MARSHALL DIVISION

Oct. 22 

• ComCam International Inc. v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00873

ComCam International Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Exon, Penn.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,975,220 for Internet Based Security, Fire and Emergency Identification and Communication System.

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

ComCam is represented by Eric M. Albritton of Albritton Law Firm in Longview; and William M. Parrish, Jay D. Ellwanger and Stefanie T. Scott of Dinovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP in Austin. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Oct. 23

• CYVA Research Holdings LLC v. Expedia Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00874

• CYVA Research Holdings LLC v. Travelocity.com LP Case No. 2:13-cv-00875

CYVA is a Texas limited liability company, with a principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,987,440 issued on Nov. 16, 1999, for Personal Information Security and Exchange Tool; and U.S. Patent No. 8,195,569 issued June 5, 2012, for E-bazaar Featuring Personal Information Security.

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

CYVA is represented by Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang, Neal G. Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni, Wang & Associates PLLC in Dallas.

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

 

Oct. 24

• Long Corner Security v. 3Delta Systems Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00818

• Long Corner Security v. ACI Worldwide Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00819

• Long Corner Security v. American Express Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00820

• Long Corner Security v. Auric Systems International Case No. 2:13-cv-00821

• Long Corner Security v. Blackhawk BP Holdings Inc. f/k/a BluePay Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00822

• Long Corner Security v. Braintree Payment Solutions Case No. 2:13-cv-00823

• Long Corner Security v. Capital Payments d/b/a Bluefin Payment Systems Case No. 2:13-cv-00824

• Long Corner Security v. Chase Paymentech Case No. 2:13-cv-00825

• Long Corner Security v. CipherCloud Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00826

• Long Corner Security v. CyberSource Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00827

• Long Corner Security v. Digital River Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00828

• Long Corner Security v. Discover Financial Services Case No. 2:13-cv-00829

• Long Corner Security v. Elavon Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00830

• Long Corner Security v. EMC Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00831

• Long Corner Security v. Financial Transaction Services d/b/a Card Connect and d/b/a Princeton Payment Solutions Case No. 2:13-cv-00832

• Long Corner Security v. First Data Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00833

• Long Corner Security v. FrontStream Payments Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00834

• Long Corner Security v. Futurex L.P. Case No. 2:13-cv-00835

• Long Corner Security v. Groupon Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00836

• Long Corner Security v. Heartland Payment Systems Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00837

• Long Corner Security v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-00838

• Long Corner Security v. Host Merchant Services Case No. 2:13-cv-00839

• Long Corner Security v. International Business Machines Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00840

• Long Corner Security v. InComm Holdings Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00841

• Long Corner Security v. Ingenico Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00842

• Long Corner Security v. Intel Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00843

• Long Corner Security v. JetPay Solutions Case No. 2:13-cv-00844

• Long Corner Security v. JVL Ventures d/b/a Isis Case No. 2:13-cv-00846

• Long Corner Security v. LANSA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00848

• Long Corner Security v. Liaison Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00849

• Long Corner Security v. Magensa et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00850

• Long Corner Security v. Mastercard Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00851

• Long Corner Security v. Merchant e-Solutions Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00852

• Long Corner Security v. Merchant-Link Case No. 2:13-cv-00853

• Long Corner Security v. Mercury Payment Systems et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00854

• Long Corner Security v. Multi-Systems Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00855

• Long Corner Security v. NBX Merchant Services Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00856

• Long Corner Security v. Paymetric Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00857

• Long Corner Security v. PayPayl Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00858

• Long Corner Security v. PerspecSys USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00859

• Long Corner Security v. Pivotal Payments Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00860

• Long Corner Security v. Planet Payments Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00861

• Long Corner Security v. ProPay Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00862

• Long Corner Security v. Safenet Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00863

• Long Corner Security v. Salesforce.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00864

• Long Corner Security v. Shift4 Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00865

• Long Corner Security v. Thales e-Security Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00866

• Long Corner Security v. TNS Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00867

• Long Corner Security v. TransFirst Case No. 2:13-cv-00868

• Long Corner Security v. Vantiv Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00869

• Long Corner Security v. VeriFone Systems Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00870

• Long Corner Security v. Vesta Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00871

• Long Corner Security v. WorldPay US Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00872

Long Corner Security is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office located in Allen.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,963,642 for Method and Apparatus for Secure Storage of Data.

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

Long Corner Security is represented by Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

TYLER DIVISION

Oct. 21

• NobelBiz v. Global Connect Case No. 6:13-cv-00804

• NobelBiz v. T C N Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00805

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.

 

Oct. 23

• SmartPhone Technologies v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00807

SmartPhone Technologies 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. 7,076,275 issued for Method and System for Single-Step Enablement Of Telephony Functionality for a Portable Computer System;

• U.S. Patent No. Issued for Handheld Computer System That Attempts to Establish an Alternative Network Link Upon Failing to Establish a Requested Network Link;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,533,342 issued for System and Method of a Personal Computer Device Providing Telephone Capability; and

• U.S. Patent No. 40,459 Method and Apparatus for Communicating Information Over Low Bandwidth Communications Networks.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, an ongoing royalty and interest.

SmartPhone is represented by Paul J. Hayes and Dean G. Bostock of Hayes Bostock & Cronin in Andover, Mich., and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge John D. Love is assigned to the case.

 

• Inductex v. DGSE Companies Inc. a/k/a Dallas Gold & Silver Exchange Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00808

• Inductex v. Dillard’s Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00809

Inductex is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office located in Tyler.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,791,648 issued for Inductive Sensory Apparatus.

Inductex is asking the court for an award of damages, interest, and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano.  A jury trial is requested.

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

Want to get notified whenever we write about Intel Corp ?
Next time we write about Intel Corp, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Intel Corp

More News