Marshall Division

Aug. 24

TQP Development v.  Pioneer Electronics (USA)

TQP Development is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.

TQP Development accuses the defendant of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730 issued May 2, 1995, for Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.

The defendant is accused of willful infringement of the ‘730 patent.

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

TQP Development is represented by Marc A. Fenster, Alex C. Giza, Adam S. Hoffman and Kevin Burke of Russ, August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif.; Hao Ni of Ni Law Firm in Dallas; and Andrew Spangler of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00508

 

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Constant  Contact Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00510

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Epsilon Data Management Case No. 2:12-cv-00511

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. ExactTarget Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00512

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Experian PLC et al. Case No. 2:12-cv-00513

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Responsys Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00514

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. StrongMail Systems Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00515

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Vocus Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00516

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Infogroup Inc. et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00517

The plaintiffs are RPost Holdings Inc., RPost Communications Ltd. and RMail Ltd.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

U.S. Patent No. 7,966,372 issued June 21, 2011, issued for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages;

U.S. Patent No. 8,161,104 issued April 17, 2012, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages;

U.S. Patent No. 8,209,389 issued June 26, 2012, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,224,913 issued July 17, 2012, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages.

The plaintiffs are asking for the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by Winston O. Huff of Navarro Huff in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Blue Calypso Inc. v. LivingSocial Inc.

Blue Calypso Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Dallas.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,664,516 issued Feb. 16, 2010, for Method and System for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices and U.S. Patent No. 8,155,679 issued April 10, 2012, for System and Method for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices.

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

Blue Calypso is represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gilliam & Smith in Marshall and W. Bryan Farney, Steven R. Daniels and Bryan D. Atkinson of Farney Daniels in Georgetown. A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-00518

 

Aug. 28

• Geotag Inc. v. American Greetings Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00520

• Geotag Inc. v. Hallmark Cards Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00521

• Geotag Inc. v. Hickory Farms Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00522

• Geotag Inc. v. Spencer Gifts Case No. 2:12-cv-00523

• Geotag Inc. v. International Coffee & Tea Case No. 2:12-cv-00524

• Geotag Inc. v. Things Remembered Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00525

• Geotag Inc. v. The Yankee Candle Company Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00526

• Geotag Inc. v. Bose Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00527

• Geotag Inc. v. Guitar Center Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00528

• Geotag Inc. v. Progressive Concepts Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00529

• Geotag Inc. v. 24 Hour Fitness Worldwide Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00530

• Geotag Inc. v. Bally Total Fitness Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00531

• Geotag Inc. v. Bare Escentuals Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00532

• Geotag Inc. v. BioScrip Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00533

• Geotag Inc. v. Crabtree & Evelyn Case No. 2:12-cv-00534

• Geotag Inc. v. Curves International Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00535

• Geotag Inc. v. Gold’s Gym International Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00536

• Geotag Inc. v. Great Clips Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00537

• Geotag Inc. v. L.A. Fitness International Case No. 2:12-cv-00538

• Geotag Inc. v. Life Time Fitness Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00539

• Geotag Inc. v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00540

• Geotag Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics Case No. 2:12-cv-00541

• Geotag Inc. v. Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00542

• Geotag Inc. v. Regis Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00543

• Geotag Inc. v. Sally Beauty Supply Case No. 2:12-cv-00544

• Geotag Inc. v. Sephora USA Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00545

• Geotag Inc. v. Toni & Guy USA Case No. 2:12-cv-00546

• Geotag Inc. v. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00547

• Geotag Inc. v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00548

• Geotag Inc. v. Eyemart Express Ltd. Case No. 2:12-cv-00549

• Geotag Inc. v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00550

• Geotag Inc. v. National Vision Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00551

• Geotag Inc. v. U.S. Vision Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00552

• Geotag Inc. v. Wild Birds Unlimited Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00553

• Geotag Inc. v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00554

• Geotag Inc. v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00555

• Geotag Inc. v. PSP Group Case No. 2:12-cv-00556

• Geotag Inc. v. Ritz Interactive Case No. 2:12-cv-00557

Geotag Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 issued on July 29, 1999, for Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information.

The plaintiff is asking the court for a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Hao Ni and Stevenson Moore of Ni Law Firm in Dallas and Christopher M. Joe, Eric W. Buether, Brian A. Carpenter, Mark D. Perantie and Niky Bukovcan of Buether Joe & Carpenter in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider will preside over the cases.

 

Aug. 30

• DietGoal Innovations v. Rodale Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00560

• DietGoal Innovations v. Domino’s Pizza Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00561

• DietGoal Innovations v. Wegmans Food Markets Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00562

DietGoal Innovations is a Texas limited liability company based in Austin.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,585,516 issued July 1, 2003, for Method and System for Computerized Visual Behavior Analysis, Training and Planning.

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

DietGoal is represented by Christopher M. Joe, Eric W. Buether, Brian A. Carpenter, Mark D. Perantie, Niky Bukovcan and Monica Tavakoli of Buether Joe & Carpenter in Dallas.

Jury trials are requested.

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

 

Tyler Division

Aug. 24

• Blue Spike v. Technicolor USA Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00572

Aug. 27

• Blue Spike v. Audible Magic Corp. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00576

• Blue Spike v. Rovi Corp. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00577

Aug. 28

• Blue Spike v. YouWeb et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00580

• Blue Spike v. SMRTV Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00581

• Blue Spike v. ACTV8 Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00582

Aug. 30

• Blue Spike v. Broadcast Music Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00586

• Blue Spike v. The Nielson Co. (US) Case No. 6:12-cv-00587

Blue Spike LLC is a Texas limited liability company and has its headquarters and principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,472 issued March 18, 2008, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; U.S. Patent No. 7,660,700 issued Feb. 9, 2010, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; U.S. Patent No. 7,949,494 issued May 24, 2011, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,214,175 issued July 3, 2012, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals.

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

Blue Spike is represented by Eric M. Albritton, Stephen E. Edwards and Michael A. Benefield of Albritton Law Firm in Longview and Randall T. Garteiser, Christopher A. Honea and Christopher S. Johns of Garteiser Honea P.C. in San Rafael, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Aug. 31

• Landmark Technology v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00590

• Landmark Technology v. The Toro Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00592

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 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.

More News