Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

John Suayan Mar. 28, 2016, 9:10am


MARSHALL DIVISION

March 23

Quest NetTech Corporation v. Artix Entertainment LLC 2:16-cv-00250

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Budget Travel, LLC 2:16-cv-00251

Quest NetTech Corporation v. Emerald Expositions LLC 2:16-cv-00252

Quest NetTech Corporation v. Enervex, Inc. 2:16-cv-00253

Quest NetTech Corporation v. Enterplay LLC 2:16-cv-00254

Quest NetTech Corporation v. The Garden Shows Production Company Inc. 2:16-cv-00255

Quest NetTech Corporation v. Hannaford Bros. Co. LLC 2:16-cv-00256

Quest NetTech Corporation v. hhgregg, Inc. 2:16-cv-00258

Quest NetTech Corporation v. Madavor Media LLC 2:16-cv-00259

Quest NetTech Corporation v. ZAM Network LLC 2:16-cv-00260

Court papers list Quest as the plaintiff.

The company seeks to stop alleged infringement of United States Patent Number 5,508,731 C1 entitled “Generation of Enlarged Participatory Broadcast Audience.”

It is pursuing unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.

Attorneys Deron R. Dacus, Shannon Dacus and Pete Kerr of the law firm The Dacus Firm, P.C. in Tyler serve as Quest’s counsel.

March 24

Creative Technology Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al 2:16-cv-00262

Creative Technology Ltd. v. Sony Corporation et al 2:16-cv-00263

Creative Technology Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al 2:16-cv-00264

Creative Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al 2:16-cv-00265

Creative Technology Ltd. v. Lenovo Group Ltd. et al 2:16-cv-00266

Creative Technology Ltd. v. HTC Corporation et al 2:16-cv-00267

Creative Technology Ltd. v. Blackberry Ltd. et al 2:16-cv-00268

The plaintiff Creative is based in Singapore.

It has pursued legal action in response to alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433.

Per court documents, the subject patent was issued to Creative on Aug. 9, 2005, and its associated inventions “have now become ubiquitous in the industry.”

Creative seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.

Attorney S. Calvin Capshaw of the law firm Capshaw Derieux LLP in Gladewater is representing the complainant.

March 25

Better Mouse Company, LLC v. Etekcity Corporation 2:16-cv-00270

Better Mouse Company, LLC v. Kworld (USA) Computer, Inc., d/b/a Gamdias 2:16-cv-00271

Better Mouse Company, LLC v. PC Gear Head, LLC, d/b/a Gear Head 2:16-cv-00272

Tyler-based Better Mouse is the plaintiff.

It asserts ownership of U.S. Patent No. 7,532,200, which is entitled “Apparatus for Setting Multi-Stage Displacement Resolution of a Mouse.”

“The ‘200 patent generally covers certain computer mice and other similar devices that have the ability to change resolutions through one or more toggles or switches on the exterior of the mouse, without using a software driver or tool that is external to the mouse,” according to court documents.

Better Mouse seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.

Attorneys Larry D. Thompson, Jr., Matthew J. Antonelli and Zachariah S. Harrington of the law firm Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP and Stafford Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm, PC in Tyler serve as the complainant’s counsel.

More News