Marshall Division

Feb. 29

  • ArcticDx Inc. et al v. Sequenom Inc. et al

    The plaintiffs are ArcticDx Inc., ArcticAx Inc. and ArcticAx US Ltd.

    ArcticDx is a privately held company incorporated in Canada. ArcticAx and Arctic Ax US are wholly owned subsidiaries of ArcticDx.

    The defendants are Sequenom Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,114,592 issued Feb. 14, 2012, relating to Sequenom's RetnaGene product.

    The plaintiffs are asking the court for a declaration that its Macula Risk product and Arctic's activities do not infringe any valid claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,053,190; U.S. Patent No. 7,867,727; U.S. Patent No. 7,695,909; U.S. Patent No. 7,351,524; or U.S. Patent No. 8,088,579.

    The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further infringement of the '592 patent and for an award of damages, treble damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest.

    Jason W. Cook of Alston & Bird in Dallas; Thomas J. Parker and Deepro R. Mukerjee of Alston & Bird in New York, N.Y.; and John W. Cox of Alston & Bird in Atlanta, Ga.; are representing ArcticDx.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00081

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

    VoltStar Technologies Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Schaumberg, Ill.

    The defendants are AT&T Inc., AT&T Operations Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services Inc. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,910,833 issued March 22, 2011, for Energy-Saving Power Adapter/Charger and U.S. Patent No. 7,960,648 issued June 14, 2011, for Energy Saving Cable Assemblies.

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

    VoltStar Technologies is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law P.C. in Longview and Steven J. Mitby of Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. in Houston.

    U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00082

    Tyler Division

    Feb. 27

  • MacroSolve Inc. v. AOL Inc.

    MacroSolve v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp. and Six Continents Hotels Inc.

    MacroSolve is an Oklahoma corporation with a principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816 issued for Oct. 26, 2010, for System and Method for Data Management.

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

    MacroSolve is represented by Matthew J. Antonelli, Zachariah S. Harrington, Larry D. Thompson, Jr. and Kris Y. Teng of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00091; 6:12-cv-00092

  • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Inmagine Corp. et al
  • Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Revostock Inc. et al

    Uniloc USA Inc. is a Texas corporation having a principal place of business in Irvine, Calif. Uniloc Singapore Private Ltd. is a Singapore corporation.

    The defendants are Inmagine Corp. LLC d/b/a Inmagine.com d/b/a Photosubscribe.com d/b/a Imagehit.com d/b/a Inspirestock Inc. d/b/a Inspirestock.com and 123RF Ltd. d/b/a 123RF USA Ltd. d/b/a 123RF.com d/b/a 123Royaltyfree.com d/b/a 123RF.net, Revostock Inc. d/b/a Revostock.com and V.R. Media Resources Inc. d/b/a Revolution Stock Media.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,099,849 issued Feb. 6, 1996, for Integrated Media Management and Rights Distribution Apparatus.

    Uniloc is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further infringing on the '849 patent and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, attorney's fees and interest.

    Andrew P. Tower, Michael J. Collins and Johnathan K. Yazdani of Collins, Edmonds, Pogorzelski, Schlather & Tower in Houston; James L. Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group in Southlake; and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview are representing the plaintiffs.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00093; 6:12-cv-00094

  • Ceats Inc. v. Expedia Inc.

    Ceats Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Tyler.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,454,361 B1 issued Nov. 18, 2008, for Individual Seat Selection Ticketing and Reservation System;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,548,866 B2 issued June 16, 2009, for Individual Seat Selection Ticketing and Reservation System;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,548,870 B2 issued June 16, 2009, for System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,660,728 B2 issued Feb. 9, 2010, for a System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,660,729 B2 issued Feb. 9, 2010, for System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats issued Feb. 16, 2010; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,664,663 B2 issued Feb. 16, 2010, for System and Method for Displaying Airline Seats.

    Ceats is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, attorney's fees and interest.

    J. Thad Heartfield and M. Dru Montgomery of The Heartfield Law Firm in Beaumont are representing the plaintiff.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00097

    Feb. 29

  • Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple Inc.

    Core Wireless is a Luxembourg corporation.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,792,277 issued Sept. 14, 2004, for Arranging Control Signallings In Telecommunications System;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,606,910 issued Oct. 20, 2009, for Method For Indicating A UE That It Must Register;
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,697,347 issued Feb. 24, 2004, for Method And Apparatus For Controlling Transmission Of Packets In A Wireless Communication System;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,447,181 Nov. 4, 2008, for Method And Apparatus For Improving A Mobile Station Cell Change Operation In The General Packet Radio System (GPRS);
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,788,959 issued Sept. 7, 2004, for Method And Apparatus For Transmitting And Receiving Dynamic Configuration Parameters In A Third Generation Cellular Telephone Network;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,529,271 issued May 5, 2009, for Method And System For Controlling Data Transmission With Connection States;
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,266,321 July 24, 2001, for Method For Transmitting Two Parallel Channels Using Code Division And An Apparatus Realizing The Method; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,978,143 issued Dec. 20, 2005 for Method And Arrangement For Managing Packet Data Transfer In A Cellular System.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for an award of damages, enhanced damages, future royalty, attorney's fees and court costs.

    T. John Ward Jr. and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview; Henry Bunsow, Aldo A. Badini and Brian A.E. Smith of Dewey & Leboeuf in San Francisco, Calif.; and Denise M. De Mory and Craig Y. Allison of Dewey & Leboeuf in East Palo Alto, Calif., are representing the plaintiff.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00100

    March 2

  • Landmark Technology v. Shoe Carnival Inc.

    Landmark Technology is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tyler.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951 issued Nov. 19, 1996, for Automated Sales and Services System; U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319 issued Sept. 11, 2001, for Automated Business and Financial Transaction Processing System; and U.S. Patent No. 7,010,508 issued March 7, 2006, for Automated Multimedia Data Processing Network.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, reasonable royalty or lost profits, enhanced damages, court costs, attorney's fees and interest.

    Landmark Technology is represented by Charles Ainsworth and Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth P.C. in Tyler and Stanley M. Gibson and Gregory S. Cordey of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP in Los Angeles, Calif.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00108

  • More News