Express Mobile, Inc. v. Alibaba.com, Inc. et al 2:15-cv-00461-JRG-RSP
Plaintiff is a Plano company.
On April 8, 2003, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 (“the ’397 patent”), entitled
“Browser Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Express Mobile is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’397 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it.
The Plaintiff is represented in part by Brent Coon & Associates attorney Mary Jacob.
Stone Basket Innovations LLC v. Cook Medical LLC 2:15-cv-00464-JRG-RSP
Plaintiff is an Austin company.
SBI is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,551,327 issued April 22, 2003 (“the ’327
Patent”), which was duly and legally issued. The ’327 Patent is entitled “Endoscopic Stone Extraction Device with Improved Basket.”
The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey Andrews, attorney for the Houston law firm Sutton McAughan Deaver law firm.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Apple Inc. 2:15-cv-00466-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Dell Inc. 2:15-cv-00467-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. HTC America, Inc. 2:15-cv-00468-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Huawei Technologies USA Inc. et al 2:15-cv-00469-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al 2:15-cv-00470-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Microsoft Corporation 2:15-cv-00471-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Motorola Mobility LLC 2:15-cv-00472-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 2:15-cv-00473-JRG-RSP
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. 2:15-cv-00474-JRG-RSP
The plaintiff is a Netherlands company.
On Jan. 3, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,090,862 (“the 862 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention titled “Initiating An Alternative Channel For Receiving Streaming Content.”
Nonend is the owner of the 862 patent with all substantive rights in and to that patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the 862 patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
The defendants allegedly sold products having the ability to receive streaming content using both cellular and Wi-Fi functionality, infringing on the plaintiff’s patent.
The plaintiff is represented by Matthew Antonelli, attorney for the Houston law firm Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson.
Power Regeneration, LLC v. Siemens Corporation et al 6:15-cv-00380-RWS-KNM
Plaintiff is a Tyler company.
The plaintiff alleges infringement of the 7,085,123 patent, titled “Power Supply Apparatus and Power Supply Method.”
Plano attorney Craig Tadlock represents the plaintiff.