Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

TYLER DIVISION

Jan. 12 

Azure Networks LLC v Acer America Corp. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00018

Azure Networks LLC v Samsung TeleCommunictions America LLC et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00019

Azure Networks LLC v Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00020

Azure Networks LLC v Asus Computer International et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00021

Azure Networks LLC v Dell Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00022

Azure Networks LLC v Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 6:15-cv-00023

Azure Networks LLC v HTC Corp. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00024

Azure Networks LLC v LG Electronics MobileComm USA Inc. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00025

Azure Networks LLC v Panasonic Corp. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00026

Azure Networks LLC v Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00028

Azure Networks LLC v ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 6:25-cv-00029

Azure Networks LLC v Garmin International Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00030

Azure Networks LLC v Intel Corp. Case No. 6:15-cv-00031

Azure Networks LLC v Texas Instruments Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00032

Jan. 13

Azure Networks LLC v Broadcom Corp. Case No. 6:15-cv-00033

Azure Networks LLC v Qualcomm Inc. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00034

Azure Networks LLC v Marvell Semiconductor Inc. Case No. 6:25-cv-00035

Azure Networks LLC v CSR Plc et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00036

Azure Networks LLC v MediaTek Inc. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00037

Azure Networks LLC v ASUS Computer International et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00039

Azure Networks LLC v Dell Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00040

Azure Networks LLV v Vizio Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00048

Plaintiff Azure Networks is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,756,129 issued July 13, 2010, for a Personal Area Network with Automatic Attachment and Detachment;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,582,570 issued Nov. 12, 2013, for an Automatic Attachment and Detachment for Hub and Peripheral Devices;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,582,571 issued Nov. 12, 2013, for a Personal Area Network Apparatus;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,588,196 issued Nov. 19, 2013, for an Automatic Attachment and Detachment for Hub and Peripheral Devices;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,588,231 issued Nov. 19, 2013, for a Personal Area Network Apparatus;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,589,599 issued Nov. 19 ,2013, for an Automatic Attachment and Detachment for Hub and Peripheral Devices;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,675,590 issued March 18, 2014, for a Personal Area Network with Automatic Attachment and Detachment;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,683,092 issued March 25, 2014, for an Automatic Attachment and Detachment for Hub and Peripheral Devices; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,732,347 issued May 20, 2014, for an Automatic Attachment and Detachment for Hub and Peripheral Devices.

According to the complaints, the patents-in-suit are owned by third party Tri-County Excelsior Foundation, a Texas non-profit that serves as a supporting organization to Court Appointed Special Advocates of Harris County (CASA of Harris County). CASA provides trained, court-appointed volunteer advocates who serve as “the voice in court” for children who are victims of neglect or physical, sexual or emotional abuse.

Allegedly infringing products incorporate Wi-Fi Direct wireless technology.

Azure Networks claims that defendants had knowledge of the patents-in-suit because of previous litigation concerning other patents in the same patent family.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, enhanced damages for willful infringement and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Derek Gilliland of Nix Patterson & Roach LLP in Daingerfield is lead attorney for the plaintiff along with attorneys from the Albritton Law Firm in Longview.

 

Jan. 13

Adaptix Inc. v Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless and Sprint Spectrum LP Case No. 6:15-cv-00041

Adaptix Inc. v Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless and Sprint Spectrum LP Case No. 6:15-cv-00042

Plaintiff Adaptix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Plano.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,934,445 for a Multi-Carrier Communications With Cluster Configuration and Switching.

LTE cellular base stations, including without limitation the 9412 eNodeB Compact, the 9460 Pico, the 9926 Distributed Base Station, the 9442 Remote Radio Head, the light Radio 9711 Indoor Base Station for LTE, the lightRadio 9712 Outdoor Base Station for LTE, and 9760 Small Cells, including the 9764 Metro Cell Outdoor LTE and the 9768 Metro Radio Outdoor, for use on the 4G LTE Wireless Networks controlled by AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint,

Adaptix is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Paul J. Hayes and James J. Foster of Hayes Messina Gilman & Hayes LLC in Boston, Mass.; and Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm in Plano.

 

Jan. 13

Adaptix Inc. v AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC Case No. 6:15-cv-00043

Adaptix Inc. v Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Case No. 6:15-cv-00045

Adaptix Inc. v Sprint Spectrum LP Case No. 6:15-cv-00044

Plaintiff Adaptix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Plano.

Adaptix claims it is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,375 for OFDMA with Adaptive Subcarrier-Cluster Configuration and Selective Loading.

According to the suit, AT&T has infringed the ‘375 Patent by selling cellular communication devices including the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus for use on 4G LTE Wireless Networks.

Adaptix is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Paul J. Hayes and James J. Foster of Hayes Messina Gilman & Hayes LLC in Boston, Mass.; and Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm in Plano.

 

Jan. 15 

Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v Kyocera Corp. et al Case No. 6:15-cv-00049

Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.

Defendants are Kyocera Corp., Kyocera International Inc., Kyocera Communications Inc., AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corp., Sprint Solutions Inc., Sprint Spectrum LP, Boost Mobile LLC, T-Mobile USA Inc. and T-Moblie US Inc.

Plaintiff CCE claims to be the owner by assignment of:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 for a Method, Apparatus and Computer Program for Power Control Related to Random Access Procedures;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,868,060 for a Method, Network and Device for Information Provision by Using Paging and Cell Broadcast Services;

Allegedly infringing products include the Kyocera DuraForce, the Kyocera Hydro Icon, Kyocera Hydro Vibe, Kyocera Torque, Kyocera TorqueXT, Kyocera Hydro Xtrm, Kyocera Brigadier and Kyocera Hydro Elite.

According to the complaint, each defendant is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (or “3GPP”) member organization, or is affiliated with a 3GPP member organization. 3GPP solicits identification of standard essential patents, and, through 3GPP, Defendants received actual notice of the standard essential patents at issue here. The suit alleges defendants had knowledge of the patents since at least June 2011, when it was disclosed to 3GPP via the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, an organizational member of 3GPP.

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages no less than reasonable royalty, treble damages for willful infringement, interest and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Edward R. Nelson III of Nelson Bumgardner PC in Fort Worth is lead attorney for the plaintiff, along with attorneys from Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.