Marshall Division 

Jan. 28 

• C4cast.com Inc. v. A.H. Belo Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00055

• C4cast.com Inc. v. The Hearst Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00056

C4cast.com is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business in Pasadena, Calif.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,658,467 issued on Dec. 2, 2003, for Provision of Informational Resources over an Electronic Network and U.S. Patent No. 7,958,204 issued June 7, 2011, for Community-Selected Content.

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

C4cast.com is represented by Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang and Stevenson Moore V. of Ni Law Firm in Dallas.

Jury trials are requested.

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

 

Jan. 29

• Lodsys Group v. Crocs Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00057

• Lodsys Group v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00058

• Lodsys Group v. Edmac Industries Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00059

• Lodsys Group v. General Motors Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00060

• Lodsys Group v. The Jones Group Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00061

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

The defendants are accused of willful infringement.

The patents at issue include U.S. Patent 7,620,565 issued Nov. 17, 2009, for Customer-Based Product Design Module and U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 issued May 22, 2007, for Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network.

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

The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of the Davis Law Firm in Longview and Michael A. Goldfarb and Christopher M. Huck of Kelley, Donion, Gill, Huck & Goldfarb in Seattle, Wash.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Jan. 30

• Geotag Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00062

• Geotag Inc. v. Kronos Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00063

• Geotag Inc. v. OnTargetJobs Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00064

• Geotag Inc. v. Oracle Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00065

• Geotag Inc. v. People Answers Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00066

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, and 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 Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the cases.

 

• Eclipse IP v. GameStop Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00067

• Eclipse IP v. J.C. Penney Company Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00068

• Eclipse IP v. Pier 1 Imports Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00069

• Eclipse IP v. Radioshack Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00070

• Eclipse IP v. Men’s Wearhouse Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00071

Eclipse is a Florida company with its principal address in Delray Beach, Fla.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,479,899 issued for Notification Systems and Methods Enabling a Response to Cause Connection Between a Notified PCD and a Delivery or Pickup Representative;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,876,239 issued for Secure Notification Messaging Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,319,414 issued for Secure Notification Messaging Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,482,952 issued for Response Systems and Methods for Notification Systems for Modifying Future Notifications; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,119,716 issued for Response Systems and Methods for Notification Systems for Modifying Future Notifications.

Eclipse is asking for an award of damages and interest.

The plaintiff is represented by Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith in Marshall. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Jan. 31

• Voicefill v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00072

Voicefill is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in Pasadena, Calif.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,738,740 issued May 18, 2004, for Speech Recognition System for Interactively Gathering and Storing Verbal Information to Generate Documents.

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

Voicefill is represented by Scott E. Stevens, Gregory P. Love and Darrell G. Dotson of Stevens Love in Longview and Todd Y. Brandt of Stevens Love in Houston.

A jury trial is requested.

 

Feb. 1

• NovelPoint Security v. Aleratec Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00073

• NovelPoint Security v. Apricorn Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00074

• NovelPoint Security v. Buffalo Technology (USA) Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00075

• NovelPoint Security v. Buslink Media Case No. 2:13-cv-00076

• NovelPoint Security v. CMS Products Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00077

• NovelPoint Security v. Corsair Memory Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00078

• NovelPoint Security v. Data Locker Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00079

• NovelPoint Security v. Dell Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00080

• NovelPoint Security v. Hitachi America Ltd. Case No. 2:13-cv-00081

• NovelPoint Security v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00082

• NovelPoint Security v. Imation Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00083

• NovelPoint Security v. Kingston Technology Co. Inc. (Delaware) Case No. 2:13-cv-00084

• NovelPoint Security v. LaCie Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00085

• NovelPoint Security v. Lexar Media Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00086

• NovelPoint Security v. Micron Technology Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00087

NovelPoint Security 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. 5,434,562 issued for Method for Limiting Computer Access to Peripheral Devices and U.S. Patent No. 6,212,635 issued for Network Security System Allowing Access and Modification to a Security Subsystem After Initial Installation When a Master Token Is in Place.

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 Security is represented by Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm in Irving.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Tyler Division

Jan. 28

• Patent Harbor v. Dell Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00102

• Patent Harbor v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00103

Patent Harbor is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514 issued Nov. 4, 1997, for Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an award of damages, including a post-judgment royalty and interest.

The plaintiff is represented by Keith A. Rutherford, John C. Cain and Scott Reese of Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri in Houston; T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview; and Eric M. Albritton of Albritton Law Firm in Longview.

Jury trial is requested.

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

 

Jan. 29

• Blue Spike v. AxxonSoft US Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00106

• Blue Spike v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00108

• Blue Spike v. Amano Cincinnati Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00109

• Blue Spike v. Smart Media Innovations et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00110

Jan. 31

• Blue Spike v. Airborne Biometrics Group Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00112

Blue Spike is a Texas limited liability company with 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; 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 Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the cases.

 

Jan. 31

• Microlog Corp. v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00114

• Microlog Corp. v. Aspect Software Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00115

• Microlog Corp. v. Contact Solutions Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00116

Microlog is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and headquartered in Gaithersburg, Md.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 issued on Aug. 15, 2006, for Contact Center System Capable of Handling Multiple Media Types of Contacts and Method for Using the Same.

Microlog is asking the court to permanent enjoin the defendants from continued infringement and for an award of damages, an award of ongoing royalty for continued infringement, plus interest and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Eric M. Albritton of Albritton Law Firm in Longview; Raymond W. Mort III, Jay d. Ellwanger and Stefanie Scott of DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy in Austin; and T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

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

More News