• Joseph D. Smith v SkyBitz Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00772
Plaintiff Joseph D. Smith is an individual residing in Henderson, Texas.
Smith claims he is the lawful owner, holder and assignee of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,611,686 issued Aug. 26, 2003, for a Tracking Control and Logistics System and Method.
According to the complaint, SkyBitz is a provider of real-time wireless asset tracking and monitoring systems used to track, monitor, control and communicate with assets, fleets, vessels, equipment, cargo and cargo containers around the world using global positioning and locating technology which allegedly infringe the ‘686 Patent.
Smith is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, treble damages, injunctive relief and other relief deemed just and proper.
David K. Anderson of the Anderson Law Firm in Houston is lead attorney for Joseph Smith.
Innovative Automation Inc. v Follett Higher Education Group Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00773
Innovative Automation Inc. v Overdrive Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00774
Innovative Automation LLC v Scholastic Storia Inc. and Scholastic Book Clubs Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00775
Innovative Automation LLC v Vital Source Technologies Inc. dba CourseSmart Case No. 2:14-cv-00776
The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,174,362 issued Feb. 6, 2007, for a Method and System of Supplying Products from Pre-Stored Digital Data in Response to Demands Transmitted via Computer Network.
Allegedly infringing products include the CafeScribe eTextbooks Reader and Store, now known as BryteWave Digital Textbook Reader and Store; OverDrive Media Console; Storia ereading application and ebookstore; and VitalSource Bookshelf e-book software applications and store.
Innovative Automation is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is demanded.
Charles Ainsworth of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth in Tyler is representing the plaintiff along with Adam Gutride, Seth Safier, Todd Kennedy, Anthony Patek and Marie McCrary of Gutride Safier in San Francisco, Calif.
MXGO Technologies Inc. v Zimbra Inc. and Comcast Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00778
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 7,546,351 issued Jan. 9, 2009, for Methods and Systems for Filtering, Sorting and Dispatching Messages to Wired and Wireless Devices; and
U.S. Patent No. 6,779,022 issued Aug. 17, 2004, for a Server that Obtains Information from Multiple Sources, Filters Using Client Identities and Dispatches to Both Hardwired and Wireless Clients.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, interest, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. A jury trial is demanded.
Stephen F. Schlather of Collins Edmonds Pogorzelski Schlather & Tower PLLC in Houston is lead counsel for the plaintiff.
Sensor-Tech Innovations LLC v Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00779
Plaintiff Sensor-Tech is a Texas limited liability company based in Austin.
The defendant is accused of infringing on: U.S. patent No. 6,505,086 issued Jan. 7, 2003, for an XML Sensor System.
Allegedly infringing products include CenterPoint’s Advanced Metering System.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
William E. Davis of the Davis Firm PC in Longview and attorneys from Kelley Goldfarb Huck & Roth PLLC in Seattle, Wash., are representing the plaintiff.
Quest Nettech Corp. v Bottlerocket Marketing Group LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00782
Quest Nettech Corp. v Central Marketing & Communications LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00785
Quest Nettech Corp. v D.L. Blair Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00784
Quest Nettech Corp. v HelloWorld Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00790
Quest Nettech Corp. v Little & King Co. LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00786
Quest Nettech Corp. v Pop2Life LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00783
Quest Nettech Corp. v PritzelLogic LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00791
Quest Nettech Corp. v Ritway Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00789
Quest Nettech Corp. v TeamDigital Promotions Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00788
Quest Nettech Corp. v US Sweepstakes & Fulfillment Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00787
Plaintiff Quest is Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Jericho, N.Y.
The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,508,731 issued Oct. 7, 2008, for a Generation of Enlarged Participatory Broadcast Audience.
Defendants allegedly infringe the plaintiff’s patent through conducting, administering and implementing sweepstakes, contests and game productions.
For example, participants of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” iPad Giveaway Sweepstakes and that such sweepstakes encourage users to use the website with specific intent
Quest is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.
Deron R. Dacus, Shannon Dacus and Pete Kerr of the Dacus Firm PC in Tyler are representing the plaintiff.
Cedatech Holdings LLC v Apple Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00478
Cedatech Holdings LLC v Dell Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00479
Cedatech Holdings LLC v HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00477
Plaintiff Cedatech is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Plano.
The defendant is accused of infringing U.S. Patent 7,707,591 issued April 27, 2010, for Integration of Audio or Video Program with Application Program.
According to the complaints, Apple’s iPhone 5, Dell’s Streak 7 tablet and HTC One smartphones infringe at least one claim of the ‘591 Patent, at least by providing a video or audio speech recognition program to provide input into separate application programs.
Cedatech is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is demanded.
Frank M. Washko, Ph.D., of Tiburon Intellectual Property PLLC of San Francisco, Calif., and Allen S. Wan of Dallas.
Inventergy Inc. v Genband Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00612
Plaintiff Inventergy is a Delaware corporation based in Campbell, Calif.
The plaintiff specializes in effectively protecting a company’s intellectual property so it may focus on creating new technology.
According to the suits, the head of Inventergy, Joe Beyers, is the former head of IP and global strategy at Hewlett-Packard. Inventergy’s business model focuses on cultivating strategic relationships with key developers of core technologies who have not yet been fairly compensated for their important contributions.
The patents-in-suit are:
• U.S. Patent No. 7,835,352 issued Feb. 10, 2014, for a Method, System and Equipment for Processing SIP Requests in IMS Network;
• U.S. Patent No. 8,335,487 issued Dec. 18, 2012, for a Method and Authenticating User Terminal in IP Multimedia Sub-Systems;
• U.S. Patent No. 6,801,542 issued Oct. 5, 2004, for a Method and Apparatus for Providing an Interworking Unit Between ATM Networks and IP Networks;
• U.S. Patent No. 7,925,762 issued April 12, 2011, for a Roaming Support Method and Systems in UMTS; and
• U.S. Patent No. 6,904,05 issued June 7, 2005, for a Mobile System, Terminal and Interface, as well as Methods for Providing Backward Compatibility to First and Second Generation Mobile Systems.
Allegedly infringing products include the Continuum Call Session Controllers and Media Gateways, Quantix Border Controllers and Experius Application Servers.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
William R. Towns of Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg LLP in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiff, with Eric H. Findlay and Brian Craft of Findlay Craft PC in Tyler.
Enterprise Systems Technologies S.a.r.l. v HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00614
Enterprise Systems Technologies S.a.r.l. v LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00615
The defendants are accused of infringing on:
• U.S. Patent No. 5,870,610 for an Autoconfigurable Method and System Having Automated Downloading;
• U.S. Patent No. 7,454,201 for a System for Providing Message Services Through a Private Network and Mobile Station;
• U.S. Patent No. 6,691,302 for Interfacing a Service Component to a Native API; and
• U.S. Patent No. 5,995,594 for a System and Method for Message Notification in a Multimedia Messaging System.
Allegedly infringing products include the HTC One M8 device, LG’s G-Pad and Nexus 5 devices and other communications or computing devices through the creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product manuals and technical materials.
Enterprise is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
James M. Wodarski of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC in Boston, Mass., is lead attorney for the plaintiff with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.
The case has been assigned to U.S. Judge Michael Schneider.
Blue Spike LLC v Facebook Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00618
Plaintiff Blue Spike is a Texas limited liability company with headquarters in Tyler.
The patents-in-suit are:
• U.S. Patent No. 7,346,472 issued March 18, 2008, for a Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals;
• U.S. Patent No. 7,660,700 issued Feb. 9, 2010, for a Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals;
• U.S. Patent No. 7,949,494 issued May 24, 2011, for a Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; and
• U.S. Patent No. 8,214,175 issued July 3, 2012, for a Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals.
Blue Spike CEO Scott Moskowitz is an inventor on more than 66 U.S. Patents related to managing, monitoring, and monetizing digital content and informational assets. Blue Spike has practiced and has continued business plans to practice Moskowitz’s patented inventions.
Many of Blue Spike’s patents are foundational to today’s robust markets for content, which grew into their present form only after using Blue Spike’s technology to catalogue, manage, monitor, and monetize that content.
Defendant Facebook is based in Menlo Park, Calif., but has a satellite office in Austin employing more than 300, which makes the venue in Texas proper, according to the suit.
Moskowitz, who earned two degrees cum laude from the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania, is an inventor of more than 66 U.S. Patents, including each of the Patents-in-Suit.
According to the complaint, Moskowitz pioneered and invented technology that allows owners of art, music, films and other creations an efficient way to manage, monitor and monetize their works.
The lawsuit says Moskowitz is also a pioneer in cryptography and signal analysis and one of his early patents was of interest to the National Security Agency.
Moskowitz is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a member of the Association for Computing Machinery, and the International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE). As a senior member of the IEEE, Moskowitz has peer-reviewed numerous conference papers and has submitted his own publications, the suit states.
The Patents-in-Suit comprise, in part, what Moskowitz has coined “signal abstracting,” which encompasses techniques, among others, also known as “signal fingerprinting,” “acoustic fingerprinting,” or “robust hash functions.” These are among the most effective techniques available for combating piracy, which are completely undetectable to the thief, yet still enable content owners to easily search through large amounts of data to identify unauthorized copies of their works.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Randall Garteiser of Garteiser Honea PC in Tyler is representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael Schneider.
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00631
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Cerner Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00632
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Computer Programs and Systems Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00633
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v E-MDs Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00625
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Epic Systems Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00626
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v GE Healthcare Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00627
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Greenway Medical Technologies Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00628
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Medhost Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00630
Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Meridian EMR Inc. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00622
Plaintiff Uniloc USA is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano.
According to the complaints, Uniloc has researched, developed, manufactured and licensed information security technology solutions, platforms and frameworks including solutions for securing software applications and digital content.
Uniloc’s technologies are used in electronic health record software, software and game security, identity management, intellectual property rights management and critical infrastructure security.
The plaintiff claims it is owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,682,526 for a Method and System for Flexibly Organizing, Recording and Displaying Medical Patient Care Information Using Fields in Flowsheet; and U.S. Patent No. 5,715,451 issued for a Method and System for Constructing Forulae for Processing Medical Data.
Uniloc is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, costs, interest and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is demanded.
Leon Carter of Carter Scholer Arnett Hamada & Mockler PLLC in Dallas is representing the plaintiff, along with James L. Etheridge in Southlake.