MARSHALL DIVISION

Oct. 1 

• Innovative Display Technologies v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00783

• Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00784

Innovative Display Technologies LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 issued June 29, 2004, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 issued Nov. 27, 2007, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 issued June 10, 2008, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 issued July 29, 2008, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 issued Oct. 14, 2008, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 issued May 26, 2009, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 issued July 10, 2012, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies.

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

Innovative Display Technologies is represented by Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., and Daniel F. Olejko of Bragalone Conroy PC in Dallas; and T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Hawk Technology Systems v. Dillard’s Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00786

Hawk Technology Systems LLC is a Florida limited liability company and maintains its principal place of business in Miami, Fla.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. RE43,462 issued June 12, 2012, for Video Monitoring and Conferencing System. The ‘462 Patent was a reissue of U.S. Patent 5,625,410.

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

Hawk Technology is represented by E. Glenn Thames Jr. of Potter Minton in Tyler and Edward A. Pennington of Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP in Washington, D.C.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Oct. 2

• Worqflow Technologies v. DST Systems Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00789

Worqflow 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. 5,630,069 issued May 13, 1993, for Method and Apparatus for Creating Workflow Maps of Business Processes.

The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages, court costs, expenses and interest.

Worqflow is represented by Nicolas J. Labbit, Darrell G. Dotson, Gregory P. Love, Scott E. Stevens and Todd Y. Brandt of Stevens Love PLLC in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

 

Oct. 3

• Freeny et al v. Kohl’s Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00790

• Freeny et al v. Murphy Oil Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00791

The plaintiffs Charles C. Freeny III, Bryan E. Freeny and James P. Freeny are individuals residing in Texas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Number 7,110,744 issued Sept. 19, 2006, for Communication and Proximity Authorization Systems.

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

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher D. Banys and Richard C. Lin of Banys P.C. in Palo Alto, Calif., and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview. A jury trial is requested.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Oct. 4

• InMotion Imagery Technologies v. MedioStream Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00792

• InMotion Imagery Technologies v. NTI Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00793

• InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Womble Multimedia Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00794

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

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,526,219 issued Feb. 25, 2003, for Picture-Based Video Indexing System and U.S. Patent No. 8,150,239 issued April 3, 2012, for Picture-Based Video Indexing System.

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

InMotion is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview and Jacqueline K. Burt of Heninger Garrison Davis LLC in Atlanta, Ga.

Jury trials are requested.

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

 

TYLER DIVISION

Sept. 30

• Super Interconnect Technologies v. Acer Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00731

• Super Interconnect Technologies v. BlackBerry Limited et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00732

• Super Interconnect Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00733

• Super Interconnect Technologies v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00734

Oct. 1

• Super Interconnect Technologies v. Nokia Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00739

• Super Interconnect Technologies v. ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00740

Super Interconnect Technologies is a Texas company with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,560,290 issued May 6, 2003, for CMOS Driver and On-Chip Termination for Gigabaud Speed Data Communication.

Super Interconnect Technologies is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, interest and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm in Plano; Paul J. Hayes, Robert R. Gilman, Christopher E. Millikin and Jonathan R. DeBlois of Hayes Messina Gilman & Hayes LLC in Boston, Mass.

Jury trials are requested.

U.S. District Judge K. Nicole Mitchell is assigned to the case.

 

Oct. 1

• Data Engine Technologies v. Microsoft Corp.  Case No. 6:13-cv-00735

Data Engine Technologies LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Frisco.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,314,558 issued Nov. 6, 2001, for Byte Code Instrumentation; U.S. Patent No. 6,643,842 issued Nov. 4, 2003, for Byte Code Instrumentation; and U.S. Patent No. 7,240,335 issued July 3, 2007, for Byte Code Instrumentation.

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

Data Engine is represented by Amir Alavi, Demetrios Anaipakos, Steven J. Mitby and Brian E. Simmons of Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. in Houston and T. John Ward Jr. and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge K. Nicole Mitchell is assigned to the case.

 

• SFA Systems v. WellPoint Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00737

SFA Systems is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business Tyler.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,941,341 for Sales Force Automation System and Method and U.S. Patent No. 6,067,525 for Integrated Computerized Sales Force Automation System.

The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law P.C. in Longview.

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

 

• Cellular Communications Equipment v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00738

Cellular Communications Equipment is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,377,804 for Mobile Communication Systems;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,819,923 for Method for Communication of Neighbor Cell Information;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,215,962 for Method for an Intersystem Connection Handover;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,941,174 for Method for Multicode Transmission by a Subscriber Station;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820 for Apparatus, System and Method for Designating a Buffer Status Reporting Format Based on Detected Pre-Selected Buffer Conditions; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,218,923 for Control of Terminal Applications in a Network Environment.

The plaintiff is asking for an award of damages, including an ongoing post-judgment royalty, treble damages, interest and court costs.

Cellular Communications is represented by Edward R. Nelson III, Brent N. Bumgardner, Barry J. Bumgardner, S. Brannon Latimer, Thomas C. Cecil and Michael J. Fagan Jr. of Nelson Bumgardner Casto P.C. in Fort Worth; and T. John Ward Jr., J. Wesley Hill and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Optimum Content Protection v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00741

OCP is a Texas company with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,502,470 issued March 10, 2009, for Method and Apparatus for Content Protection Within an Open Architecture System.

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

OCP is represented by Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm in Plano and Paul J. Hayes, Robert R. Gilman, Christopher E. Millikin and Jonathan R. DeBlois of Hayes Messina Gilman & Hayes LLC in Boston, Mass.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge K. Nicole Mitchell is assigned to the case.

 

More News