MARSHALL DIVISION

May 12 

Penovia LLC v Medialink Products LLC Case No 2:14-cv-00613

Penovia LLC v Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00611

Penovia LLC v Sprint Nextel Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00615

Penovia LLC v T-Mobile USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00616

Penovia LLC v Verizon Communications Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00617

Plaintiff Penovia is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Plano.

Defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,822,221 issued Oct. 13, 1998, for an Office Monitoring Device.

Penovia is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview and Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC in Wilmington, Del.

 

BSG Tech LLC v J.A. Cosmetics Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00614-JRG

Plaintiff BSG Tech is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,035,294 issued March 7, 2000, for a Wide Access Database and Database Systems;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,195,652 issued Feb. 27, 2001, for a Self-Evolving Database and Method of Using Same; and

• U.S. Patent No. 6,243,699 issued June 5, 2001, for Systems and Methods of Indexing and Retrieving Data.

According to the complaint, the Patents have been cited as prior art during the prosecution history of many subsequently-issued U.S. patents, including patents assigned to IBM, Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corp., Accenture LLP, SAP AG, Google Inc., the Nielson Co., Amazon.com, Hewlett-Packard Development Co. LP, Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., Palm Inc., Microsoft Corp., Texas Instruments Corp., Oracle International Corp. and Google Inc.

The allegedly infringing activities include making or using one or more websites that include reviews and question-and-answer functionality.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages no less than reasonable royalty, interest, injunctive relief and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by David R. Benett of Direction IP Law in Chicago, Ill.

 

Olivistar LLC v Legrand North America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00618

Olivistar LLC v Smartlabs Inc., dba Insteon Case No. 2:14-cv-00619

Olivistar LLC v Trane Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00620

Olivistar LLC v VTech Electronics North America LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00621

Plaintiff Olivistar is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in McKinney.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,839,731 issued Jan. 4, 2005, for a System and Method for Providing Data Communication in a Device Network and U.S. Patent No. 8,239,481 issued Aug. 7, 2012, for a System and Method for Implementing Open-Control Remote Device Control.

Allegedly infringing products include Legrand’s Unity Home System and Unity Home App, Insteon’s IP Camera and Hub App, Trane’s ComfortLink II and Nexia Home Intelligence App and VTech’s InnoTab 3 and VTech Kid Connect Basic App.

Olivistar is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, interest, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Austin Hansley and Brandon LaPray of Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas.

 

Bright Response LLC v Attensity Group Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00622-JRG

Bright Response LLC v Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00623-JRG

Plaintiff Bright Response is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,278,996 issued Aug. 21, 2001, for a System and Method for Message Process and Response.

According to the complaint, the defendant infringes the ‘996 Patent by making, using or selling one or more email understanding and response systems, including Attensity Respond and Genysis’ Continuous Workforce Optimization that recognize and answer email based on the email writer’s intent in unconstrained language text emails.

Bright Response is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is demanded.

Andrew Spangler of Longview and Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC in Wilmington, Del., are representing the plaintiff.

 

May 14

John B. Adrain v Dahua Technology Co. Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-00625-JRG

Plaintiff John B. Adrain is an individual residing in Spokane, Wash.

According to the complaint, he is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,831,669 issued Nov. 3, 1998, for a Facility Monitoring System with Image Memory and Correlation. A reexamination of the ‘669 Patent was issued on Aug. 21, 2012.

The suit states Dahua, a Chinese corporation, makes, uses or sells video surveillance cameras, software and network video recorders, including the SD6582A-HN that can be used with the NVR3204-P Network Video Recorder.

Dahua induces direct infringement by providing manuals and instructions with the software that show users how to setup and operate the motion detection features of the security monitoring system.

The plaintiff is seeking permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Adrain is represented by John T. Polasek, C. Dale Quisenberry and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire; Otis W. Carroll and Deborah Race of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler; S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth DeRieux and Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw Derieux LLP in Gladewater; and Russell R. Smith of Fairchild Price Haley & Smith LLP in Nacogdoches.

 

May 22

BioControl LLC v Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00640-JRG-RSP

Plaintiff BioControl is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Houston.

Microsoft is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,647,834 issued July 15, 1997, for a Speech-Based Biofeedback Method and System.

The suit alleges Microsoft infringes the ‘834 Patent by making, using or selling products and software related to biofeedback regulation of at least one physiological variable characteristic of a subject’s emotional state, including Microsoft’s Xbox One with Kinect 2 consoles.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

BioControl is represented by attorney William P. Ramey III of Houston.

More News