Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

Jan. 5

Hall Data Sync Technologies LLC v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00006 

Hall Data Sync Technologies LLC v Box Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00002

Hall Data Sync Technologies LLC v Dropbox Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00003

Hall Data Sync Technologies LLC v Google Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00004

Hall Data Sync Technologies LLC v SugarSync Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00005

Plaintiff Hall Data Sync Technologies (HDST) is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.

According to the suit, HDST is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,539,401 issued March 25, 2003, for System for Facilitating Home Construction and Sales; and U.S. Patent No. 7,685,506 issued March 23, 2010, for a System and Method for Synchronizing Data Between a Plurality of Databases.

Defendants allegedly infringes the patents by making, using and selling apparatuses and systems for the iCloud for iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Mac and Windows PC that provide a method for synchronizing information among a plurality of databases, retrieving information altering the data stored in one database, determining which portion of data has been altered, transferring only the altered portion of the data to the other databases and modifying the other databases based on the altered portion of the data.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

HDST is represented by Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang, Neal G. Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

Eclipse IP LLC v Kuehne & Nagel Inc. Case No. 2:15-00007

Eclipse IP LLC v Skye Associates LLC Case No. 2:15-cv-00008

Eclipse IP LLC v Stila Styles LLC Case No. 2:15-cv-00009

Plaintiff Eclipse IP is a Florida limited liability company based in Boynton Beach, Fla.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,876,239 issued Jan. 25, 2011, for a Secure Notification Messaging System and Method Using Authentication Indicia; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,479,899 issued Jan. 20, 2009, for a Notification System and Method Enabling a Response to Cause Connection Between a Notified PCD and a Delivery or Pickup Representative.

According to the suits, the defendants have had knowledge of the patents since Eclipse IP sent them a letter, but the defendants have “not changed or modified” their “infringing behavior.”

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

The plaintiff is represented by Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of the Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano; and Matt Olavi and Brian Dunne of Olavi Dunne LLP in Los Angeles, Calif.

 

Jan. 8

Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCT Mobile Ltd. and TCT Mobile (US) Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00011

Plaintiff Ericsson is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Plano. Plaintiff Telefonakitiebolaget LM Ericsson is a Swedish corporation based in Stockholm.

According to the suit, Ericcson owns a valuable portfolio of patents that are globally used to implement mobile telecommunication standards in cellular handsets, smartphones, tablet computers, televisions and many other electronic devices.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,418,310 issued July 9, 2002, for a Wireless Subscriber Terminal Using Java Control Code;

U.S. Patent No. 6,029,052 issued Feb. 22, 2000, for a Multiple-Mode Direct Conversion Receiver;

U.S. Patent No. RE43,931 issued Jan. 15, 2013, for Radiotelephones Having Contact-Sensitive User Interfaces and Methods of Operating Same;

U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510 issued Dec. 12, 2006, for a Security Access Manager in Middleware; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,535,815 issued March 18, 2003, for a Position Updating Method for a Mobile Terminal Equipped with a Positioning Receiver.

Ericsson claims it placed TCL on actual notice of the patents in October 2014.

Allegedly infringing products include Alcatel’s OneTouch Fierce and OneTouch Evolve.

Ericsson is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, a permanent injunction and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiff is represented by lead attorney Theodore Stevenson III and other attorneys from McKool Smith in Dallas, Marshall and Austin.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

ThinkTank One Research LLC v Promark International Inc., Dot Line Corp. and The Camera Shop Case No. 2:15-cv-00012

Plaintiff ThinkTank is Texas company based in Plano.

According to the suit, the founders of ThinkTank are pioneering designers of lighting equipment used in the motion picture, video and still photographic industries and have been awarded multiple innovation honors, including the prestigious Emmy Award for the Light Emitting Diode based technologies.

Unfortunately, the suit states, ThinkTank’s founders/inventors have also experienced widespread unauthorized use of their patented LED photographic lighting inventions.

Defendants are accused of infringing Think Tank’s U.S. Patent No. 8,299,726 issued Oct. 30, 2012, for an Omni Voltage Direct Current Power Supply.

ThinkTank is seeking compensatory damages, a permanent injunction, interest and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Frederick G. Michaud of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Washington, D.C., and S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

DigiLabel v Normark Corp. et al Case No. 2:15-cv-00014

Plaintiff PetAware LLC is doing business as DigiLabel, a Texas limited liability company based in Dallas.

Defendants are Normark Corp., doing business as Rapala USA, a Minnesota corporation, and Rapala VMC Corp., a Finnish corporation.

According to the complaint, Rapala designs, sells and markets fishing, hunting and sporting goods equipment through about 100 retail shops in the Eastern District and its interactive store at www.rapala.com.

The patents in suit are U.S. Patent No. 8,249,919 and U.S. Patent No. 8,050,964. The patents are directed to unique and novel digital product labels.

Defendants’ allegedly infringing products include the Rapala Ultimate Fisherman’s Combo.

DigiLabel is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiffs are represented by S. Calvin Capshaw and Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater; and Joseph G. Pia of Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss in Southlake.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.