Marshall Division

March 19

  • Patent Group v. Aramark Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00141
  • Patent Group v. Benjamin Moore & Co. Case No. 2:12-cv-00143
  • Patent Group v. Global Custom Commerce d/b/a Blinds.com Case No. 2:12-cv-00144
  • Patent Group v. Crayola Case No. 2:12-cv-00145
  • Patent Group v. El Fenix Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00146

    Patent Group is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tyler.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,603,490 B1 issued Aug. 5, 2003, for Web Site Screen Rotation.

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

    Patent Group is represented by John F. Walker, Reid WM. Martin and Marisa Schouten of Martin Walker P.C. in Tyler; and Stafford Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm in Tyler.

    March 21

  • InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Roku Inc.
  • InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Netflix Inc.

    InMotion Imagery is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.

    InMotion Imagery accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,574,416 issued June 3, 2003, for Picture-Based Video Indexing System.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from continued acts of infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees.

    InMotion Imagery is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm in Longview and Douglas L. Bridges of Heninger Garrison Davis in Mobile, Ala., and Jacqueline K. Burt in Heninger Garrison Davis in Atlanta, Ga.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00150; 2:12-cv-00151

    March 23

  • Advanced Processor Technologies v. Atmel Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00152
  • Advanced Processor Technologies v. Conexant Systems Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00153
  • Advanced Processor Technologies v. Creative Technology Ltd. et al. Case No. 2:12-cv-00154
  • Advanced Processor Technologies v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00155
  • Advanced Processor Technologies v. Mindspeed Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00156
  • Advanced Processor Technologies v. NVIDIA Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00157
  • Advanced Processor Technologies v. Xilinix Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00158

    The plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Frisco.

    The defendants are Atmel Corp., Conexant Systems Inc., Creative Technology Ltd., ZiiLabs Pte Ltd., Creative Labs Inc., Marvell Semiconductor Inc., Mindspeed Technologies Inc., NVIDIA and Xilinix Inc.

    Defendant Atmel Corp. is accused of infringing on:
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,796,978 issued Aug. 18, 1998, for Data Processor Having an Address Translation Buffer Operable With Variable Page Sizes;
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,047,354 issued April 4, 2000, for Data Processor For Implementing Virtual Pages Using a Cache and Register; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,629,207 issued Sept. 30, 2003, for Method for Loading Instructions or Data Into a Locked Way of a Cache Memory.

    Defendant Conexant Systems Inc. is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,629,207 issued Sept. 30, 2003, for Method for Loading Instructions or Data Into a Locked Way of a Cache Memory.

    Defendants Creative Technology Inc., ZiiLabs Pte Ltd. and Creative Labs Inc. are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. '978, '354, '207 and U.S. Patent No. 6,092,172 issued on July 18, 2000, for Data Processor and Data Processing System Having Two Translation Lookaside Buffers.

    Defendant Marvell Semiconductor Inc. and Mindspeed Technologies Inc. are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. '207 and '172.

    Defendant NVIDIA and Xilinx are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. '978, '354 and '172.

    Advanced Processor Technologies is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, no less than a reasonable royalty.

    The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm P.C. in Longview; and David M. Farnum, Ralph P. Albrecht and Cameron H. Tousi of Albrecht Tousi & Farnum of Washington, D.C.

    Sherman Division

    March 22

  • Titanide Ventures v. Box Inc. Case No. 4:12-cv-00160
  • Titanide Ventures v. Google Inc. Case No. 4:12-cv-00161
  • Titanide Ventures v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 4:12-cv-00162
    Titanide Ventures v. Yahoo! Inc. Case No. 4:12-cv-00163

    Titanide Ventures is a limited liability corporation with a principle place of business in Longview.

    The defendants are Box Inc., Google Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and Yahoo! Co.

    The patents at issue include:
  • U.S. Patent Number 6,714,968 issued March 30, 2004, for Method and System for Seamless Access to a Remote Storage Server Utilizing Multiple Access Interfaces Executing on the Remote Server;
  • U.S. Patent Number 6,735,623 issued May 11, 2004, for Method and System for Accessing a Remote Storage Area; and
  • U.S. Patent Number 6,952,724 issued Oct. 5, 2005, for Network-Based Remote Data Storage System Having Multiple Access Interfaces.

    Defendant Box and Google are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. '968, '623 and '724. Defendants Hewlett-Packard and Yahoo are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. '968 and '623.

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

    Titanide Ventures is represented by Christopher D. Banys and Daniel W. Bedell of The Lanier Law Firm P.C. in Palo Alto, Calif.; W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston; and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

    Jury trial is requested.

    Tyler Division

    March 19

  • Landmark Technology v. Pier 1 Imports 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 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-00159

  • Lone Star Document Management v. Case Central Inc.
  • Lone Star Document Management v. Trial Solutions of Texas
  • Lone Star Document Management v. Catalyst Repository Systems Inc.
  • Lone Star Document Management v. CAP Digisoft Solutions Inc.

    Lone Star Document Management is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office located in Plano.

    The defendants are Case Central Inc., Trial Solutions of Texas and Catalyst Repository Systems Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,918,082 issued Dec. 17, 1998, for Electronic Document Proofing System.

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

    Lone Star Document Management is represented by Steven N. Williams, Kenneth P. Kula and Kristen Knauf of McDole Kennedy & Williams PC in Dallas.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case Nos. 6:12-cv-00160; 6:12-cv-00163, 6:12-cv-00164; 6:12-cv-00196

  • Klausner Technologies v. Centrepoint Technologies Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00161
  • Klausner Technologies v. Hullomail Ltd. Case No. 6:12-cv-00162
  • Klausner Technologies v. Primal Technologies Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00165
  • Klausner Technologies v. ADTRAN Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00166
  • Klausner Technologies v. Airespring Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00167
  • Klausner Technologies v. Applied Voice & Speech Technologies Case No. 6:12-cv-00168
  • Klausner Technologies v. Callware Technologies Inc.Case No. 6:12-cv-00169
  • Klausner Technologies v. NTCH-Colorado Case No. 6:12-cv-00170
  • Klausner Technologies v. Cloud Telecomputers Case No. 6:12-cv-00171
  • Klausner Technologies v. Donoma Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00172
  • Klausner Technologies v. Estech Systems Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00173
  • Klausner Technologies v. Halloo Communications Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00174
  • Klausner Technologies v. Mutare Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00175
  • Klausner Technologies v. Ringobon Case No. 6:12-cv-00176
  • Klausner Technologies v. Tango Networks Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00177
  • Klausner Technologies v. Eastman Kodak Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00178
  • Klausner Technologies v. Teo Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00179
  • Klausner Technologies v. United States Cellular Case No. 6:12-cv-00180
  • Klausner Technologies v. Viatalk Case No. 6:12-cv-00181
  • Klausner Technologies v. VoiceRite Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00182
  • Klausner Technologies v. VOIPo Case No. 6:12-cv-00183
  • Klausner Technologies v. Voxernet Case No. 6:12-cv-00184
  • Klausner Technologies v. Zeacom Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00185

    Plaintiff Klausner Technologies is a New York corporation.

    The defendants are Centrepoint Technologies Inc., Hullomail Ltd., Primal Technologies Inc., ADTRAN Inc., Applied Voice & Speech Technologies Inc., Callware Technologies Inc., NTCH-Colorado, Cloud Telecomputers, Donoma Inc., Estech Systems Inc., Halloo Communications Inc., Mutare Inc., Ringobon, Tango Networks Inc., Teo Inc., United States Cellular Corp., Viatalk, VoiceRite, VOIPo, Voxernet, and Zeacom Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on 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.

    Klausner Technologies is represented by S. Calvin Capshaw III, Elizabeth DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux in Gladewater; and Gregory S. Dovel and Sean A. Luner of Dovel & Luner in Santa Monica, Calif.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    March 23

  • MacroSolve Inc. v. Bank of America Corp. et al
  • MacroSolve Inc. v. MovieTickets.com Inc.

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

    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-00193; 6:12-cv-00194

  • Allergan Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Watson Pharma Inc.

    Allergan is a corporation with a principal place of business in Irvine, Calif. Allergan operates a facility in Waco, Texas, where it manufactures and distributes numerous pharmaceutical products, including Lumigan.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,851,504 B2 issued Dec. 14, 2010, for Enhanced Bimatoprost Ophthalmic Solution and U.S. Patent No. 5,688,819 issued Nov. 18, 1997, for Cyclopentane Heptanoic Acid, 2-Cycloalkyl or Arylalkyl Derivatives as Therapeutic Agents.

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

    Allergan is represented by Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview; W. Chad Shear, Jonathan E. Singer and Juanita R. Brooks of Fish & Richardson P.C.; and Jeffrey T. Thomas of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in Irvine, Calif.

    A jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00197

  • More News