Marshall Division 

Feb. 15

• My Health Inc. and University of Rochester v. CardioCom, LLC Case No. 2:13-cv-00136

• My Health Inc. and University of Rochester v. Click4Care Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00137

• My Health Inc. and University of Rochester v. GenerationOne Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00138

• My Health Inc. and University of Rochester v. Honeywell HomMed Case No. 2:13-cv-00139

• My Health Inc. and University of Rochester v. Philips Medical Systems North America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00140

The University of Rochester is an educational institution with a principal office in Rochester, N.Y.

My Health Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Palo Alto, Calif.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,612,985 issued Sept. 2, 2003, for Method and System for Monitoring and Treating a Patient.

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

My Health and University of Rochester are represented by S. Calvin Capshaw and Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux in Gladewater; Joseph G. Pia of Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Morris in Salt Lake City, Utah; Michael R. Wolford of The Wolford Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y.; and C. Dale Quisenberry, John T. Polasek, and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek, Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire.

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-00251

 

Feb. 18

• Kroy IP Holdings v. The Kroger Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00141

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.

 

Feb. 20

• Quxuz v. SearchFit Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00145

Feb. 21

• Quxuz v. Volusion Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00172

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 case.

 

Feb. 21

• Elia Data of Texas v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00147

Elia Data of Texas is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Allen.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,113,996 issued Sept. 26, 2006, for Method and System for Secured Transport and Storage of Data on a Network.

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

The plaintiff is represented by Frisco attorney Ronald W. Burns. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• LBS Innovations v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00150

• LBS Innovations v. Starbucks Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00152

• LBS Innovations v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00153

• LBS Innovations v. U.S. Bancorp Case No. 2:13-cv-00154

• LBS Innovations v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00155

• LBS Innovations v. The Kroger Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00156

• LBS Innovations v. Aldi Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00157

• LBS Innovations v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A Case No. 2:13-cv-00158

• LBS Innovations v. Marriott International Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00159

• LBS Innovations v. JP Morgan Chase & Co Case No. 2:13-cv-00161

• LBS Innovations v. KeyCorp Case No. 2:13-cv-00162

LBS Innovations is a New Jersey limited liability company with its principal place of business in Wanaque, N.J.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,091,956 issued July 18, 2000, for Situation Information System.

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

LBS Innovations are represented by Christopher M. Joe, Eric W. Buether, Niky Bukovcan and Mark D. Perantie of Buether Joe & Carpenter in Dallas.

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

 

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Beats Electronics Case No. 2:13-cv-00148

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Freixenet USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00160

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Hasbro Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00163

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. John Jameson Import Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00164

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. L’Oreal USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00165

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Moet Hennessy USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00166

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Pernod Ricard USA Case No. 2:13-cv-00167

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Remy Cointreau USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00168

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Sidney Frank Importing Co. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00169

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Diageo North America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00170

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Maisons Marques & Domaines USA Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00171

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Camus Wines and Spirits Group Case No. 2:13-cv-00173

• Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Cognac Ferrand USA Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00174

Lamina Packaging Innovations is a limited liability company with a principal place of business in Longview.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,207,242 issued March 27, 2001, for Laminated Package With Enhanced Interior and Exterior and U.S. Patent No. 7,348,067  issued March 25, 2008, for Composite Paperboards and Method of Making Composite Paperboards.

Lamina Packaging is seeking an award of damages, costs, expenses, and interest.

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

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Tyler Division

Feb. 15

• EMG Technology v. Ally Financial Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00157

EMG is a California limited liability company organized with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, Calif.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,441,196 issued on Oct. 21, 2008, for Apparatus and Method of Manipulating a Region on a Wireless Device for Viewing, Zooming and Scrolling Internet Content.

EMG is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, including royalty or lost profits, enhanced damages, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Charles Ainsworth and Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth in Tyler and Stanley Gibson and Gregory S. Cordey of Jeffer Mangels Butler Mitchell in Los Angeles, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Feb. 19

• Clear with Computers v. Fishing Holdings d/b/a Ranger Boats Case No. 6:13-cv-00161

• Clear with Computers v. The Raymond Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00162

• Clear with Computers v. Salford Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00163

• Clear with Computers v. Textron Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00164

• Clear with Computers v. Universal Forest Products Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00165

• Clear with Computers v. Valmont Industries Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00166

• Clear with Computers v. Vermeer Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00167

• Clear with Computers v. Yanmar America Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00168

• Clear with Computers v. Alamo Group Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00169

• Clear with Computers v. Alcoa Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00170

• Clear with Computers v. The Coleman Co. Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00171

• Clear with Computers v. Empire Southwest Case No. 6:13-cv-00172

• Clear with Computers v. Gehl Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00173

• Clear with Computers v. Kennametal Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00174

• Clear with Computers v. Linde Material Handling North America Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00175

• Clear with Computers v. Lufkin Industries Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00176

• Clear with Computers v. Mahindra USA Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00177

• Clear with Computers v. Manitowoe Cranes Case No. 6:13-cv-00178

• Clear with Computers v. CLAAS of America Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00179

• Clear with Computers v. Palfinger USA Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00180

• Clear with Computers v. AG Growth International d/b/a Batco Manufacturing Case No. 6:13-cv-00181

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

The defendant is 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.

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; Marc A. Fenster, Alexander C. Giza and Adam Hoffman of Russ, August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif.; and James A. Fussell of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Alexandria, Va.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Feb. 20

• EVM Systems v. Rex Medical L.P. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00184

EVM is a corporation with a principal place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,052,670 B2 issued on Nov. 8, 2011, for Medical Device with Slotted Memory Metal Tube.

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

EVM is represented by Jonathan T. Suder, Brett M. Pinkus and Decker A. Cammack of Friedman, Suder & Cooke in Fort Worth.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• CAO Group Inc. v. Dentlight Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00187

CAO is a corporation with its principal place of business in Utah.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent Nos. 6,331,111 issued on Dec. 18, 2001, for Curing Light System Useful for Curing Light Activated Composite Materials;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,719,559 issued April 13, 2004, for Curing Light;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,755,648 issued June 29, 2004, for Curing Light;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,783,362 issued Aug. 31, 2004, for Dental Curing Light Using Primary and Secondary Heat Sink Combination;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,953,340 issued Oct. 11, 2005 for Light for Use in Activating Light-Activated Materials, the Light Having a Detachable Light Module Containing a Heat Sink and a Semiconductor Chip;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,971,875 issued Dec. 6, 2005, for Dental Curing Light;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,988,891 issued Jan. 24, 2006, for Curing Light;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,077,648 issued July 18, 2006, for Curing Light;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,086,858 issued Aug. 8, 2006, for  Semiconductor Curing Light System Useful for Curing Light Activated Composite Materials;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,094,054 issued Aug. 22, 2006, for Dental Curing Light; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,252,678 issued Aug. 7, 2007, for Forensic Light Using Semiconductor Light Source.

The plaintiff is represented by James N. Willi, C.J. Veverka, Kirk R. Harris and Mark W. Ford of Maschoff Brennen of Park City, Utah; Nathaniel L. Dilger and Peter R. Afrasiabi of One LLP in Newport Beach, Calif.; and James N. Willi and Tracy J. Willi of Willi Law Firm P.C. in Austin.

A jury trial is requested.

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

More News