Southeast Texas Record

Thursday, April 9, 2020

Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

By David Yates | Feb 26, 2015


Feb. 23

Orostream LLC v. ABS-CBN International 2:15-cv-00248-JRG

Orostream LLC v. AOL Inc.2:15-cv-00249-JRG

Orostream LLC v. LLC 2:15-cv-00250-JRG

Orostream LLC v. Fox News Network 2:15-cv-00251-JRG

Orostream LLC v. Gaiam, Inc. 2:15-cv-00252-JRG

Orostream LLC v. Medianavico LLC 2:15-cv-00253-JRG

Orostream LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. 2:15-cv-00254-JRG

Orostream LLC v. NFL Enterprises LLC 2:15-cv-00255-JRG

Orostream LLC v. NHL Interactive Cyberenterprises 2:15-cv-00256-JRG

Orostream LLC v., LLC 2:15-cv-00257-JRG

Orostream LLC v. RLJ Entertainment, Inc. 2:15-cv-00258-JRG

Orostream LLC v. Target Corporation 2:15-cv-00259-JRG

Orostream LLC v. Vevo LLC 2:15-cv-00260-JRG

Orostream LLC v. WWE Inc. 2:15-cv-00261-JRG

Orostream LLC v. Zuffa, LLC 2:15-cv-00262-JRG

Plaintiff Orostream is a Plano company.

On Oct. 27, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,828,837 (“the ‘837 Patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘837 Patent is titled “Computer Network System and Method for Efficient Information Transfer.”

Chicago attorney David Bennett of Direction IP Law represents the plaintiff.


Feb. 24

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Skybridge Americas, Inc. 2:15-cv-00270-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Realtime Media, LLC 2:15-cv-00271-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. ProPac Marketing, Inc. 2:15-cv-00272-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Promotion Activators Management, LLC 2:15-cv-00273-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Marketing Drive, LLC 2:15-cv-00274-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. KFL Interactive, LLC 2:15-cv-00275-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Gage Marketing Group, LLC 2:15-cv-00276-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Exposure Marketing & Promotions, Inc. 2:15-cv-00277-RWS

Quest Nettech Corporation v. Nies/Aircraft, Inc. 2:15-cv-00278-RWS

On Oct. 7, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S.

Patent No. 5,508,731 C1 (“the ‘731 Patent”) entitled, “GENERATION OF ENLARGED


Tyler attorney Deron Dacus represents the plaintiff.


Feb. 26

Conversant Intellectual Property Management, Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al 2:15-cv-00281-JRG-RSP

Plaintiff is a Canadian company.

The infringement actions arise in connection with 15 United States patents, herein

“the Asserted Patents.” The Asserted Patents are United States Patent Nos. 6,223,331; 7,915,933; 7,940,081; 7,945,885; 7,982,532; 7,996,811; and 8,253,438 (collectively, the “Conversant IP Management Patents”); and United States Patent Nos. RE44,218; 5,796,675; 6,107,138; 6,209,056; 6,306,743; 6,313,029; 6,943,602; and 7,101,791 (collectively “the NB Patents”).

The plaintiff is represented in part by New York attorney Bryan Vogel.

Want to get notified whenever we write about Target Corporation ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Target Corporation, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Target Corporation