Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

May 1

eDekka LLC v. Devanlay US, Inc. 2:15-cv-00583-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Discount Dance, LLC 2:15-cv-00584-JRG

eDekka LLC v. E Revolution Ventures, Inc.2:15-cv-00585-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Eforcity Corporation 2:15-cv-00586-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Eileen Fisher, Inc. 2:15-cv-00587-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Fathead, LLC 2:15-cv-00588-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Forever 21, Inc. 2:15-cv-00589-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Fredericks of Hollywood, Inc. 2:15-cv-00590-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Hallmark Cards 2:15-cv-00613-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Iherb, Inc. 2:15-cv-00614-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Heels, LLC 2:15-cv-00615-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. 2:15-cv-00616-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Hub Hobby Center, Inc. 2:15-cv-00617-JRG

Plaintiff is a Plano company.

The patent infringement actions seek to stop Defendants’ infringement of United

States Patent No. 6,266,674 (“the ‘674 patent”) entitled “Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels.”

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Dallas attorney Austin Hansley represents the plaintiff.

 

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Amazon.com 2:15-cv-00598-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. AT&T Mobility 2:15-cv-00602-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. BlackBerry Corporation 2:15-cv-00604-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Fujitsu America, Inc. et al 2:15-cv-00606-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. NEC Corporation of America 2:15-cv-00618-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Sharp Electronics 2:15-cv-00619-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Sonim Technologies, Inc. 2:15-cv-00620-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Sony Mobile 2:15-cv-00622-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. et al 2:15-cv-00623-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al 2:15-cv-00624-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Toshiba Corporation et al 2:15-cv-00625-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al 2:15-cv-00626-JRG-RSP

Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Panasonic Corporation et al 2:15-cv-00627-JRG-RSP

On Jan. 3, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,090,862 (“the 862 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention titled “Initiating An Alternative Channel For Receiving Streaming Content.”

Nonend is the owner of the 862 patent with all substantive rights in and to that patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the 862 patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew Antonelli, attorney for the Houston law firm Antonelli Harrington & Thompson.

 

May 8

eDekka LLC v. International Coffee & Tea, LLC 2:15-cv-00635-JRG

eDekka LLC v. R.C. Jenson, Inc. 2:15-cv-00636-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Jockey International, Inc. 2:15-cv-00637-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Giftports Inc. 2:15-cv-00638-JRG           filed

eDekka LLC v. Lafayette 148, Inc. 2:15-cv-00639-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Bike Bandit, LLC 2:15-cv-00640-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Overnightprints 2:15-cv-00641-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Nanal, Inc. 2:15-cv-00642-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Nomorerack.com Inc. 2:15-cv-00643-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Levenger Company 2:15-cv-00644-JRG

eDekka LLC v. Mrs. Fields Gifts, Inc. 2:15-cv-00645-JRG

Plaintiff is a Plano company.

The patent infringement actions seek to stop Defendants’ infringement of United

States Patent No. 6,266,674 (“the ‘674 patent”) entitled “Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels.”

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Dallas attorney Austin Hansley represents the plaintiff.

 

Loramax LLC v. 21st Century Insurance Group 2:15-cv-00647

Loramax LLC v. The Allstate Corporation 2:15-cv-00648

Loramax LLC v. American Century Proprietary Holdings Inc. 2:15-cv-00649

Plaintiff is a Beaumont company.

Plaintiff Loramax is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 5,513,126 (“the ’126 Patent”) titled “Network Having Selectively Accessible Recipient Prioritized Communication Channel Profiles.”

As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’126 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

The plaintiff is represented by Jaspal Hare, attorney for the Dallas law firm Scheef & Stone.