Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

Jan. 26 

Z-Dimensional LLC v Alcon Americas Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00065

Z-Dimensional LLC v Artec Group Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00066

Plaintiff Z-Dimensional is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Allen. The company president is Daniel F. Perez.

Z-Dimensional is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,729,530 issued June 1, 2010, for a Method and Apparatus for 3-D Data Input to a Personal Computer with a Multimedia Oriented Operating System.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, expense, interest, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff’s counsel is Ronald W. Burns of Frisco.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

 

DataCarriers LLC v AGL Resources Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00068

DataCarriers LLC v Alliant Energy Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00069

DataCarriers LLC v Chesapeake Energy Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00070

DataCarriers LLC v Chevron Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00071

DataCarriers LLC v Cimarex Energy Co. Case No. 2:15-cv-00072

DataCarriers LLC v Dominion Resources Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00073

DataCarriers LLC v DTE Energy Co. Case No. 2:15-cv-00074

DataCarriers LLC v Edison International Case No. 2:15-cv-00075

DataCarriers LLC v Enbridge Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00076

DataCarriers LLC v EOG Resources Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00077

DataCarriers LLC v Exelon Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00078

DataCarriers LLC v FirstEnergy Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00079

DataCarriers LLC v Hess Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00080

DataCarriers LLC v Holly Frontier Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00081

DataCarriers LLC v The AES Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00067

Plaintiff DataCarriers is a Texas limited liability company based in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,388,198 issued Feb. 7, 1995, for a Proactive Presentation of Automating Features to a Computer User.

Defendants allegedly infringe the ‘198 Patent through products and services that automatically intervene in the use of a computer system to suggest or present features of certain electronic devices, including smartphones, and software loaded onto and used on such devices.

DataCarriers is seeking compensatory damages, interest and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Austin Hansley and Brandon LaPray of Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas.

The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

 

Adrain v Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd and Subaru of America Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00082

Plaintiff John B. Adrain is the inventor of and owns the entire right, title and interest in the patent at issue in this case.

The patent-at-suit is U.S. Patent No. 5,831,669 issued Nov. 3, 1998, for a Facility Monitoring System with Image Memory and Correlation. A Reexamination Certificate was issued Aug. 21, 2012, and second Reexamination Certificate was issued June 16, 2014.

According to the suit, Subaru makes and sells vehicles equipped with monitoring systems that include components such as a movably mounted digital camera that outputs digital image data, computer equipment that processes and stores various image data and an output interface (such as on the vehicle dashboard) for reporting results of comparisons of image data. Allegedly infringing products include the Subaru Legacy, Outback, Forrester and Impreza vehicles with a system identified as “EyeSight.”

EyeSight utilizes two digital cameras mounted near the front windshield, which determine if the vehicle is approaching another vehicle ahead too quickly. EyeSight will alert the driver and may even automatically apply the brakes to help avoid a collision.

Plaintiff Adrain is seeking permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper.

A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff’s counsel is John T. Polasek and C. Dale Quisenberry of Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire; Otis W. Carroll and Deborah Race of Ireland Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler; S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth DeRieux and Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater; and Russell R. Smith of Fairchild Price Haley & Smith LLP in Nacogdoches.

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

 

 

Trover Group Inc. et al v Cube Video Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00085

Trover Group Inc. et al v Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al Case No. 2:15-cv-00086

Trover Group Inc. et al v Say Security Group USA Case No. 2:15-cv-00087

Trover Group Inc. et al v T.S. MicroTech Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00088

Trover Group Inc. et al v Unix CCTV Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00094

Trover Group Inc. et al v Vitek Industrial Video Products Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00095

Trover Group Inc. et al v WatchNet Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00096

Plaintiff Trover Group is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano. Trover was formerly known as Dozier Financial Corp.

Defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,751,345 and U.S. Patent No. 5,751,346 issued May 12, 1998, for an Image Retention and Information Security Sytem.

According to the complaints, the ‘345 Patent relates generally to video monitoring systems that store and retrieve images and related transaction data by the use of computer equipment and digital storage. The ‘346 Patent relates generally to video monitoring systems that store images based on the detection of changes in the pixilation between images.

The ‘345 and ‘346 Patents were originally assigned to Dozier Financial Corp., a company owned by Charles Dozier, one of the named inventors of both patents, and his family. Dozier later changed its name to Trover Group.

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

The plaintiff’s counsel is Steven N. Williams, Kenneth P. Kula and William Z. Duffy of McDole Williams PC of Dallas.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

 

Jan. 28

Coqui Technologies LLC v Best Buy Co. Inc. et al Case No. 2:15-cv-00090

Coqui Technologies LLC v Cabela’s Inc. Case No. 2:15-cv-00092

Coqui Technologies LLC v Kohl’s Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00093

Coqui Technologies LLC v Starbucks Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00089

Coqui Technologies LLC v Target Corp. Case No. 2:15-cv-00091

Plaintiff Coqui Technologies is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in McKinney.

According to the complaints, Coqui is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,580,864 issued Aug. 25, 2009, for a Method for Circulating an Electronic Gift Certificate in Online and Offline System.

Defendants allegedly infringe the ‘864 Patent through their retail gift certificate service systems.

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

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

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III.

 

TYLER DIVISION

Jan. 28

Landmark Technology LLC v Assurant Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00076

Plaintiff Landmark Technology is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tyler, Texas.

According to the suit, defendant Assurant is in the business of selling and providing insurance services and derives a significant portion of its revenue from orders place through and information transmitted using at least, but not limited to, its iOS-compatible mobile application available for download from the Apple App Store and related servers.

The defendant is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951 issued Nov. 19, 1996, for an Automated Sales and Services System. An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, No. US 5,576,951 C1 was issued on Jan. 29, 2008, confirming the validity of all 10 original claims and allowing 22 additional claims.

The suit states that the ‘951 Patent relates to a “computer search system for retrieving information” and a “computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services.”

The Assurant app and related servers are computer search systems for retrieving information” and “computerized systems for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services,” the suit states.

Plaintiff Landmark also alleges that the infringement was willful, wanton and deliberate and without license and with full knowledge of the ‘951 Patent, thereby making this an exceptional case entitling plaintiff to attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages.

The plaintiff is seeking a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction against Assurant, destruction or other disposition of all infringing products, a reasonable royalty, costs, interest and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Charles Ainsworth and Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth in Tyler.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Love for pretrial proceedings.