By JOHN SUAYAN
MARSHALL DIVISION
June 1
Graham Springs LLC v. Advanced Media Corporation d/b/a 48hourprint.com 2:15-cv-00900-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. 123Print, Inc. 2:15-cv-00901-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. Adorama Pix LLC 2:15-cv-00902-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. Beaucoup Wedding Favors, Inc. 2:15-cv-00903-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. BlueCotton, Inc. 2:15-cv-00904-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. CafePress Inc. 2:15-cv-00905-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. CanvasPop LLC 2:15-cv-00908-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corporation 2:15-cv-00909-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. CustomInk, LLC 2:15-cv-00910-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. BEL USA, LLC d/b/a DiscountMugs.com 2:15-cv-00911-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc. 2:15-cv-00912-JRG-RSP
Graham Springs LLC v. Printograph, Inc. d/b/a GotPrint.com 2:15-cv-00913-JRG-RSP
Plano-based plaintiff Graham Springs LLC pursues legal action in response to alleged patent infringement of United States Patent No. 5,524,085 entitled “Multimedia Job Tickets for Printing Machines”.
The plaintiff claims ownership by assignment of “the ‘085 patent”, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 4, 1996 after full and fair examination.
Attorney Austin Hansley of Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.
June 2
FastVDO LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al 2:15-cv-00921-RWS-RSP
FastVDO LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al 2:15-cv-00922-RWS-RSP
FastVDO LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al 2:15-cv-00923-RWS-RSP
FastVDO LLC v. NEC Corporation et al 2:15-cv-00924-RWS-RSP
FastVDO LLC v. Nokia Corporation et al 2:15-cv-00925-RWS-RSP
FastVDO LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al 2:15-cv-00926-RWS-RSP
FastVDO LLC is a Melbourne, Fla.-based company.
The plaintiff is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (the “’482 patent”), entitled “Error Resilient Method and Apparatus for Entropy Coding”, which was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Dec. 15, 1998. Since then, the ’482 patent has been cited in at least 127 other U.S. patents or patent applications.
The ’482 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for compressing and decompressing data by entropy encoding and decoding. More particularly, the ’482 patent provides, for example, improved error-resilient methods and apparatuses for encoding and decoding that utilize unequal error protection techniques.
The Tyler law firm Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. is representing the plaintiff.
June 3
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc. 2:15-cv-00927-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. 2:15-cv-00928-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. 2:15-cv-00929-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. 2:15-cv-00930-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Cyberoam Inc. et al 2:15-cv-00931-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Dell Inc. 2:15-cv-00932-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. D-Link Systems, Inc. 2:15-cv-00933-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. F5 NETWORKS, INC. 2:15-cv-00934-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc. 2:15-cv-00935-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company 2:15-cv-00936-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Hillstone Networks Corp. 2:15-cv-00937-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Huawei Technologies USA Inc et al 2:15-cv-00938-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. McAfee, Inc. 2:15-cv-00939-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Netgear, Inc. 2:15-cv-00940-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 2:15-cv-00941-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Panda Distribution, Inc. 2:15-cv-00942-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Rohde & Schwarz USA, Inc. 2:15-cv-00943-JRG-RSP
Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 2:15-cv-00944-JRG-RSP
Longview-based Verifire Network Solutions, LLC complains of infringement of United States Patent No. 8,463,727 (the “‘727 Patent”).
The plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘727 Patent with sole rights to enforce the ‘727 Patent and sue infringers. The ‘727 Patent is valid and enforceable, and it was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.
The Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano is representing the plaintiff.