Marshall Division

June 20

  • Gellyfish Technology of Texas LLC v. Snaptracs Inc. et al

    GellyFish Technology is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Marshall.

    The defendants are Snaptracs Inc. and Qualcomm Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,067,018 issued May 23, 2000, for Lost Pet Notification System.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses and interest.

    A jury trial is requested.

    GellyFish Technology is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm in Longview and Scott C. Harris of Law Office of Scott C. Harris in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.

    Case No. 2:12-cv-00353

    June 20

  • InNova Patent Licensing v. American Greetings Case No. 2:12-cv-00354
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. AT&T Inc.  Case No. 2:12-cv-00355
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Axway Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00356
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Barracuda Networks Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00357
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Cloudmark Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00358
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Comcast Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00359
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. CA Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00360
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Cox Communications Case No. 2:12-cv-00361
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. eBay Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00362
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Facebook Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00363
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Earthlink Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00364
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Fidelity National Information Services Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00365
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Ipswitch Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00366
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. LinkedIn Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00367
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Lycos Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00368
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Message Systems Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00369
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00370
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. NetSuite Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00371
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Paypal Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00372
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Roger Communications Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00373
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. StrongMail Systems Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00374
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Total Defense Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00375
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. Trend Micro Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00376
  • InNova Patent Licensing v. TrustSphere Case No. 2:12-cv-00377

    InNova Patent Licensing LLC is a limited liability company with a principal place of business in Longview.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761 issued Jan. 25, 2000, for System for Adding to Electronic Mail Messages Information Obtained from Sources External to the Electronic Mail Transport Process.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, interest and court costs.

    Christopher D. Banys, Daniel W. Bedell, Carmen A. Aviles and Daniel M. Shafer of The Lanier Law Firm P.C. in Palo Alto, Calif.; and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview are represnting InNova Patent Licensing.

    A jury trial is requested.

    June 21

  • Kickapoo Run v. CureMD.com Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00378
  • Kickapoo Run v. Infomc Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00379
  • Kickapoo Run v. Nextgen Healthcare Information Systems Case No. 2:12-cv-00380
  • Kickapoo Run v. Vision InfoNet Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00381

    Kickapoo Run is a Florida limited liability company having a principal place of business in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

    The defendants are accused of U.S. Patent No. 5,961,332 issued Oct. 5, 1999, for Apparatus for Processing Psychological Data and Method of Use Thereof.

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

    Austin Hansley of Austin Hansley Law Firm in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

    A jury trial is requested.

    Sherman Division

    June 19

  • Maxim Integrated Products Inc. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co.

    Maxim is a Delaware corporation with a place of business in Sunnyvale, Calif.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 issued Aug. 17, 1999, for Transfer of Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module;
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880 issued Sept. 7, 1999, for Transfer of Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module;
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013 issued Aug. 15, 2000, for Method, Apparatus, System and Firmware for Secure Transactions; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,237,095 issued May 22, 2001, for Apparatus for Transfer of Secure Information Between a Data Carrying Module and an Electronic Device.

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

    A jury trial is requested.

    Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law P.C. in Longview; James C. Otteson, Philip Marsh and Michael Nguyen of Agility IP Law in Menlo Park, Calif.; and Michael North of North Weber & Baugh in Palo Alto, Calif., are representing Maxim.

    U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 4:12-cv-00369

    Tyler Division

    June 18

  • FutureVision.com v. Time Warner Cable Inc. et al

    FutureVision is a Pennsylvania limited liability company, which is headquartered in Malvern, Penn.

    The defendants are Time Warner Cable Inc., Time Warner Cable LLC, Cequel Communications LLC dba Suddenlink Communications, Comcast of Houston LLC, Comcast Cable Communications LLC and Charter Communications LLC.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,877,755, issued on March 2, 1999, for Interactive Broadband Multimedia System.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for an award of damages, including an ongoing royalty for infringement and for an award of interest, court costs and attorney's fees.

    Eric M. Albritton, Stephen E. Edwards and Michael A. Benefield of Albritton Law Firm in Longview; and Andrew G. DiNovo and Jay D. Ellwanger of DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP in Austin are representing FutureVision.

    A jury trial is requested.

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00386

  • MacroSolve Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00384
  • MacroSolve Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.  Case No. 6:12-cv-00385

    June 19
  • MacroSolve Inc. v. JetBlue Airways Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00387
  • MacroSolve Inc. v. Kayak Software Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00388
  • MacroSolve Inc. v. Cumulus Media Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00389

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

    The defendants are JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., LinkedIn Corp., JetBlue Airways Corp., Kayak Software Corp. and Cumulus Media Inc.

    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. A jury trial is requested.

    Matthew J. Antonelli, Zachariah S. Harrington, Larry D. Thompson Jr. and Kris Y. Teng of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston are representing the plaintiff.

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

    June 21

  • Powerline Innovations v. Alpha Networks Inc.

    Powerline Innovations is a limited liability company with a principal place of business in Plano.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,471,190 issued Nov. 28, 1995, for Method and Apparatus for Resource Allocation in a Communication Network System.

    The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages, treble damages, interest, attorney's fees, and court costs.

    Powerline Innovations is represented by Hao Ni and Stevenson Moore of Ni Law Firm in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

    Case No. 6:12-cv-00396

  • More News