Marshall Division

Aug. 31

TQP Development v.  Adobe Systems Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00570

TQP Development v. BNSF Railway Co. Case No. 2:12-cv-00573

TQP Development v. Craigslist Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00574

TQP Development v. Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00575

TQP Development v. JetBlue Airways Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00576

TQP Development v. MLB Advanced Media L.P. Case No. 2:12-cv-00577

Aug. 4

TQP Development v. NFL Enterprises Case No. 2:12-cv-00578

TQP Development v. Onkyo U.S.A. Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00579

Aug. 5

TQP Development v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00581

TQP Development v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management Case No. 2:12-cv-00583

Aug. 6

TQP Development v. ADT LLC Case No. 2:12-cv-00585

TQP Development v. Avis Budget Group Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00586

Aug. 7

TQP Development v. LivingSocial Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00587

TQP Development v. PetSmart Store Support Group Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00589

TQP Development v. TSA Stores Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00591

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

TQP Development accuses the defendants 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.

 

Sonic Industry v. Viewpoint Bank N.A.

Sonic Industry is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Del.

The defendant is accused of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,793 issued Sept. 21, 1999, for Remote Limit-Setting Information System.

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

Sonic Industry is represented by Austin L. Hensley of Austin L. Hensley Law Firm in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-00571

 

Tyler Division

Sept. 4

Blue Spike v. CBS Interactive Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00594

Blue Spike v. Clear Channel Broadcasting Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00595

Blue Spike v. Soundmouse Ltd. Case No. 6:12-cv-00598

Sept. 7

Blue Spike v. SecuGen Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00607

Blue Spike v. ZkTeco Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00608

Blue Spike v. Fulcrum Biometrics et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00610

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.

 

Sept. 4

Powerline Innovations v. IC Intracome Holdings et al. Case No. 6:12-cv-00596

Powerline Innovations v. Comtrend Corp. et al. Case No. 6:12-cv-00597

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

The defendants are 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.

 

Sept. 5

Touchscreen Gestures v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00599

Touchscreen Gestures v. Sony Corp. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00600

Touchscreen Gestures v. Google Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00601

Touchscreen Gestures is a Texas limited liability company.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

U.S. Patent No. 7,184,031 issued Feb. 27, 2003, for Method and Controller for Identifying a Drag Gesture;

U.S. Patent No. 7,180,506 issued Feb. 20, 2007, for Method for Identifying a Movement of Single Tap on a Touch Device;

U.S. Patent No. 7,190,356 issued March 13, 2007, for Method and Controller for Identifying Double Tap Gestures; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,319,457 issued Jan. 15, 2008, for Method of Scrolling Window Screen by Means of Controlling Electronic Device.

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

Touchscreen Gestures is represented by Winston O. Huff and Arthur I. Navarro of Navarro Huff in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

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

Sept. 7

Landmark Technology v. Cintas Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00605

Landmark Technology v. PetSmart Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00606

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 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