Rothschild Location Technologies LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc. 6:15-cv-00682
Rothschild Location Technologies LLC v. Iler Group, Inc. 6:15-cv-00683
Rothschild Location Technologies LLC v. Vantage Point Mapping, Inc. 6:15-cv-00684
Rothschild Location Technologies LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber 6:15-cv-00685
Plaintiff Rothschild is based in Plano.
Rothschild alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 8,606,503 (the “’503 Patent”) entitled “Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device.”
The ‘503 Patent was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 10, 2013. Leigh M. Rothschild is listed as the inventor on the ’503 Patent.
Attorney Nao Hi of the law firm Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC in Dallas is representing the complainant.
Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP
Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al 2:15-cv-01275-JRG-RSP
Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. et al 2:15-cv-01276-JRG-RSP
Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al 2:15-cv-01277-JRG-RSP
Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al 2:15-cv-01278-JRG-RSP
Marshall-based Blitzsafe Texas is the complainant.
At issue of the litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,489,786 (the “’786 Patent”) entitled “Audio Device Integration System” and 8,155,342 (the “’342 Patent”) entitled “Multimedia Device Integration System.”
Blitzsafe Texas is represented by attorney Alfred Ross Fabricant of the law firm Brown Rudnick in New York.
CDR Printing LLC v. Target Corporation 2:15-cv-01279-JRG-RSP
CDR Printing LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. 2:15-cv-01280-JRG-RSP
CDR Printing LLC v Time Warner Cable, Inc. 2:15-cv-01281-JRG-RSP
CDR Printing LLC v. Starbucks Corporation 2:15-cv-01282-JRG-RSP
Plaintiff Austin-based CDR Printing is pursuing legal action to stop infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,271,929 (“the ’929 Patent”) titled “System and Method for Integrated Printing and Assembly of Electronic Documents.”
The ‘929 Patent was issued on September 18, 2007.
Attorney Hao Ni of the law firm Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC in Dallas is representing CDR Printing.
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. eClinicalWorks, LLC 6:15-cv-00687
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Pulse Systems, Inc. 6:15-cv-00688
Plaintiffs Uniloc USA and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. seek to stop infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,682,526 (“the ’526 patent”) and 5,715,451 (“the ’451 patent”).
The companies are represented by attorneys Brett Aaron Mangrum, Ryan Scott Loveless and James L. Etheridge.
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al 6:15-cv-00690
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. SK Hynix, Inc. et al 6:15-cv-00691
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated 6:15-cv-00692
DSS Technology Management is the plaintiff.
The company asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 (“the ’552 Patent”), titled “Structure Having Reduced Lateral Plug Erosion,” which was issued to James E. Nulty and Christopher J. Petti on August 31, 2004.
Attorney Derek Tod Gilliland of the law firm Nix Patterson & Roach LLP in Daingerfield is representing the complainant.