Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Beaumont Division 

Sept. 20

• E-Contact Technologies v. Samsung TeleCommunications America

E-Contact is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Austin.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,347,579 issued Sept. 13, 1994, for Personal Computer Diary.

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

E-Contact is represented by Zachariah S. Harrington, Matthew J. Antonelli, Larry D. Thompson Jr., and Kris Y. Teng of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston.

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

Case No. 1:12-cv-00455

 

Marshall Division

Sept. 14

• Quxuz v. Wix.com Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00595

• Quxuz v. IconoSites et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00596

• Quxuz v. Yola Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00597

• Quxuz v. Webstarts Case No. 2:12-cv-00598

Quxuz is a Texas limited liability company having a principal place of business in Longview.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,353,199 issued April 1, 2008, for Method of Moderating External Access to an Electronic Document Authoring Development and Distribution.

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

Quxuz is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Longview and James A. Fussell III of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Alexandria, Va.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Telecommunications Research Laboratories, doing business as TR Labs, et al v. Earthlink Inc. et al

The plaintiffs are Telecommunications Research Laboratories, formerly known as Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre, and doing business as TR Labs and TR Technologies Inc.

The defendants are Earthlink Inc., Zayo Group, Charter Communications Inc. and Masergy Communications Inc.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,914,880 issued July 5, 2005, for Protection of routers in a telecommunications network;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,421,349 issued July 16, 2002, for Distributed preconfiguration of spare capacity in closed paths for network restoration;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,260,059 issued Aug. 21, 2007, for Evolution of a telecommunications network from ring to mesh structure;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,404,734 issued June 11, 2002, for Scalable network restoration device;

• U.S. Patent No. 4,956,835 issued  Sept. 11, 1990, for Method and apparatus for self-restoring and self-provisioning communication networks;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,850,505 issued Dec. 15, 1998, for Method for preconfiguring a network to withstand anticipated failures;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,377,543 issued April 23, 2002, for Path restoration of networks; and

• U.S. Patent No. 6,654,379 issued Nov. 25, 2003, for Integrated ring-mesh network.

The lawsuit is asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, interest and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by James A. Fussell III of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Alexandria, Va., and Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-00599

 

Sept. 18

• Advanced Processor Technologies v. Altera Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00602

• Advanced Processor Technologies v. PMC-Sierra Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00603

The plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Frisco.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,796,978 issued Aug. 18, 1998, for Data Processor Having an Address Translation Buffer Operable with Variable Page Sizes; U.S. Patent No. 6,092,172 issued on July 18, 2000, for Data Processor and Data Processing System Having Two Translation Lookaside Buffers; and U.S. Patent No. 6,047,354 issued April 4, 2000, for Data Processor For Implementing Virtual Pages Using a Cache and Register.

Advanced Processor Technologies is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent the defendant from further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, no less than a reasonable royalty and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm P.C. in Longview and David M. Farnum, Ralph P. Albrecht and Cameron H. Tousi of Albrecht Tousi & Farnum of Washington, D.C.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Capital Security Systems Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al

Plaintiff Capital Security is an Illinois corporation having its principal place of business in San Diego, Calif.

The defendants are JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Wells Fargo & Co., Compass Bank and BBVA Compass Bancshares Inc.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,897,625 issued April 27, 1999, for Automated Document Cashing System; U.S. Patent No. 7,653,600 issued Jan. 26, 2010, for Automated Document Cashing System; U. S. Patent No. 7,991,696 issued Aug. 2, 2011, for Automated Document Cashing Machine and Method; and U.S. Patent No. 8,121,948 issued Feb. 21, 2012, for Automated Document Cashing System.

Capital Security is asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, interest and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by Eric H. Findlay and Brian Craft of Findlay & Craft LLP in Tyler and Peter H. Change and Bradford J. Black of Black Chang & Hamill in San Francisco, Calif.

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-00604

 

Tyler Division

Sept. 15

• Blue Spike v. Green Bit Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00645

• Blue Spike v. TvTak USA Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00646

• Blue Spike v. Innovatries s.ro. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00647

• Blue Spike v. BioLink Solutions Ltd. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00648

• Blue Spike v. Cross Match Technologies Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00649

• Blue Spike v. Digi-Key Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00650

• Blue Spike v. Griaule Technology Case No. 6:12-cv-00651

Sept. 16

• Blue Spike v. Integrated Biometrics Case No. 6:12-cv-00652

Sept. 20

• Blue Spike v. L-1 Identity Solutions Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00680

• Blue Spike v. Lumidigm Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00681

• Blue Spike v. BMAT Licensing S.L. Case No. 6:12-cv-00682

Sept. 21

• Blue Spike v. Interactive Systems Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00684

• Blue Spike v. Cogent Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00685

Blue Spike 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 E. Davis is assigned to the cases.

Sept. 17

• PersonalWeb Technologies et al v. Nexsan Technologies Case No. 6:12-cv-00657

• PersonalWeb Technologies et al v.  Yahoo! Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00658

• PersonalWeb Technologies et al v. Rackspace US Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00659

• PersonalWeb Technologies et al v. Apple Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00660

• PersonalWeb Technologies et al v. International Business Machines Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00661

• PersonalWeb Technologies et al v. Facebook Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00662

• PersonalWeb Technologies et al v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00663

PersonalWeb Technologies is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Texas with its principal place of business in Tyler. Plaintiff Level 3 Communications is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Broomfield, Colo.

The defendants are accused of infringing on the following patents:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791 issued Nov. 2, 1999, for Data Processing System Using Substantially Unique Identifiers to Identify Data Items, Whereby Data Items Have the Same Identifiers;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280 issued July 2, 2002, for Identifying and Requesting Data in Network Using Identifiers Which Are Based on Contents of Data;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,928,442 issued Aug. 9, 2005, for Enforcement and Policing of Licensed Content Using Content-based Identifiers;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 issued Sept. 21, 2010, for Controlling Access to Data in a Data Processing System;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,945,539 issued May 17, 2011 for Distributing and Accessing Data in a Data Processing System,

• U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544 issued May 17, 2011, for Similarity-Based Access Control of Data in a Data Processing System;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,949,662 issued May 24, 2011, for De-duplication of Data in a Data Processing System; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,001,096 issued Aug. 16, 2011, for Computer File System Using Content-Dependent File Identifiers.

The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, interest, costs and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by Sam Baxter of McKool Smith P.C.  in Marshall, Theodore Stevenson III and David Sochia of McKool Smith P.C. in Dallas, Steve Pollinger of McKool Smith P.C. in Austin and Roderick G. Dorman and Lawrence M. Hadley of McKool Smith in Los Angeles, Calif.

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

 

Sept. 18

• Team Oil Tools LP v. Peak Completion Technologies Inc.

Team Oil Tools is a Texas limited partnership with a place of business in The Woodlands.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,267,178 issued Sept. 18, 2012, for Valve for Hydraulic Fracturing Through Cement Outside Casing.

Team Oil Tools is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, royalties, expenses, court costs, interest and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Michael E. Lee and James A. Jorgensen of Lee, Jorgensen, Pyle & Kewalramani P.C. in Houston. A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 6:12-cv-00644

 

• Sunless Inc. v. Heartland Tanning Inc.

Sunless is a Delaware corporation with a principal place in Macedonia, Ohio.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288 issued June 19, 2002, for an invention entitled Automatic Body Spray System.

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

Sunless is represented by Steven M. Auvil of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP in Cleveland, Ohio.  A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 6:12-cv-00665

 

Sept. 19

• Landmark Technology v. Tractor Supply Co.  Case No. 6:12-cv-00671

• Landmark Technology v. Ann Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00672

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.

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

 

• Clear with Computers v. Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc.  Case No. 6:12-cv-00674

• Clear with Computers v. The Finish Line Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-000675

• Clear with Computers v. Footlocker Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-000676

• Clear with Computers v. Mercedes-Benz USA et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00677

Clear With Computers is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,606,739 issued Oct. 20, 2009, for Electronic Proposal Preparation System and U.S. Patent No. 5,625,776 issued April 29, 1997, for Electronic Proposal Preparation System for Selling Computer Equipment and Copy Machines.

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

Clear with Computers is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Longview, James A. Fussell III of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Alexandria, Va., and Marc A. Fenster, Alexander C. Giza and Adam Hoffman of Russ, August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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