Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marilyn Tennissen Oct. 27, 2014, 10:06pm


Oct. 20 

• Sensor-Tech Innovations LLC v Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00983

Plaintiff Senso-Tech Innovations is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Austin.

The defendant is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,505,086 issued Jan. 7, 2003, for an XML Sensor Tech.

The allegedly infringing products include Oncor’s Advanced Metering System and associated services.

Sensor-Tech is seeking compensatory damages, interest, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview is representing the plaintiff along with attorneys from Kelley Goldfarb Huck & Roth PLLC in Seattle, Wash.


Oct. 21

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00984
• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00985
• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v Box Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00986
• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v Dropbox Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00987
• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v Google Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00988
• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v SugarSync Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00989

Plaintiff Vantage Point Technology is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Tyler.

Vantage Point claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,233 issued Sept. 2, 2003, for an Apparatus and Method for Transmitting Documents Between a Server Computer and a Client Computer. According to the suit, the application for the ‘233 Patent was filed on Feb. 12, 1999, and originally assigned to Intergraph Corp.

The defendants have allegedly infringed the ‘233 Patent by making, using and selling online storage and synchronization products/services including Amazon Cloud Drive, Apple iCloud, Box Cloud Storage and File Sharing Service, Box Sync, Dropbox, Google Drive and SugarSync Cloud Service

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

Paul V. Storm and Sarah Paxson of Gardere Wynn Sewell LLP in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.


Oct. 22

Advanced Media Networks LLC v T-Mobile US Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00990

Plaintiff Advanced Media Networks is a California limited liability company.

Advanced Media claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,960,074 issued Sept. 28, 1999, for a Mobile Tele-Computer Network for Motion Picture, Television and TV Advertising Production. A reexamination certificate was issued April 23, 2014.

T-Mobile operates a nationwide digital wireless telecommunications system, and in particular, operates the system to offer wireless services, including wireless broadband services, to subscribers, the suit states.

“And here in the U.S., T-Mobile announced it had delivered nationwide 4G LTE covering more than 200 million people in 233 metro areas coast to coast,” according to the suit. “In 2013 alone, T-Mobile gained 4.4 million new customers … becom[ing] the fastest-growing wireless company in the U.S.”

T-Mobile’s network consists of a large multitude of cells that communicate with mobile devices via microwaves. The cells typically provide redundant overlapping coverage for a given area such that a subscriber moving with a T-Mobile device from one area to the next may seamlessly be handed-off from one cell to the next without dropping service.

A subscriber to T-Mobile’s services over the Accused System typically buys or leases a digital communications device such as a smart phone, tablet computer, router, gateway, or other mobile device containing a WLAN network access point, according to the complaint.

Examples of smart phones currently imported, offered for sale, and/or sold by T-Mobile are the Alcatel One Touch Evolve 2, Alcatel One Touch Fierce 2, Apple iPhone 5c, Apple iPhone 5s, Apple iPhone 6, Apple iPhone 6 Plus, LG G3, LG F3Q, LG Optimus L90, Nokia Lumia 635, Samsung Galaxy Avant, Samsung Galaxy Note 3, Samsung Galaxy Note 4, Samsung Galaxy Note Pro 10.1 2014, Samsung Galaxy S 4, Samsung Galaxy S 5, and all past, present and future cellular phones that offer connectivity to other devices to the T-Mobile network over a local area network provided by the device.

Each of these accused phones may be configured to constitute a “mobile hub station configured to transfer information as a single nomadic transmission/reception point between the microwave communication system” and a “wireless LAN using an Ethernet packet switching protocol,” the suit states. “Whether or not a subscriber may utilize the mobile hotspot or tethering feature of an Accused Phone is controlled by T-Mobile.”

The plaintiff claims it sent a letter to T-Mobile on Nov. 6, 2012, that notified T-Mobile that its smartphones and 4G Mobile HotSpot devices infringed the ‘074 Patent.

Advanced Media is seeking a judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the asserted patent, that Advanced Media has been irreparably harmed by the infringing activities of T-Mobile and a permanent injunction prohibiting T-Mobile from further infringement.

Advanced Media is asking for compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, treble damages for willful infringement and other relief the court deems just. A jury trial is requested.

Brian A. Carpenter of Beuther Joe & Carpenter LLC in Dallas is lead attorney for the plaintiff.


• Emmanuel C. Gonzalez v Snap Interactive Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00992
• Emmanuel C. Gonzalez v Tagged Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00993

Plaintiff Emmanuel C. Gonzalez is an individual living in the Philippines.

He claims to be the sole inventor of the patents-in-suit:

U.S. Patent No. 7,558,807 issued July 9, 2009, for a Host Website for Digitally Labeled Websites and Method;
U.S. Patent No. 7,647,339 issued Jan. 12, 2010, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites;
U.S. Patent No. 7,873,665 issued Jan. 18, 2011, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites;
U.S. Patent No. 8,065,333 issued Nov. 22, 2011, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites; and
U.S. Patent No. 8,296,325 issued Oct. 23, 2012, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites.

The invention relates in one respect to a method for multi-parameter digital labeling of Internet content comprising the steps of: (i) gathering unambiguous, multi-parameter qualitative data concerning the content and the contents’ owner or creator; (ii) sourcing, from the owner or creator of the content, each item of qualitative data; (iii) producing a plurality of digital labels for each element of the content, wherein each digital label represents and comprises a unique reference to a specific item of qualitative information, and further comprises encoding of qualitative data in digital form; (iv) storing the digital labels on a computer or network; (v) manipulation of digital labels by generating content that matches parameters stipulated by an entity conducting a search; and (vi) making available the effective use of these multi-parameter digital labels and the means for their manipulation, to the general public through the Internet.

Gonzalez claims he communicated directly with the defendants or their affiliates concerning the patents on Aug. 6, 2014. Therefore, the infringement is willful, according to the suits.

Gonzalez is seeking monetary damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief the court deems just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

M. Scott Fuller, Paul D. Lein and Darrian L. Campbell of Locke Lord LLP in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

More News