SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

MARSHALL DIVISION

Nov. 19 

• MPHJ Technology Investments et al v. Research Now Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00962

Plaintiffs MPHJ and Network Scanning Solutions are Delaware limited liability companies with a place of business in Stephenville, Texas.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,477,410 issued on Jan. 13, 2009, for Distributed Computer Architecture and Process for Virtual Copying and U.S. Patent No. 8,488,173 issued July 16, 2013, for Distributed Computer Architecture and Process for Document Management.

The plaintiffs are seeking an award of damages, enhanced damages, interest and court costs.

MPHJ and Networked Scanning Solutions are represented by W. Bryan Farney of Farney Daniels PC in Georgetown. A jury trial is requested.

 

Nov. 20

• Hilltop Technology v. Wintek Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00964

• Hilltop Technology v. TPK Holding Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00965

Hilltop Technology is a Texas limited liability corporation.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,864,503 issued Jan. 4, 2011, for Capacitive Type Touch Panel.

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

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

 

• Adrain v. Amazon.com Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00967

John Adrain is an individual residing in Spokane County, Wash.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,831,669 issued Nov. 3, 1998, for Facility Monitoring System with Image Memory and Correlation.

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

The plaintiff is represented by John T. Polasek, C. Dale Quisenberry and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek, Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire; Otis W. Carroll and Deborah Race of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler; S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw Derieux LLP in Gladewater; and Russell R. Smith of Fairchild, Price, Haley & Smith LLP in Nacogdoches.

A jury trial is requested.

 

• eDekka v. Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00968

• eDekka v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00969

• eDekka v. BestBuy Case No. 2:13-cv-00970

• eDekka v. BlackBerry Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00971

• eDekka v. CDW Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00972

• eDekka v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00973

• eDekka v. J.C. Penney Corp. Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00974

• eDekka v. Liberty Interactive Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00975

• eDekka v. Macys.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00976

• eDekka v. Office Depot Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00977

• eDekka v. Pizza Hut Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00978

• eDekka v. Sally Beauty Supply Case No. 2:13-cv-00979

• eDekka v. Samsung Telecommunications America Case No. 2:13-cv-00980

• eDekka v. Sears Roebuck and Co. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00981

• eDekka v. Sony Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00982

• eDekka v. Staples Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00983

• eDekka v. Symantec Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00984

• eDekka v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00985

• eDekka v. The Gap Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00986

• eDekka v. W.W. Grainger Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00987

eDekka is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office located in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,266,674 issued for Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels.

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

eDekka is represented by Craig Tadlock, John J. Harvey Jr. and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano.

A jury trial is requested.

 

Nov. 21

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00989

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. LSI Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00990

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. MediaTek USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00991

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Panasonic Corp of North America Case No. 2:13-cv-00992

• Vantage Point Technology Inc. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00993

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.

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

 

Nov. 22

• Harvatek Corp. v. Nichia America Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00901

Harvatek is a Taiwanese corporation.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,008,529 issued Dec. 28, 1999, for Laser Diode Package;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,300,674 issued Oct. 9, 2001, for Flat Package for Semiconductor Diodes;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,841,934 issued for Jan. 11, 2005, for White Light Source from Light Emitting Diode; and

• U.S. Patent No. D659,655 issued May 15, 2012, for Led Package Base.

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

Harvatek 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 John D. Love is assigned to the case.

 

Nov. 26

Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Acer America Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00998

Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00999

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01000

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ASUS Computer International Case No. 2:13-cv-01001

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01002

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. BlackBerry Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01003

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Coolpad Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01004

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Fuhu Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01005

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Fujitsu America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01006

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Huawei Device USA Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01007

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. HTC America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01008

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Kyocera Communications Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01009

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01010

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01011

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Panasonic Corp. of North America Case No. 2:13-cv-01012

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01013

• Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01014

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. 7,808,483 for System, Device and Method for Extending a Stroke of a Computer Pointing Device.

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.

Jury trials are requested.

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

 

• Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01015

Biscotti is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in McKinney, Texas.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 issued March 27, 2012, for Real Time Video Communications System.

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

Biscotti is represented by Michael E. Jones and Allen F. Gardner of Potter Minton PC in Tyler. A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Staples Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01016

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01017

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01018

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Office Depot Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01019

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Footlocker.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01020

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. GameStop Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01021

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. BestBuy.com Case No. 2:13-cv-01022

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01023

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Sears Holdings Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01024

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Chico’s FAS Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01025

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Edible Arrangements International Case No. 2:13-cv-01026

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Officemax Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01027

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. W.W. Grainger Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01028

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Dillard’s Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01029

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. The Finish Line Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01030

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management Case No. 2:13-cv-01031

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. The Jones Group Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01032

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Bath & Body Works Brand Management Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01033

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01034

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. J.C. Penney Co. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01035

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Macys.com Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01036

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Aeropostale Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01037

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01038

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. PETCO Animal Supplies Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01039

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Kohl’s Department Stores Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01040

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Autozone Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01041

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Toys “R” US-Delaware Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01042

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01043

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Walgreen Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-01044

• Pi-Net International Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01045

Plaintiff Pi-Net is a California corporation with its principal place of business 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.

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

Pi-Net International is represented by John V. Picone III, Jennifer S. Coleman 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 case.

 

Nov. 27

• Trover Group Inc. et al v. i3 International Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01046

• Trover Group Inc. et al v. Dedicated Micros USA Case No. 2:13-cv-01047

Trover Group is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Plano.  Plaintiff The Security Center Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,751,345 and U.S. Patent No. 5,751,346 both issued on May 12, 1998, for Image Retention and Information Security System.

Trover Group is represented by Steven N. Williams, Kenneth P. Kula and William Z. Duffy of McDole Williams PC in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

 

TYLER DIVISION

Nov. 25

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. ABB Ltd. Case No. 6:13-cv-00906

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Exchangeit B.V. Case No. 6:13-cv-00907

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. IAR Systems Group AB et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00908

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Merrick & Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00909

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Micro Focus International Case No. 6:13-cv-00910

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Missler Software et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00911

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. PCI Geomatics Group Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00912

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Pharsight Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00914

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Sage Group Plc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00915

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Synopsys Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00917

Uniloc USA Inc. is a Texas corporation having a principal place of business in Irvine, Calif. Uniloc Singapore Private Limited is a Singapore corporation.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 for System for Software Registration.

Uniloc is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees and interest.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edward R. Nelson III, Wesley Hill, Edward R. Nelson III, Edward E. Casto Jr., Barry J. Bumgardner, Steven W. Hartsell, Jaime K. Olin and R. Casey O’Neill of Nelson Bumgardner Casto P.C. in Fort Worth; James L. Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group in Southlake; and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

Jury trial is requested.

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

 

Nov. 27

• NYC IP Inc. v. Apple Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00921

NYC IP Inc. is a New York company with a principal place of business in New York, N.Y.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Number 7,016,084 on March 21, 2006, issued on Method and Apparatus for Linking Designated Portions of a Received Document Image With an Electronic Address.

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

NYC IP is represented by Frank M. Washko of Tiburon Intellectual Property PLLC in San Francisco, Calif.

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

 

• Adaptix Inc. v. NEC Casio Mobile Communications Ltd. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00922

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.