Marshall Division

May 15

  • Rotatable Technologies v. Apple Inc. et al

    Rotatable Technologies is a limited liability company with a principle place of business in Austin.

    The defendants are Apple Inc., Callvine Inc., Electronics Arts Inc., Netflix Inc., Quickoffice Inc., Target Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,326,978 issued Dec. 4, 2001, for Display Method for Selectively Rotating Windows on a Computer Display.

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

    Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Law Firm in Dallas are representing Rotatable Technologies.

    A jury trial is requested.

    Case No. 2:12-cv-0029

    May 17

  • Eclipse IP v. Dick's Sporting Goods Inc.

    Eclipse is a Florida company with its principal address in Delray Beach, Fla.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,479,899 issued for Notification Systems and Methods Enabling a Response to Cause Connection Between a Notified PCD and a Delivery or Pickup Representative;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,876,239 issued for Secure Notification Messaging Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,319,414 issued for Secure Notification Messaging Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,482,952 issued for Response Systems and Methods for Notification Systems for Modifying Future Notifications; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,119,716 issued for Response Systems and Methods for Notification Systems for Modifying Future Notifications.

    Eclipse is asking for an award of damages and interest.

    The plaintiff is represented by Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith in Marshall. A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00294

  • InMotion Imagery Technologies v. ASUS Computer International Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00295
  • InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Buffalo Technology (USA) Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00296
  • InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Fujitsu America Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00297
  • InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Imation Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00298
  • InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00299

    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. 6,526,219 issued Feb. 25, 2003, for Picture-Based Video Indexing System and U.S. Patent No. 8,150,239 issued 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.

    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., are representing the plaintiff.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Panagene Inc. et al. v. Bio-Synthesis Inc.

    The plaintiffs are Panagene Inc., Dorte Buchardt, Michael Egholm, Peter E. Nielsen and Rolf H. Berg.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,395,474 issued May 28, 2002, for Peptide Nucleic Acids and U.S. Patent No. 7, 378, 485 issued May 27, 2008, for Peptide Nucleic Acids with Polyamide-Containing Backbones.

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

    Panagene is represented by Edward W. Goldstein, Holly H. Barnes and Califf T. Cooper of Goldstein & Lipski in Houston.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00301

    Tyler Division

    May 16

  • U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A. Inc. et al
  • U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Sharp Electronics Corp.

    U.S. Ethernet Innovations is Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler.

    The defendants are Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A. Inc., Konica Minolta Holdings U.S.A. Inc. and Sharp Electronics Corp.

    The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,732,094 issued March 24, 1998, for Method for Automatic Initiation of Data Transmission; U.S. Patent No. 5,434,872 issued July 18, 1995, for Apparatus for Automatic Initiation of Data Transmission; and U.S. Patent No. 5,299,313 issued  March 29, 1994, for Network Interface with Host Independent Buffer Management.

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

    USEI is represented by T. John Ward Jr. and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview and Ryan K. Walsh, Peter M. Jones and David L. Gann of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in Atlanta, Ga.

    A jury trial is requested.

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00329; 6:12-cv-00330

    May 17

  • Landmark Technology v. DSW 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. 7,010,508 issued March 7, 2006, for Automated Multimedia Data Processing Network; and U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319 issued Sept. 11, 2001, for Automated Business and Financial Transaction Processing System.

    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.

    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., are representing Landmark Technology.  

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00337

    Lufkin Division

    May 18

  • Swipe Innovations v. TechTrex USA Inc. Case No. 9:12-cv-00073
  • Swipe Innovations v. TransFirst Holdings Inc. Case No. 9:12-cv-00074
  • Swipe Innovations v. WorldPay US Inc. Case No. 9:12-cv-00075

    Plaintiff Swipe Innovations is a limited liability company formed with a principal place of business in Houston.

    The defendants are TechTrex USA Inc., TransFirst Holdings Inc. and WorldPay US Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,351,296 issued Sept. 27, 1994, for Financial Transmission System.

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

    Larry D. Thompson Jr., Matthew J. Antonelli and Zachariah S. Harrington of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston and Stafford Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm in Tyler are representing the plaintiff.

    A jury trial is requested.

  • More News