Marshall Division

Nov. 4

  • Grand Overseas Inc. v. Dollar General Corp. and Family Dollar Inc.

    Plaintiff Grand Overseas is a California corporation.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. D590,583 issued April 21, 2009, for Sandal and U.S. Patent No. D591,034 issued April 28, 2009, for Strap For A Sandal And The Like.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for a permanent injunction and for an award of damages, royalties, costs, expenses, interest and attorney's fees.

    Carl R. Roth, Brendan C. Roth and Amanda A. Abraham of The Roth Law Firm in Marshall represent the plaintiff.

    A jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00468

    Tyler Division

    Oct. 31

  • SmartPhone Technologies v. AT&T Inc. et al

    SmartPhone is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Frisco, Texas.

    The defendants are AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility, HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,976,217 for Method and Apparatus for Integrating Phone and PDA User Interface in a Single Processor;
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,466,236 for System and Method for Displaying and Manipulating Multiple Calendars on a Personal Digital Assistant;
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,928,300 for Method and Apparatus for Automated Flexible Configuring of Notifications and Activation; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,956,562 for Method for Controlling a Handheld Computer by Entering Commands onto A Displayed Feature of the Handheld Computer.

    SmartPhone is represented by Edward R. Nelson III and Christie B. Lindsey of Nelson Bumgardner Casto P.C. in Fort Worth; Anthony G. Simon and Timothy E. Grochocinski of The Simon Law Firm P.C. in St. Louis, Mo.; and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

    A jury trial is requested.

    The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages, royalty, costs and interest.

    U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00561

    Nov. 1

  • VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.

    Plaintiff VirnetX is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Scotts Valley, Calif.

    Apple Inc. is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 issued Nov. 1, 2011,for Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network.

    VirnetX is asking the court to issue a permanent injunction preventing the defendant from further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, costs, interest, enhanced damages and attorney's fees.

    A jury trial is requested.

    The plaintiff is represented by Sam Baxter of McKool Smith in Marshall; Douglas A. Cawley, Luke F. McLeroy, Bradley W. Caldwell and Jason D. Cassady of McKool Smith in Dallas; and Robert M. Parker and Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth P.C. in Tyler.

    U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00563

  • UltimatePointer v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., et al

    Plaintiff UltimatePointer is a Delaware limited liability company.

    The defendants are Nintendo Co. Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc., JJ Games, GameStop Corp., Best Buy Co. Inc., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Target Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, Sam's East Inc., Sam's West Inc., Radioshack Corp., Toys R Us Inc., Dell Inc., QVC Inc., Trans World Entertainment Corp., BJ's Wholesale Club Inc., PC Connection Inc., CompUsa.com Inc. and Tiger Direct Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,049,729 issued Nov. 1, 2011, for Easily Deployable Interactive Direct-Pointing System and Presentation Control System and Calibration Method Therefor.

    UlimatePointer is seeking damages including a reasonably royalty, interest and court costs. A jury trial is requested.

    The plaintiff is represented by Gregory L. Maag, Charles J. Rogers and Thomas L. Warden of Conley Rose in Houston.

    U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00571

  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co Case No. 6:11-cv-00564-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. 8x8 Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00565-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. ACN Digital Phone Service Case No. 6:11-cv-00566-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. ALTEVA Case No. 6:11-cv-00567-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Altigen Communications Case No. 6:11-cv-00568-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Aptela Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00569-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Bandwidth.com Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00570-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Bright House Networks Case No. 6:11-cv-00572-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. CBeyond Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00573-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Clearwire Communications Case No. 6:11-cv-00574-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. The Broadvox Holding Co. Case No. 6:11-cv-00575-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. EarthLink Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00576-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Fonality Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00577-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Interactive Intelligence Group Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00578-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Nextiva Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00579-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. NVO Holdings Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00580-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Phone.com Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00581-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Smoothstone IP Communications CorpCase No. 6:11-cv-00582-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Telesphere Networks Ltd. Case No. 6:11-cv-00583-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Voice Carrier IncCase No. 6:11-cv-00584-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. 3CX Ltd. Case No. 6:11-cv-00585-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Accessline Communications Corp. Case No. 6:11-cv-00586-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Apptix Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00587-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. AudioCodes Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00589-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. CallWave Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00590-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. M5 Networks Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00591-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Schmooze Com Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00592-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Taridium Case No. 6:11-cv-00593-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. IXC Inc Case No. 6:11-cv-00594-LED
  • Klausner Technologies Inc. v. Zultys Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-00595-LED

    Plaintiff Klausner Technologies is a New York corporation.

    The defendants are Hewlett-Packard Co., 8x8 Inc., ACN Digital Phone Service, ALTEVA, Altigen, Aptela Inc., Bandwidth.com Inc., Bright House, CBeyond Inc, Clearwire, The Broadvox Holding Co., EarthLink Inc., Fonality Inc., Interactive Intelligence Group Inc., Nextiva Inc., NVO Holdings Inc., Phone.com Inc., Smoothstone IP Communications Corp.,Telesphere Networks Ltd.,Voice Carrier Inc., 3CX Ltd, Accessline Communications, Apptix Inc., AudioCodes Inc., CallWave Inc., M5 Networks Inc., Schmooze Com Inc., Taridium, IXC Inc. and Zultys Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,572,576 issued Nov. 5, 1996, for Telephone Answering Device Linking Displayed Data with Recorded Audio Message.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of compensatory damages, court costs, attorney's fees and interest. A jury trial is requested.

    A jury trial is requested.

    S. Calvin Capshaw III, Elizabeth DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux in Gladewater represent Klausner Technologies.

    U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the cases.

  • More News