Marshall Division 

April 19

• Disposition Services v. Dell Inc.  Case No. 2:13-cv-00282

Disposition Services is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in Highland, N.Y.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,424,944 issued for System and Methods for Controlled Asset Disposition.

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

Disposition Services is represented by Anthony G. Simon, Benjamin R. Askew and Michael P. Kella of The Simon Law Firm PC in St. Louis, Mo., and Andrew W. Spangler and James A. Fussell III of Spangler & Fussell PC in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• InterForm Inc. v. Sakura Color Products Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00283

• InterForm Inc. v. YAFA Pen Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00284

April 23

InterForm Inc. v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00296

InterForm Inc. v. MEGA Brands International et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00297

InterForm is a corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Colorado Springs, Colo.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,447,190 C1 issued Dec. 20, 2012, for Viscoelastic Grip for a Writing Implement.

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

InterForm is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler & Fussell PC in Longview and James A. Fussell III of Spangler & Fussell PC in Alexandria, Va.  A jury trial is requested

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

 

April 19

Harcol Research v. Dymatize Nutrition Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00285

Harcol Research v. Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00286

Harcol Research v. New York Nutrition Co. d/b/a American Muscle Case No. 2:13-cv-00287

Plaintiff is a Nevada limited liability company organized with a principal place of business in Tyler, Texas.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,817,364 issued for Beverage Containing Alpha-Ketoglutaric Acid and Method of Making.

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

Harcol Research is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview. Jury trials are requested.

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

 

April 22

• Secure Axcess v. Accell Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00289

Secure Axcess is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are Accell Corp., Diamond Multimedia Inc., Hewlett Packard Co., IOGear Inc., ACCO Brands Corp., Lenovo (United States) Inc., LeanCode L.L.C. d/b/a Plugable Technologies, Sewell Development Corp. d/b/a Sewell Direct, Siig Inc., StarTech.com USA L.L.P., Targus Inc., Tripp Lite Holdings Inc., Trippe Manufacturing Co. and DisplayLink Corp.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,522,309 issued Feb. 18, 2003, for Multiscreen Personal Computer Display Method and Apparatus.

Secure Axcess is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, reasonably royalty, attorney’s fees, interest and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by James E. Davis, Kelly J. Kubasta, Casey L. Griffith and Todd Basile of Klemchuck Kubasta LLP. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Cardsoft v. First Data Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00290

CardSoft is a California limited liability corporation.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,934,945 issued Aug. 23, 2005, for Method and Apparatus for Controlling Communications and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,683 issued Nov. 27, 2007 for Method and Apparatus for Controlling Communications.

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

The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Geotag Inc. v. SuccessFactors Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00291

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 Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm in Plano, David R. Bennett of Direction IP Law in Chicago, Ill., and Daniel Mount and Kevin Pasquinelli of Mount Spelman & Fingerman PC in San Jose, Calif. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

April 23

• Eclipse IP v. Overstock.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00293

• Eclipse IP v. Ralph Lauren Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00294

• Eclipse IP v. Williams-Sonoma Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00295

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 Jan. 20, 2009, for Notification Systems and Methods Enabling a Response to Cause Connection Between a Notified PCD and a Delivery or Pickup;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,876,239 issued Jan. 25, 2011, for Secure Notification Messaging Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,119,716 issued October 10, 2006, for Response Systems and Methods for Notification Systems for Modifying Future Notifications.

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

The plaintiff is represented by Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith in Marshall and Matthew S. Harman and Eric S. Fredrickson of Harman Law LLC in Atlanta, Ga. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

April 23

• Tierra Intelectual Borinquen Inc. v. Pantech Co. Ltd et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00298

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 8,429,415 issued on April 23, 2013, for User-Selectable Signatures.

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

The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview and Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola of Ferraiuoli LLC in San Juan, Puerto Rico.  A jury trial is requested.

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

 

April 24

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. 281 Lodging Partnership Ltd. Case No. 2:13-cv-00299

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Grecian Hotels Case No. 2:13-cv-00300

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Dijashvi Ltd. Case No. 2:13-cv-00301

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Maha Ganga Case No. 2:13-cv-00302

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Grayson Hospitality Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00303

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Marriott International Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00304

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. North 281 Management Case No. 2:13-cv-00305

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00306

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Vajia Investment Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00307

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Wyndham Hotel Group Case No. 2:13-cv-00308

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Starbucks Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00309

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Carlex Hospitality Case No. 2:13-cv-00310

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Sun Suites Interests Case No. 2:13-cv-00311

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Choice Hotels International Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00312

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Sweet Faith Case No. 2:13-cv-00313

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Tyler Lodging Host Case No. 2:13-cv-00314

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Happy Hotel Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00315

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. HVM Case No. 2:13-cv-00316

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. United Lodging Case No. 2:13-cv-00317

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. IMH Case No. 2:13-cv-00318

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Inter-Continental Hotels Group Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00319

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00320

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Luxury Hospitality Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00321

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. ALH Properties No One Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00322

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Dunkin’ Brands Group Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00323

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Magnolia Lodging Case No. 2:13-cv-00325

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. CNL Hotel Investors Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00326

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Texarkana Hospitality Case No. 2:13-cv-00327

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Magnolia Grapevine et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00328

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Titan Hospitality LTD Case No. 2:13-cv-00334

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. TX Majestic LTD Case No. 2:13-cv-00335

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Triangle Hospitality Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00336

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf Case No. 2:13-cv-00337

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Panera Case No. 2:13-cv-00338

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Carlson Hotel Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00339

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. HAC Partners LP et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00340

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Blackstone Group LP Case No. 2:13-cv-00341

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. La Quinta Inn Worldwide et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00342

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Heritage Inn Number VII Limited Partnership et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00343

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Boundless Enterprises Case No. 2:13-cv-00344

Innovative Wireless Solutions v. Tisha Case No. 2:13-cv-00345

Innovative Wireless Solutions is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent Number 5,912,895 issued June 15, 1999, for Information Network Access Apparatus and Methods for Communicating Information Packets via Telephone Lines;

• U.S. Patent Number 6,327,264 issued Dec. 4, 2001, for Information Network Access Apparatus and Methods for Communicating Information Packets via Telephone Lines.

 

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

Melissa Richards Smith, Harry L. Gillam Jr. and William R. Lamb of Gillam & Smith LLP in Marshall. Jury trials are requested.

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

 

April 24

• C4cast.com Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00329

• C4cast.com Inc. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00332

• C4cast.com Inc. v. American Express Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00333

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, Neal G. Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni, Wang & Associates PLLC in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

April 24

• Tejas Research v. Shutterfly Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00330

April 26

Tejas Research v. District Photo Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00355

• Tejas Research v. Adorama Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00356

Tejas Research is a Texas limited liability company having a principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,006,231 issued for File Format for an Image Including Multiple Versions of an Image, and Related System and Method.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, costs, expenses and interest.

Tejas Research is represented by Austin Hansley of Austin Hansley P.L.L.C. in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

April 26

• CpuMate et al v. Cooler Master Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00348

• CpuMate et al v. Dell Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00350

• CpuMate et al v. Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd. of Taipei Taiwan et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00351

• CpuMate et al v. Toshiba Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00352

• CpuMate et al v. Xigmatek Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00353

CpuMate et al v. ZalmanTech Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00354

Plaintiffs CpuMate Inc. is a Taiwanese company and Golden Sun New Techniques Co. Ltd. is a Taiwanese company.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,891,414 issued Feb. 22, 2011, for Method for Manufacturing Heat Dissipator Having Pipes and Product of the Same.

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

CpuMate is represented by Winston O. Huff and Deborah Jagai of W. O. Huff & Associates PLLC in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

 

April 26

• Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems Inc. v. CardioCom et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00349

Bosch is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, Calif.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,516,192 issued April 7, 2009, for Networked System for Interactive Communication and Remote Monitoring of Individuals;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,587,469 issued Sept. 8, 2009, for Audio Instructions for Appliances;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,769,605 issued Aug. 8, 2010 for Multiple Patient Monitoring System for Proactive Health Management;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,840,420 issued Nov. 23, 2010 for Multiple Patient Monitoring System for Proactive Health Management;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,870,249 issued Jan. 11, 2011 for Networked System for Interactive Communication and Remote Monitoring of Individuals;  and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,921,186 issued for April 5, 2011 for Networked System for Interactive Communication and Remote Monitoring of Individuals.

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

The plaintiff is represented by Trey Yarbrough and Debby E. Gunter of Yarbrough Wilcox Gunter PLLC in Tyler and Chris R. Ottenweller, Annette L. Hurst and Bas de Blank of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in Menlo Park, Calif. A jury trial is requested.

 

Tyler Division

April 22

• VirnetX Inc. et al v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00351

VirnetX Inc. is a Delaware corporation organized and maintains its principal place in Zephyr Cove, Nevada.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 issued Dec. 31, 2002 for Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System Availability;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180 issued March 6, 2007 for Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 issued Aug. 26, 2008 for Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications Using Secure Domain Names;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151 issued Feb. 10, 2009 for Establishment of a Secure Communication Link Based on a Domain Name Service (DNS) Request;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211 issued April 5, 2011 for Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications Using Secure Domain Names; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,987,274 issued July 26, 2011 for Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network.

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

VirnetX is represented by Bradley W. Caldwell, Jason D. Cassady, John Austin Curry and Daniel R. Pearson of Caldwell Cassady & Curry in Dallas; Robert M. Parker and R. Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth P.C. in Tyler; Andy Tindel of Mann, Tindel & Thompson in Tyler; and Donald Urrabazo and Arturo Padilla of Urrabazo Law P.C. in Los Angeles, Calif. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

April 25

• Patent Harbor v Hitachi America Ltd.  Case No. 6:13-cv-00359

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 case.

 

April 25

• NobelBiz Inc. v. InsideSales.com Case No. 6:13-cv-00360

NobelBiz is a Delaware privately held company with a principal place of business in Carlsbad, Calif.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,135,122 issued March 13, 2012, for System and Method for Modifying Communication Information (MCI).

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

The plaintiff is represented by S. Calvin Capshaw III, Elizabeth L DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

More News