Marshall Division

Feb. 23

  • Parallel Networks LLC vs. Orbitz Worldwide Inc.

    Plaintiff Parallel Networks, a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Dallas, is filing an infringement suit regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,894,554 and 6,415,335 B1 issued April 13, 1999, and July 2, 2002, respectively. The two patents concern systems and methods for managing dynamic Web page generation requests.

    This case is related to, and involves the same patents involved in the following actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division: Parallel Networks LLC v. Netflix Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-562-DF; Parallel Networks LLC v. Priceline.com Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-45-DF; Parallel Networks, LLC v. Saks Inc., Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-367-DF.

    This case is related to, and involves the same patents involved in the following prior actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division: epicRealm Licensing LLC v. Autoflex Leasing Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 5:07-cv-125-DF-CMC; epicRealm Licensing LLC v. Franklin Covey Co. et al., Civil Action No. 5:07-cv-126-DF; and epicRealm Licensing LP v. Various Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 5:07-cv-135-DF-CMC.

    According to this complaint, defendant Orbitz makes or uses systems and methods for managing dynamic Web page generation requests within the scope of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit.

    Parallel Networks alleges that Orbitz has continued its infringing activities despite receiving notice of the patents when Parallel Networks sued its subsidiary Orbitz LLC in Parallel Networks LLC vs. Priceline.com Inc. et al, Case No. 2:08-cv-45-DF in Marshall.

    The plaintiff claims it is therefore entitled to increased damages for willful infringement.

    A jury trial is demanded.

    Parallel Networks is seeking compensatory and increased damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, a permanent injunction against Orbitz and other relief deemed just and proper.

    Joseph Grinstein and Max Tribble of Susman Godfrey LLP in Houston and Daniel Shih and Genevieve Vose of Susman Godfreay in Seattle are representing the plaintiff.

    Attorneys from Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler and Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Longview are also representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been asigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.

    Case No. 2:10-cv-00059-DF

    Tyler Division

    Feb. 17

  • Klaustech Inc. vs. AdMob Inc.

    Plaintiff Klaustech was organized in Nevada and has its principal location in Plano, Texas. It claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,128,651 issued Oct. 3, 2000, for an Internet Advertising with Controlled and Timed Display of Ad Content from Centralized System Controller.

    The '651 Patent deals generally with non-scrolling ad displays lodged in a Web site that cause browsers hitting the Web site to undertake centrally controlled and recorded ad display for guaranteed minimum timed intervals.

    Klaustech alleges defendant AdMob infringes the '651 patent because it makes, uses, supplies or sells a nonscrolling ad display in a Web site, such as AdMob's iPhone application advertising.

    The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages for allegedly willful infringement, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and other just and proper relief.

    A jury trial is demanded.

    Jonathan T. Suder and Erick S. Robinson of Friedman, Suder & Cooke in Fort Worth are representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:10-cv-00039-LED

  • Innovative Global Systems LLC vs. Teletrac Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Innovative Global Systems claims to own the rights to five patents relating to used by and sold to vehicle fleets that permit data communication associated with a vehicle to be transmitted between the vehicle and a remote data communication terminal so that various operating characteristics of the vehicle can be used, observed and/or monitored.

    The patents-in-suit are:

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,608,554 issued Aug. 19, 2003, for an Apparatus and Method for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal.

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,411,203 issued June 25, 2002, for an Apparatus and Method for Data Communication Between Heavy Duty Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal.

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,744,352 issued June 1, 2004, for a System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, Between Portions of Vehicle and Other Portions of Vehicle, Between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network.

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,015,800 issued March 21, 2006, for a System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, Between Portions of Vehicle and Other Portions of Vehicle, Between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network.

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,449,993 issued Nov. 11, 2008, for a System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, Between Portions of Vehicle and Other Portions of Vehicle, Between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network.

    IGS alleges defendants Teletrac, Digi International, WebTech Wireless Inc., WebTech Wireless USA Inc. and Mix Telematics North Americab are infringing the patents-in-suit because they make, use, supply or sell data communication devices for at least the heavy duty trucking industry that allow for wireless communication of data associated with a vehicle between the vehicle and a remote location.

    IGS is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from infringement, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and other just and proper relief.

    A jury trial is demanded.

    Michael T. Cooke and other attorneys from Friedman, Suder & Cooke in Fort Worth and attorneys from Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP in Houston are representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:10-cv-00040-LED

  • More News