Marshall Division

March 26

  • Cassidian Communications Inc. v. microDATA Gis Inc.

    Cassidian is a corporation with its principal place of business in Temecula, Calif.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,744,858 issued on June 1, 2004. The '858 patent describes a system and method for routing incoming calls through the use of a central data manager over a wide area network to multiple call centers having multiple remote terminals.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages for lost profits, reasonable royalties, unjust enrichment and benefits, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, court costs and interest.

    Henry C. Bunsow, Denise M. De Mory and Matthew F. Greinert of Dewey & Leboeuf in San Francisco, Calif.; and S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw Derieux in Gladewater are representing Cassidian.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00162

  • Semiconductor Technologies v. Micron Technology Inc. et al

    Semiconductor Technologies is a California limited liability company with a place of business in Newport Beach, Calif.

    The defendants are Micron Technology Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products Inc.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on: U.S. Patent No. 6,828,242 issued Dec. 7, 2004; U.S. Patent No. 7,224,034 issued May 29, 2007; U.S. Patent No. 7,417,291 issued Aug. 26, 2008; and U.S. Patent No. 7,687,849 issued March 30, 2010, for Method for Manufacturing Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Device; and U.S. Patent No. 7,492,661 issued Feb. 17, 2009, for Command Generating Circuit and Semiconductor Memory Device Having the Same.

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

    Henry M. Pogorzelski, Michael J. Collins, and John J. Edmonds of Collins, Edmonds & Pogorzelski in Houston are representing the plaintiff.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00163

    March 27

  • Ameranth Inc. v. Par Technology Corp. et al

    Plaintiff Ameranth Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego, Calif.

    The defendants are Par Technology Corp. and ParTech Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent 8,146,077 issued March 27, 2012, for Information Management and Synchronous Communications System with Menu Generation, and Handwriting and Voice Modification of Orders.

    Ameranth claims the defendants are infringing on synchronization of wireless/web/fixed hospitality software technology.

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

    Ameranth is represented by Michael C. Smith of Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith in Marshall; John W. Osborne of Osborne Law in Cortlandt Manor, N.Y.; William J. Caldarelli of Caldarelli Hejmanowski & Page LLP in San Diego, Calif.; Michael D. Fabiano of Fabiano Law Firm in San Diego, Calif.; and Ethan M. Watts of Watts Law Offices in San Diego, Calif.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00164

    Sherman Division

    March 27

  • Commercial Recovery Corp. v Rising Data Texas d/b/a Burt Associates

    Commercial Recovery is a corporation with its principal place of business in Blaine, Minn.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,167,839 issued Jan. 23, 2007, for Collection Agency Data Access Method.

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

    Commercial Recovery is represented by John H. Crouch IV of Kilgore & Kilgore in Dallas; Charles N. Nauen and Gregory J. Myers of Lockridge Grindal Nauen in Minneapolis, Minn., and Shawn M. Perry of Perry & Perry in Minneapolis, Minn.

    A jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge Ron Clark is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 4:12-cv-00173

    Tyler Division

    March 28

  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Acer Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00200
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Brother Industries Ltd et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00201
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Canon Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00202
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Dane Elec Corp. USA et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00203
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Dell Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00204
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Falcon Northwest Computer Systems Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00205
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Fujitsu Limited et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00206
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. HiTi Digital Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00207
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00208
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Jasco Products Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00209
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co. Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00210
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Lexar Media Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00211
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Microdia Ltd. Case No. 6:12-cv-00212
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Newegg Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00213
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Sabrent Case No. 6:12-cv-00214
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00215
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Seiko Epson Corp. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00216
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Shuttle Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00217
  • Technology Properties Ltd. v. Systemax Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00218

    Plaintiff Technology Properties Ltd. is a California limited liability company with a principal place of business in Cupertino, Calif.

    The defendants are Acer Inc., Acer America, Brother Industries Ltd, Brother International Corp., Canon U.S.A. Inc., Canon Inc., Dane Elec Corp. USA, Dane Elec Memory, Dell Inc., Falcon Northwest Computer Systems Inc., Fujitsu America, Inc., Fujitsu Limited, HiTi Digital America Inc., HiTi Digital Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Jasco Products Co., Kingston Technology Co. Inc., Lexar Media Inc., Micron Technology Inc., Microdia Limited, Newegg Inc., Rosewill Inc., Sabrent, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics USA Inc., Epson America Inc., Seiko Epson Corp., Shuttle Computer Group Inc., Shuttle Inc. and Systemax Inc.

    The patents in suit include:
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,976,623 issued Dec. 20, 2005, for Flash Juke Box;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,162,549 issued Jan. 9, 2007, for Multimode Controller For Intelligent And 'Dumb' Flash Cards;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,295,443 issued Nov. 13, 2007, for Smartconnect Universal Flash Media Card Adapters;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,522,424 issued April 21, 2009, for Smartconnect Universal Flash Media Card Adapters;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,719,847 issued May 18, 2010, for Smartconnect Flash Card Adapter; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,438,638 issued Aug. 20, 2002, for Flashtoaster for Reading Several Types of Flash-Memory Cards with or without a PC.

    Technology Properties Ltd. is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, post-judgment royalty, attorney's fees, court costs and interest.

    Anthony G. Simon and Michael P. Kella of The Simon Law Firm in St. Louis, Mo., are representing the plaintiff.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    March 30

  • Unifi Scientific Batteries v. HTC Corp. et al
  • Unifi Scientific Batteries v. Research in Motion Corp. et al
  • Unifi Scientific Batteries v. Sony Mobile Communications AB et al
  • Unifi Scientific Batteries v. Nokia Siemens Networks US et al

    Plaintiff USB is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

    The defendants are Texas Instruments Inc., HTC Corp., HTC B.V.I., HTC America Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Research in Motion Corp., Research In Motion Ltd., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Technologies Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., Barnesandnoble.com, Texas Instruments Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Nokia Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks US.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,791,298 for Monolithic Battery Charging Device.

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

    USB is represented by Timothy E. Grochocinski in Innovalaw P.C. in Orland Park, Ill.; Anthony G. Simon, Michael P. Kella of The Simon Law Firm P.C. in St. Louis, Mo.; and Craig Tadlock of Tadlock Law Firm in Irving.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00221, 6:12-cv-00223, 6:12-cv-00224, 6:12-cv-00225

  • Landmark Technology v. LA-Z-BOY 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 E. Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00226

  • Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al v. Texas Instruments Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00227
  • Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al v. SolarWinds Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00228
  • Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al v. Ipswitch Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00229
  • Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al v. Rosetta Stone Ltd. Case No. 6:12-cv-00230
  • Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al v. StorageCraft Technology Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00232
  • Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al v. Telerik Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00233

    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 Texas Instruments Inc., SolarWinds Inc., Ipswitch Inc., Rosetta Stone Ltd., SorageCraft Technology and Telerik Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,024,696 issued for Method and System for Prevention of Piracy of a Given Software Application Via a Communications Network.

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

    Barry J. Bumgardner and Steven W. Hartsell of Nelson Bumbardner Castro P.C. in Fort Worth; James L. Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group in Southlake; T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview; and Eric M. Alrbitton of Albritton Law Firm in Longview are representing the plaintiff.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

  • More News