MARSHALL DIVISION

Nov. 10 

Cedatech Holdinsg LLC v Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-01023

Cedatech Holdings LLC v LG Electronics USA Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-01024

Plaintiff Cedatech is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.

Defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,707,591 issued April 27, 2010, for an Integration of Audio or Video Program with Application Program.

Allegedly infringing products include the HP 10 tablet and the LG G Flex smartphone, which use an audio speech recognition program providing input into any separate application program.

Cedatech is seeking compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and further relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Frank M. Washko of Tiburon Intellectual Property PLLC in San Francisco, Calif., and Allen S. Wan of Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

 

Nov. 11

Lyssa Networks LLC v VeriCheck Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01025

Plaintiff Lyssa Networks is a Texas limited liability company based in Allen. Its president is Daniel F. Perez.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,899,234 issued March 1, 2011, for a Check Verification System; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,041,099 issued Oct. 18, 2011, for a Check Verification System.

The defendant’s allegedly infringing products include the Automated Clearinghouse Systems, VeriCheck Remote Deposit Capture systems, VeriCheck Check Guarantee Program and electronic check conversion systems.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against defendant, compensatory damages, enhanced damages, costs, interest, expenses, attorneys’ fees and all other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Ronald W. Burns of Frisco.

 

Nov. 11

Optical Tech IP v Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01026

Optical Tech IP v Cisco Systems Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01027

Optical Tech IP LLC v Juniper Networks Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01029

Plaintiff Optical Tech is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,747,172 issued June 29, 2010, for an Optical Communication System Having Enhanced Spectral Efficiency Using Electronic Signal Processing.

Allegedly infringing products include the Alcatel-Lucent 1830 Photonic Service Switch, Cisco ONS 15454 Multiservice Transport Platform and Juniper PTX5000 Packet Transport Routers.

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

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

 

Nov. 12

Freeny et al v Actiontec Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-0103

Freeny et al v Adtran Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01033

Freeny et al v Aruba Networks Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01031

Freeny et al v Edimax Computer Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-01034

Freeny et al v Fortinet Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01035

Freeny et al v Netis Systems USA Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-01036

Freeny et al v WatchGuard Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01037

Freeny et al v ZyXEL Communications Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01038

The plaintiffs are Charles C. Freeny III, Bryan E. Freeny and James P. Freeny. They are individuals residing in Texas.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,110,744 issued Sept. 19, 2006, for Communication and Proximity Authorization Systems. The named inventor of the ‘744 Patent is Charles C. Freeny Jr., deceased. The plaintiffs are the sons of Charles C Freeny Jr. and owners and assignees of the ‘744 Patent.

Defendants allegedly infringe the ‘744 Patent through their networking products.

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

Christopher D. Banys of Banys PC in Palo Alto, Calif., is lead attorney for the plaintiffs, with Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview as local counsel.

 

Nov. 13

Uniloc USA Inc. et al v Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-01040

Plaintiffs are Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA. Uniloc USA is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948 for a System and Method for Initiating a Conference Call;

U.S. Patent No. 7,853,000 for a System and Method for Initiating a Conference Call; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,571,194 for a System and Method for Initiating a Conference Call.

Uniloc is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, interest and other relief the court may deem just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Scott R. Maynard of Maynard Law Group in Irvine, Calif., and James L. Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group PLLC in Southlake.

 

Nov. 14

Concinnitas LLC and George W. Hindman v Cradlepoint Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01045

Concinnitas LLC and George W. Hindman v D-Link Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-01043

Concinnitas LLC and George W. Hindman v HTC America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01050

Concinnitas LLC and George W. Hindman v LG Electronics USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01049

Concinnitas LLC and George W. Hindman v Sapido Technology Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01048

Concinnitas LLC and George W. Hindman v Zoom Telephonics Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-010147

Plaintiff Concinnitas is a Texas limited liability company based in Marshall. Plaintiff George W. Hindman is an individual residing in Texas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,805,542 issued Sept. 28, 2010, for a Mobile United Attached in a Mobile Environment that Fully Restricts Access to Data Received via Wireless Signal to a Separate Computer in the Mobile Environment. George W. Hindman is the inventor of the ‘542 Patent and the owner by assignment.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, a permanent injunction against defendants, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief the court may deem just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hao Ni, Timothy Wang, Neal G. Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas.

 

Nov. 14

Z-Image LLC v Advanced Avionics Inc., dba Laser Blast Case No. 2:14-cv-01044

Plaintiff Z-Image is a Colorado corporation based in Firestone, Colo.

According to the complaint, Z-Image licenses its intellectual property to Funovation Inc. and others who manufacture and market high quality laser mazes.

The defendant is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,663,091 issued Feb. 16, 2010, for a Laser Controller. On Sept. 27, 2011, the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ‘091 Patent.

The complaint states that Laser Blast sells its laser mazes to Creative Works Inc., doing business as Lazer Frenzy, which are resold as Lazer Frenzy, Single Maze Package and Dueling Maze Package.

Z-Image is asking the court to rule that Laser Blast’s lser mazes and controllers infringe the ‘091 Patent, grant a preliminary and/or permanent injunction, award compensatory damages, award treble damages, award costs and attorneys’ fees and award Z-Image any other relief deemed equitable, just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Alper Ertas of Arent Fox LLP in San Francisco, Calif., is representing the plaintiff. Anthony W. Shaw and Taniel E. Anderson of Arent Fox LLP in Washington, D.C., are of counsel.

 

Nov. 14

Telenit Technologies LLC v Glu Mobile Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01052

Telenit Technologies LLC v SNK Playmore Corp. et al Case No. 214-cv-01053

Plaintiff Telinit Technologies is a Texas corporation based in Marshall.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,016,942 issued March 21, 2006, for Dynamic Hosting.

The invention claimed in the ‘942 Patent includes a computer-implemented method for channeling data through a network from an initial server or client connection to direct communication between two client computers.

Allegedly infringing products include Eternity Warriors 2 and Metal Slug Defense, which use a real-time multiplayer API to connect multiple players in a single game session and transfer data messages between connected players.

Telinit is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, interest, costs, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview is representing the plaintiff. Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola of Ferraiuoli LLC in San Juan, Puerto Rico, is of counsel.

 

More News