SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Marshall Division 

Dec. 17

• Kroy IP Holdings v. Safeway Inc.

Kroy IP Holdings is a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business in Baltimore, Md.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,054,830 issued May 30, 2006, for System and Method for Incentive Programs and Award Fulfillment.

Kroy IP Holdings is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, attorney’s fees and enhanced damages.

The plaintiff is represented by Austin L. Hansley of Austin Hansley Law Firm in Dallas.

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-00800

 

Dec. 19

• Ingeniador v. Adobe Systems Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00805

• Ingeniador v. AGFA Gavaert NV et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00806

• Ingeniador v. BMC Software Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00807

• Ingeniador v. GE Healthcare Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00808

• Ingeniador v. McKesson Corp. Case No. 2:12-cv-00809

• Ingeniador v. Nuance Communications Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-00810

• Ingeniador v. MedPlus et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00811

• Ingeniador v. Savvis Inc. et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00812

Dec. 20

• Ingeniador v. Vital Images Inc. et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00813

Ingeniador is a Puerto Rican limited liability company with its principal place of business in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,990,629 issued Jan. 24, 2006, for Publishing System for Intranet.

Ingeniador is asking for an injunction to stop further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview.

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

 

• NovelPoint Tracking v. ASUS Computer International

NovelPoint Tracking is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Allen.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,442,485 issued Aug. 27, 2002, for Method and Apparatus for an Automatic Vehicle Location, Collision Notification and Synthetic Voice.

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

NovelPoint Tracking is represented by Dallas attorneys Everett Upshaw and Rhiannon Kelso. A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-00816

 

Tyler Division

Dec. 19

• Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. LG Electronics MobileComm USA Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00941

• Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Pantech Wireless Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00942

• Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Apple Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00943

• Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Asustek Computer Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00944

EON 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. 5,388,101 issued Feb. 7, 1995, for Interactive Nationwide Data Service Communication System for Stationary and Mobile Battery Operated Subscriber Units and U.S. Patent No. 5,592,491 issued Jan. 7, 1997, for Wireless Modem.

The infringing products are related to two-way communication networks, associated services or data systems.

EON is asking the court to issue a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from continued acts of infringement and for an award damages, enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Daniel R. Scardino, Jeffery R. Johnson and Cabrach J. Connor of Reed & Scardino in Austin and Deron Dacus of Ramey & Flock in Tyler.  Jury trial is requested.

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

 

Dec. 20

• Clear with Computers v. Forty Niners Football Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00945

• Clear with Computers v. American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00946

• Clear with Computers v. Helly Hanson (U.S.) Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00947

• Clear with Computers v. Levi Strauss & Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00948

• Clear with Computers v. NFL Enterprises Case No. 6:12-cv-00949

• Clear with Computers v. Spanx Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00950

• Clear with Computers v. MLB Advanced Media Case No. 6:12-cv-00951

CWC is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Tyler.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,266,015 issued Sept. 11, 2012, for Inventory Sales System and Method.

CWC is asking the court for an award of damages, interest, court courts, expenses and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Longview; and Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt in Wilmington, Del. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Marshall Feature Recognition v. Diageo North America Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00955

• Marshall Feature Recognition v. Pepsi-Cola Co. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00956

Marshall Feature Recognition is a limited liability company with a principal place of business in Marshall.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,886,750 issued May 3, 2005, for a Method and Apparatus for Accessing Electronic Data Via a Familiar Printed Medium.

Marshall Feature is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, court costs and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith in Marshall and Thomas Maiorino of Maiorino Law Group in Mount Laurel, N.J. A jury trial is requested.

 

• Lone Star WiFi v. Legacy Stonebriar Hotel Ltd., doing business as Westin Stonebriar Hotel, et al

Lone Star WiFi is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,490,348 issued Feb. 10, 2009, for Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances and U.S. Patent No. 8,312,286 issued Nov. 13, 2012, for Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances.

The patents-in-suit are related to implementations of wireless networks in which multiple, overlapping wireless streams provide varying levels of access to content and resources.

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

Lone Star WiFi is represented by T. John Ward Jr., Wesley Hill and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview; and Joseph P. Reid and Thomas N. Millikan of Gartman Law Group P.C. in San Diego, Calif. A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 6:12-cv-00957

 

Dec. 20

Landmark Technology v. Fifth & Pacific Companies Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00952

Dec. 21

• Landmark Technology v. BlissWorld Case No. 6:12-cv-00997

• Landmark Technology v. Brinker International Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00998

• Landmark Technology v. Cache Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00999

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.

Case No. 6:12-cv-00952

 

Dec. 21

• Select Notifications Media v. Earthlink et al

SNM is a Texas limited liability company, having its principal place of business in Round Rock.

The defendants are Earthlink Inc., Earthlink Telecom Inc., Earthlink Shared Services, Earthlink Carrier and Earthlink Business.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S Patent No. 7,631,101 issued Dec. 8, 2009, for Systems and Methods for Direction of Communication Traffic.

The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages, enhanced damages, costs, interest and attorney’s fees.

SNM is represented by Jennifer Parker Ainsworth of Wilson, Robertson & Cornelius P.C. in Tyler. A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 6:12-cv-00959

 

Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Autodesk Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00966

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Avid Technology Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00967

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Corel Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00968

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. GlobalScape Inc.  Case No. 6:12-cv-00969

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Minitab Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00970

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Palisade Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00971

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. PerkinElmer Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00972

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Sony Creative Software Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00973

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. The Tiffen Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00974

Uniloc USA Inc. is a Texas corporation having a principal place of business in Irvine, Calif. Uniloc Singapore Private Ltd. is a Singapore corporation.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067 issued for System and Method for Preventing Unauthorized Access to Electronic Data.

Uniloc is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees and interest.

The plaintiffs are represented by Barry J. Bumgardner and Steven W. Hartsell of Nelson Bumgardner Castro P.C. in Fort Worth; James L. Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group in Southlake; and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

Jury trial is requested.

 

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Walgreen Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00975

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00976

• MacroSolve Inc. v. SkyMall Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00977

• MacroSolve Inc. v. SuperShuttle International Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00978

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00979

• MacroSolve Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00980

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

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.

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

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• CDD Technologies v. Acer America Corp. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00983

• CDD Technologies v. ASUS Computer International Case No. 6:12-cv-00985

• CDD Technologies v. Dell Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00986

• CDD Technologies v. Fujitsu America Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00988

• CDD Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00989

• CDD Technologies v. MSI Computer Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00990

• CDD Technologies v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00991

• CDD Technologies v. Sony Corp. of America Case No. 6:12-cv-00992

• CDD Technologies v. Systemax Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00993

• CDD Technologies v. Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00994

• CDD Technologies v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00995

• CDD Technologies v. Vizio Case No. 6:12-cv-00996

CDD Technologies is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business located in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,002,402 issued Dec. 14, 2009, for System and Method for Producing a Drag-and-Drop Object from a Popup Menu Item.

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

CDD Technologies is represented by Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt in Wilmington, Delaware.

A jury trial is requested.