Aircraft, Inc. 2:15-cv-00278-RWS
On Oct. 7, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S.
Patent No. 5,508,731 C1 (“the ‘731 Patent”) entitled, “GENERATION OF ENLARGED
PARTICIPATORY BROADCAST AUDIENCE.”
Tyler attorney Deron Dacus represents the plaintiff.
Feb. 26
Conversant Intellectual Property Management, Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al 2:15-cv-00281-JRG-RSP
Plaintiff is a Canadian company.
The infringement actions arise in connection with 15 United States patents, herein
“the Asserted Patents.” The Asserted Patents are United States Patent Nos. 6,223,331; 7,915,933; 7,940,081; 7,945,885; 7,982,532; 7,996,811; and 8,253,438 (collectively, the “Conversant IP Management Patents”); and United States Patent Nos. RE44,218; 5,796,675; 6,107,138; 6,209,056; 6,306,743; 6,313,029; 6,943,602; and 7,101,791 (collectively “the NB Patents”).
The plaintiff is represented in part by New York attorney Bryan Vogel.