Marshall Division

March 16

  • MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc. v. Acer Inc. et al.

    The defendants are Acer Inc., Acer American Corp., Apple Inc., AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC., Cellco Partnership, Exedea Inc., Google Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc., Motorola Inc., Nokia Corp., Nokia Inc., Palm Inc., Qualcomm Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America LLC., Sprint Nextel Corp and Te.xas Instruments Inc.

    The plaintiff alleges the defendants are willfully infringing on several patents.

    The patents-in-suit are:

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,737,547 C1 issued April 7, 1998, for a System for Placing Entries of an Outstanding Processor Request into a Free Pool After the Request is Accepted by a Corresponding Peripheral Device,

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 issued April 21, 1998, for a General Purpose, Multiple Precision Parallel Operation Programmable Media Processor

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,794,061 C1 issued Aug. 11, 1998, for General Purpose, Multiple Precision Parallel Operation Programmable Media Processor,

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,812,299 C1 issued Sept. 2, 1998, for Non-Blocking Load Buffer and a Multiple Priority Memory System for Real-Time Multiprocessors,

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,006,318 C1 issued Dec. 21, 1999, for General Purpose, Dynamic Partitioning Programmable Media Processor,

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,427,190 issued July 30, 2002 and reissued as U.S. Patent No. RE 39,500E on Feb. 27, 2007for Configuring Cache Allowing Cache-Type and Buffer-Type Access,

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,725,356 C1 issued April 20, 2004, for a System with Wide Operand Architecture and Method,

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,213,131 B2 issued May 1, 2007, for a Programmable Processor and Method for Partitioned Group Element Selection Operation,

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,216,217 B2 issued May 8, 2007, for a Programmable Processor with Group Floating-Point Operations,

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,260,708 B2 issued Aug. 21, 2007, for a Programmable Processor and Method for Partitioned Group Shift,

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,353,367 B2 issued April 1, 2008, for a System and Software for Catenated Group Shift Instruction,

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,509,366 B2 issued March 24, 2009, for a Multiplier Array Processing System with Enhanced Utilization at Lower Precision,

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,652,806 B2 issued Jan. 26 for a Method and Apparatus for Performing Improved Group Floating-Point Operations,

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,660,972 B2 issued Feb. 9 for a Method and Software for Partitioned Floating-Point Multiply-Add Operation, and

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,660,973 B2 issued February 9, 2010 for System and Apparatus for Group Data Operations.

    The plaintiff is asking for enhanced damages, interest, post-judgment royalty and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Houston attorneys Stephen D. Susman, Max L. Tribble Jr., Joseph S. Grinstein of Susan Godfrey L.L.P and Longview attorney Sidney Calvin Capshaw of Capshaw Deriuex L.L.P are representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District T. John Ward.

    Case No. 2:10-cv-00091-TJW-CE

    March 17

  • Alexsam Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al

    Plaintiff Alexsam is a Texas company that licenses its patented technology relating to stored value card programs such as electronic gift card programs.

    The defendants are Best Buy Co. Inc., Best Buy Stores LP, Barnes & Noble Inc., Barnes & Noble Marketing Services Corp., The Gap Inc., Direct Consumer Services LLC, The Home Depot Inc., Home Depot Incentives Inc., McDonald's Corp., P2W Inc., NFP, Toys "R" Us Inc., and TRU-SVC LLC.

    The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 issued Dec. 14, 1999, and U.S. Patent No. 6,189,787 issued Feb. 20, 2001, for a Multifunction Card System.

    The defendants are accused of infringing the '608 and '787 patents by making, using or selling stored value cards and by using or making a system or method for conducting associated stored value card authorization.

    The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction enjoining defendants from continued infringement, an award of damages, treble damages, interest, court costs, and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Marshall attorney Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith L.L.P and Boulder, Colo., attorney Steven C. Schroer of Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery are representing the plaintiff. Other counsel includes Chicago attorneys Timothy P. Maloney, Alison A. Richards, Nicole L. Little and David A. Gosse of Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.

    Case No2:10-cv-00093-TJW-CE

    Tyler Division

    March 17

  • VirnetX Inc., vs. Microsoft Corporation

    Plaintiff VirnetX is a Delaware corporation.

    The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 issued Dec. 31,2002, for an Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System Availability and U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180 issued March 6, 2007, for a Method for Establishing Secure Communications Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network.

    The plaintiff believes the defendant is willfully infringing the patent.

    The plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages, supplemental damages, treble damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Dallas attorney Douglas A. Cawley and Marshall attorney Sam F. Baxter from the law firm of McKool Smith P.C. are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:10-cv-00094-LED

    March 18

  • Vertica Systems Inc. v. Sybase Inc.

    Vertica Systems is seeking a declaration that it does not infringe on any valid claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,794,228 for Database System with Buffer Manager Providing Per Page Native Data Compression and Decompression.

    The defendant has previously sued the plaintiff for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,794,229 under Cause No. 6:08-cv-24. On Nov. 9, 2009, the '229 Patent was ruled invalid and an opinion issued construing many of the claims. The court denied the defendant the ability to add the '228 Patent to the litigation. Sybase sued the plaintiff for infringing the '228 Patent in California on March 17.

    The plaintiff believes the California Court does not have the same familiarity with the issues and the case is better resolved in the Eastern Texas Court.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Dallas attorney Ralph Ritch Roberts III of Fish & Richardson P.C. is representing the plaintiff. Other counsel includes Boston attorney Steven R. Katz of Fish & Richardson P.C.

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

    Case No. 6:10-cv-00096-LED

    March 19

  • Lonestar Inventions L.P. v. NVIDIA Corporation

    Plaintiff Lonestar is a Texas limited partnership.

    The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,208,725 issued May 4, 1993, for High Capacitance Structure in a Semiconductor Device.

    The plaintiff believes the defendant is selling the patented invention claim.

    The plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Austin attorneys Kurt M. Sauer, Kevin L. Daffer, Aaron Pickell, and Stacy L. Zoern of Daffer McDaniel LLP is representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:10-cv-00103-LED

    March 19

  • Iplearn LLC. v. Learn.com Inc. et al

    A California limited liability company, Iplearn is a technology development and licensing company for web and computer based learning techniques.

    The defendants are Learn.com Inc., Certpoint Systems Inc., Meridian Knowledge Solutions LLC, NetDimensions Ltd., ND Services Inc., EmTRAIN, HRsmart and Perot Systems Corp.

    The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are infringing on the following patents-in-suit:

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,685,478 issued on Feb. 3, 2004, for Inexpensive Computer-Aided Learning Methods and Apparatus for Learners;

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,201,580 issued April 10, 2007, for Inexpensive Computer-Aided Learning Methodds and Apparatus for Learners;

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,398,556 issued June 4, 2002, for Inexpensive Computer-Aided Learning Methods and Apparatus for Learners;

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,213,780 issued on April 10, 2001, for Computer-Aided Learning and Counseling Methods and Apparatus for a Job;

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,118,973 issued on Sept. 12, 2000, and for Methods and Apparatus to Assess and Enhance a Student's Understanding in a Subject;

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,779,486 issued on July 14, 1998, for Methods and Apparatus to Assess and Enhance a Student's Understanding in a Subject;

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,688,888 for Computer-Aided Learning System and Method;

  • U.S. Patent No. RE38, 432 issued Feb. 24, 2004, for Computer-Aided Group Learning Methods and Systems;

  • U.S. Patent No. RE39,942 issued Dec. 18, 2007, for Computer-Aided Group Learning Methods and Systems and

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,967,793 issued Oct. 19, 1997, for Relationship-Based Computer-Aided-Educational System.

    The plaintiff is seeking an order enjoining defendants from continued direct infringement, an award of damages, interest, court costs, and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Palo Alto, Calif., attorneys Thomas Friel Jr. and Brian P. Wikner; and Broomfield, Colo., attorneys James P. Brogan, Wayne O. Stacy, Orion Armon, Eamonn Gardner and Thomas Croft, all of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:10-cv-00104-LED

    Lufkin Division

    March 16

  • Personal Audio LLC v. XM Satellite Radio Inc.

    Personal Audio is a Texas limited liability company.

    The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,199,076 issued March 6, 2001 for Audio Program Player Including a Dynamic Program Selection Controller and U.S. Patent No. 7,509,178 issued March 24, 2009, for Audio Program Distribution and Playback System.

    The patents have a common specification, filed on Oct. 2, 1996, described as a simplified player for mobile use. The specification also describes an audio player which automatically plays a predetermined schedule of audio program segments with control functions.

    The plaintiff is seeking an order enjoining defendants from continued infringement and if not, royalty payments, an order requiring the defendants to deliver infringing products for destruction, interests, costs and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Beaumont attorneys Lawrence Louis Germer and Charles W. Goehringer Jr. of Germer Gertz L.L.P are representing the plaintiffs.

    The case is related to ongoing litigation Personal Audio LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9:09cv111.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ron Clark.

    Case No. 9:10-cv-00035-RC

  • More News