Marshall Division

Aug. 14

  • Geotag Inc. v. American Apparel Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00436
  • Geotag Inc. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Case No. 2:12-cv-00437
  • Geotag Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters Inc.  Case No. 2:12-cv-00438
  • Geotag Inc. v. Ann Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00439
  • Geotag Inc. v. New Ashley Stewart Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00440
  • Geotag Inc. v. Burleigh Point Ltd. Case No. 2:12-cv-00441
  • Geotag Inc. v. Catalogue Ventures Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00442
  • Geotag Inc. v. Burberry Ltd. Case No. 2:12-cv-00443
  • Geotag Inc. v. Burlington Factory Warehouse Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00444
  • Geotag Inc. v. Cache Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00445
  • Geotag Inc. v. The William Carter Co. Case No. 2:12-cv-00446
  • Geotag Inc. v. Charming Shoppes Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00447
  • Geotag Inc. v. Chico's FAS Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00448
  • Geotag Inc. v. Citi Trends Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00449
  • Geotag Inc. v. Claire's Boutiques Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00450
  • Geotag Inc. v. Coldwater Creek Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00451
  • Geotag Inc. v. David's Bridal Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00452
  • Geotag Inc. v. Deb Shops Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00453
  • Geotag Inc. v. Delias Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00454
  • Geotag Inc. v. Destination Maternity Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00455
  • Geotag Inc. v. Diesel U.S.A. Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00456
  • Geotag Inc. v. Donna Karan International Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00457

    Geotag Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a place of business in Plano.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 issued on July 29, 1999, for Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest, enhanced damages and attorney's fees.

    The plaintiff is represented by Hao Ni and Stevenson Moore of Ni Law Firm in Dallas and Christopher M. Joe, Eric W. Buether, Brian A. Carpenter, Mark D. Perantie and Niky Bukovcan of Buether Joe & Carpenter in Dallas.

    Jury trials are requested.

    U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider will preside over the cases.

    Aug. 16

  • TQP Development v. Aflac Inc.

    TQP Development is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.

    TQP Development accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730 issued May 2, 1995, for Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.

    The defendants are accused of willful infringement of the '730 patent.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from continued acts of infringement and for an award of damages, interest and costs.

    TQP Development is represented by Marc A. Fenster, Alex C. Giza, Adam S. Hoffman and Kevin Burke of Russ, August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif.; Hao Ni of Ni Law Firm in Dallas; and Andrew Spangler of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Longview.

    A jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00490

    Tyler Division

    Aug. 10

  • Norman IP Holdings v. Ricoh Americas Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00508
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Belkin International Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00509
  • Norman IP Holdings v. BMW North America Case No. 6:12-cv-00510
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Mercedes-Benz USA Case No. 6:12-cv-00511
  • Norman IP Holdings v. D-Link Systems Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00512
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Dish Network Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00513
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Ford Motor Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00514
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Garmin International Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00515
  • Norman IP Holdings v. General Electric Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00516
  • Norman IP Holdings v. General Motors Case No. 6:12-cv-00517
  • Norman IP Holdings v. JVC Americas Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00518
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Novatel Wireless Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00519
  • Norman IP Holdings v. TomTom Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00520
  • Norman IP Holdings v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00521
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Vizio Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00522
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00523
  • Norman IP Holdings v. Xerox Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00524
  • Norman IP Holdings v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No.  6:12-cv-00525

    Norman IP Holdings is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Tyler.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,530,597 issued on June 25, 1996, for Apparatus and Method for Disabling Interrupt Masks in Processors or the Like;
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,502,689 issued March 26, 1996, for Clock Generator Capable of Shut-Down Mode and Clock Generation Method;
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,592,555 issued Jan. 7, 1997, for Wireless Communications Privacy Method and System;
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,608,873 issued March 4, 1997, for Device and Method for Interprocessor Communication Using Mailboxes Owned by Processor Devices; and U.S.
  • Patent No. 5,771,394 issued June 23, 1998, for Apparatus Having Signal Processors for Providing Respective Signals to Master Processor to Notify that Newly Written Data Can Be Obtained from One or More Memories.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, interest, court costs and attorney's fees.

    Norman is represented by Andrew DiNovo, Adam G. Price and Chester J. Shiu of DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy in Austin. A jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the cases.

  • EMG Technology v. Expedia Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00505

    EMG is a California limited liability company organized with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, Calif.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,441,196 issued on Oct. 21, 2008, for Apparatus and Method of Manipulating a Region on a Wireless Device for Viewing, Zooming and Scrolling Internet Content.

    EMG is asking the Court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, including royalty or lost profits, enhanced damages, interest, attorney's fees, and court costs.

    The plaintiff is represented by Charles Ainsworth and Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth in Tyler and Stanley Gibson and Gregory S. Cordey of Jeffer Mangels Butler Mitchell in Los Angeles, Calif.  

    A jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.

    Aug. 13

  • Blue Spike v. Viggle Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00526

    Aug. 14

  • Blue Spike v. Free Stream Media Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00527
  • Blue Spike v. The Echo Nest Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00528
  • Blue Spike v. Peer Media Technologies Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00529

    Aug. 15

  • Blue Spike v. BIO-Key International Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00531
  • Blue Spike v. TuneSat Case No. 6:12-cv-00533
  • Blue Spike v. Vercury Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00534

    Aug. 16

  • Blue Spike v. SoundHound Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00537
  • Blue Spike v. Vobile Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00539
  • Blue Spike v. Attributor Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00540

    Blue Spike LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Tyler.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,472 issued March 18, 2008, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; U.S. Patent No. 7,660,700 issued Feb. 9, 2010, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; U.S. Patent No. 7,949,494 issued May 24, 2011, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; and U.S. Patent No. 8,214,175 issued July 3, 2012, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, and attorney's fees.

    Blue Spike is represented by Eric M. Albritton, Stephen E. Edwards and Michael A. Benefield of Albritton Law Firm in Longview; and Randall T. Garteiser, Christopher A. Honea and Christopher S. Johns of Garteiser Honea P.C. in San Rafael, Calif.

    A jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis is assigned to the cases.

    Lufkin Division

    Aug. 13

  • Swipe Innovations v. Vantiv
  • Swipe Innovations v. Elavon Inc.

    Swipe is a limited liability company formed with a principal place of business in Houston.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,351,296 issued Sept. 27, 1994, for Financial Transmission System.

    Swipe is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, costs, interest and attorney's fees.

    The plaintiff is represented by Larry D. Thompson Jr., Matthew J. Antonelli and Zachariah S. Harrington of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston and Stafford Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm in Tyler.

    Jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge Ron Clark is assigned to the cases.

    Case No. 9:12-cv-00131, Case No. 9:12-cv-00132

  • More News