MARSHALL DIVISION

Oct. 29 

• Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. Amazon.com Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00883

• Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. Leap Wireless International Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00885

• Mobile Telecommunications Technologies v. T-Mobile USA Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00886

MTEL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lewisville.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,809,428 issued Sept. 15, 1998, for Method and Device for Processing Plaintiff Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Undelivered Data Messages in a Two-Way Wireless Communications System;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946 issued May 19, 1998, for Nationwide Communication System; and

• U.S. Patent No. 5,786,748, issued for July 28, 1998, for Method and Apparatus for Giving Notification of Express Mail Delivery.

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

Mobile Telecommunications is represented by Daniel R. Scardino, John L. Hendricks and Steven P. Tepera of Reed & Scardino LLP in Austin.  A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Oct. 30

• IBV Systems v. Ubisense Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00887

IBV Systems LLC is a Texas limited liability company with a principle place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,222,440 issued April 24, 2001, for Location, Identification and Telemetry System Using Strobed Signals at Predetermined Intervals.

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

The plaintiff is represented by Austin Hansley of Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

 

• Kroy IP Holdings v. Autozone Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00888

• Kroy IP Holdings v. BJ’s Restaurants Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00889

• Kroy IP Holdings v. Genghis Grill Franchise Concepts LP Case No. 2:13-cv-00890

• Kroy IP Holdings v. Panera Bread Co.  Case No. 2:13-cv-00891

• Kroy IP Holdings v. TGI Friday’s Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00892

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.

 

Oct. 31

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00893

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00894

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. HTC Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00895

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00896

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. LG Electronics Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00898

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Pantech Co. Ltd et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00899

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00890

• Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00891

Rockstar Consortium US LP is a limited partnership with a principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,838,551 issued Nov. 17, 1998, for Electronic Package Carrying an Electronic Component and Assembly of Mother Board and Electronic Package;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,037,937 issued March 14, 2000, for Navigation Tool for Graphical User Interface;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,128,298 issued Oct. 3, 2000, for Internet Protocol Filter;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,463,131 issued Oct. 8, 2002, for System and Method for Notifying a User of an Incoming Communication Event;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,765,591 issued July 20, 2004, for Managing a Virtual Private Network; and

• U.S. Patent No. 6,937,572 issued Aug. 30, 2005, for Call Trace on a Packet Switched Network.

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

Rockstar Consortium is represented by Mike McKool Jr., Douglas A. Cawley, Theodore Stevenson III and David Sochia of McKool Smith P.C. in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Arunachalam v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management Case No. 2:13-cv-00897

Nov. 1

• Arunachalam v. Bath & Body Works Brand Management Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00932

Dr. Arunachalam is an individual who resides in Menlo Park, Calif.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,346,894 issued Jan. 1, 2013, for Real-Time Web Transactions from Web-Applications.

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

The plaintiff is represented by Jennifer S. Coleman, John V. Picone III and Christopher A. Hohn of Hopkins & Carley in San Jose, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Fairfield Industries Inc. v. Wireless Seismic Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00903

Plaintiff Fairfield Industries Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Sugar Land.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,124,028 issued Oct. 17, 2006, for Method and System for Transmission of Seismic Data; U.S. Patent No. 7,983,847 issued July 19, 2011, for Method and System for the Transmission of Seismic Data; and U.S. Patent No. 8,296,068 issued Oct. 23, 2012, for Method for Transmission of Seismic Data.

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

Fairfield Industries is represented by Allen A. Arntsen and Connor A. Sabatino of Foley & Lardner LLP in Madison, Wisc.  A jury trial is requested.

 

• SecureNova v. HTC Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00904

• SecureNova v. LG Electronics Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00905

• SecureNova v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00906

• SecureNova v. Sony Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00907

Plaintiff SecureNova is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,792,482 issued Sept. 7, 2010 for Communication Service Subscription Management.

The plaintiff asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, interest, court costs, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.

SecureNova 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.

 

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Acer America Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00908

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00909

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. ASUS Computer International et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00910

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Barnes & Noble Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00911

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00912

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00913

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Hisense USA Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00914

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. HTC America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00915

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00916

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Kyocera International Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00917

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00918

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. LG Electronics USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00920

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00921

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. NEC Corp. of America Case No. 2:13-cv-00923

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00924

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Pantech Wireless Case No. 2:13-cv-00925

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00926

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Renesas Electronics Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00927

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00928

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Texas Instruments Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00929

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00930

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Wacom Technology Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00931

Plaintiff is a Texas corporation having its principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,463,750 issued on Oct. 31, 1995, for Method and Apparatus for Translating Virtual Addresses in a Data Processing System Having Multiple Instruction Pipelines and Separate TLB’s for Each Pipeline.

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

Vantage Point is represented by Paul V. Storm and Sarah M. Paxson of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP in Dallas.  A jury trial is requested.

 

TYLER DIVISION

Oct. 30

• Annuitek v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00818

• Annuitek v. American United Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00819

• Annuitek v. Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00820

• Annuitek v. Athene Annuity & Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00821

• Annuitek v. Aviva Life and Annuity Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00822

• Annuitek v. Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00823

• Annuitek v. Forethought Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00824

• Annuitek v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00825

• Annuitek v. Hartford Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00826

• Annuitek v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00827

• Annuitek v. Jefferson National Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00828

• Annuitek v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co. (USA) Case No. 6:13-cv-00829

• Annuitek v. Life Insurance Co. of the Southwest Case No. 6:13-cv-00830

• Annuitek v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00831

• Annuitek v. National Western Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00832

• Annuitek v. New Era Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00833

• Annuitek v. Principal Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00834

• Annuitek v. Protective Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00835

• Annuitek v. Riversource Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00836

• Annuitek v. Sagicor Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00837

• Annuitek v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00838

• Annuitek v. Standard Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00839

• Annuitek v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (US) Case No. 6:13-cv-00840

• Annuitek v. Symetra Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00841

• Annuitek v. The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00842

• Annuitek v. The Union Central Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00843

• Annuitek v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Case No. 6:13-cv-00844

• Annuitek v. TransAmerica Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00845

• Annuitek v. USAA Life Insurance Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00846

• Annuitek v. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00847

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

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,893, 071 issued for Annuity Value Software.

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

Annuitek 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 cases.

 

Nov. 1

• Adaptix Inc. v. Kyocera Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00853

• Adaptix Inc. v. Kyocera Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00854

Adaptix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Carrollton, Texas.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,454,212 and U.S. Patent No. 6,947,748 issued for OFDMA with Adaptive Subcarrier-cluster Configuration and Selective Loading.

Adaptix is asking the court for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages and interest.

The plaintiff is represented by Paul J. Hayes and Dean G. Bostock of Hayes, Bostock & Cronin in Andover, Mass., and Craig Tadlock and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano.

A jury trial is requested.

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

More News