Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

Dec. 9 

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Apple Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01061

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01062

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. HTC Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01063

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. LG Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01064

Dec. 10

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01069

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01070

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01071

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Sony Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01072

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Sony Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01073

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Sharp Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01074

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Nokia Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01075

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01076

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. Kyocera Communications Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01077

• e-Watch Inc. et al v. BlackBerry Limited et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01078

e-Watch Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business located in San Antonio.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871 issued April 29, 2008, for Apparatus for Capturing, Converting and Transmitting a Visual Image Signal Via a Digital Transmission System; and U.S. Patent No. 7,643,168 issued for Jan. 5, 2010, for Apparatus for Capturing, Converting and Transmitting a Visual Image Signal Via a Digital Transmission System.

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

E-Watch is represented by Christopher V. Goodpastor, Mikal C. Watts and Francisco Guerra IV of Watts Guerra LLP in Austin; Andrew G. DiNovo, Adam G. Price, Chester J. Shiu, Stefanie T. Scott and Gregory S. Donahue of Dinovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP in Austin; and T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Dec. 9

• RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Trend Micro Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01065

RPost Holdings is a Delaware corporation having a place of business in Plano, Texas. RPost Communications Limited is a Bermuda corporation.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,161,104 issued April 17, 2012, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages; U.S. Patent No. 8,275,845 issued Sept. 25, 2012, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages; and U.S. Patent No. 8,468,198 issued June 18, 2013, for System and Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages.

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

RPost is represented by Winston O. Huff and Deborah Jagai of W.O. Huff & Associates PLLC in Dallas and Lewis E. Hudnell III of Colvin Hudnell LLP in New York, N.Y.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Dec. 10

• Hopewell Culture & Design v. Panasonic Corp. of North America et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01066

Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business in Marshall.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,171,625 issued Jan. 30, 2007, for Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content Represented by an Active Visual Display Element.

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

Hopewell Culture 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.

 

Dec. 11

• Constellation Technologies v. Time Warner Cable Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01079

• Constellation Technologies v. Windstream Holdings Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01080

Constellation is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Plano, Texas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent Nos. 6,128,649 issued Oct. 3, 2000, for Dynamic Selection of Media Streams for Display;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,845,389 issued Jan. 18, 2005, for System and Method for Broadband Multi-User Communications Sessions;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,901,048 issued May 31, 2005, for Link-Level Protection of Traffic in a Packet-Switched Network;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,154,879 issued Dec. 26, 2006, for Point to Multipoint Network;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,134,917 issued March 13, 2012, for  Automatic Protection Switching Using Link-Level Redundancy Supporting Multi-Protocol Label Switching; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,464,299 issued June 11, 2013, for Resource Conservation for Packet Television Services.

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

Constellation is represented by Harry L. Gillam Jr. of Gillam & Smith LLP in Marshall.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. AAA Life Insurance Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-01081

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. American Airlines Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01082

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01083

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Carnival Corp. & PLC et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01084

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Chrysler Group LLC Case No. 2:13-cv-01085

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Comcast Corp. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01086

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Dell Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01087

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Delta Air Lines Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01088

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. DirecTV Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01089

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Fidelity Investments Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01090

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Ford Motor Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-01091

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Gerber Life Insurance Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-01092

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. General Motors Co. Case No. 2:13-cv-01093

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Physicians Mutual Insurance Co. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01094

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Case No. 2:13-cv-01095

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Sallie Mae Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01096

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Sprint Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01097

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Toyota Motor North America Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01098

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. United Airlines Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01099

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01100

• Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01101

Phoenix is an Arizona limited liability company with its principal place of business in Scottsdale.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Number 5,987,434 issued for Nov.  16, 1999, for Apparatus and Method for Transacting Marketing and Sales of Financial Products; U.S. Patent Number 7,856,375 issued for Dec.21, 2010, for Customized Communication Document Creation System and Method; and U.S. Patent No. 8,234,184 issued July 31, 2012, for Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System.

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

Phoenix is represented by Benjamin T. Wang and Marc A. Fenster of Russ August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Innovative Automation LLC v. Kobo Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-01103

• Innovative Automation LLC v. Verizon and Redbox Digital Entertainment Services LLC et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01104

Dec. 13

• Innovative Automation LLC v. Target Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-01108

• Innovative Automation LLC v. Vudo Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01109

Innovative Automation is a limited liability corporation with a principal place of business in San Jose, Calif.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,174,362 C1 issued Feb. 6, 2007, for Method and System for Supplying Products from Pre-Stored Digital Data in Response to Demands Transmitted Via Computer Network and U.S. Patent No. 7,392,283 issued June 24, 2008, for Method and System for Supplying Products from Pre-Stored Digital Data in Response to Demands Transmitted Via Computer Network.

Innovative Automation is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, interest and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by San Fransisco, Calif., attorneys Adam J. Gutride, Seth A. Safier, Todd Kennedy, Anthony J. Patek and Marie A. McCrary; Victoria L.H. Booke and Peter Ajlouny of Booke & Ajlouny LLP in San Jose, Calif.; and Charles Ainsworth of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth in Tyler.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Dec. 13

• Adrain v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01105

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 L.L.P. in Bellaire; Otis W. Carroll and Deborah Race of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley P.C. 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 L.L.P. in Nacogdoches.

A jury trial is requested.

 

• Cyber Engineering Services Inc. v. Dell Inc. d/b/a Dell Services et al Case No. 2:13-cv-01106

Cyber Engineering Services Inc. is a Maryland corporation with a principal place of business in Columbia, Md.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,291,500 issued Oct. 16, 2002, for Systems and Methods for Automated Malware Artifact Retrieval and Analysis.

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

Cyber Engineering is represented by Matthew J. Antonelli, Larry D. Thompson Jr., Zachariah S. Harrington and Claire Devine of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP in Houston.

A jury trial is requested.

 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

Dec. 11

• Dexas International Ltd. v. Brumis Imports Inc. Case No. 4:13-cv-00732

Dexas International is a Texas corporation.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Design Patent No. D510,389 issued Oct. 4, 2005, for Document Case.

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

Dexas International is represented by Robert G. Oake Jr. of Oake Law Office in Allen.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Ron Clark is assigned to the case.

 

TYLER DIVISION

Dec. 10

• Mirror Worlds Technologies v. Dell Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00941

Plaintiff Mirror Worlds Technologies is a Texas limited liability company with principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227 issued Dec. 21, 1999, for Document Stream Operating System.

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

Mirror Worlds is represented by Simon Franzini, Sean A. Luner and Gregory S. Dovel of Dovel & Luner LLP in Santa Monica, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Corbis Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00942

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Getty Images (US) Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00943

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. iStockPhoto LP Case No. 6:13-cv-00944

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Age Fotostock America Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00945

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. SS SPV LLC Case No. 6:13-cv-00946

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Envato PTY Ltd. Case No. 6:13-cv-00947

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Fotolia LLC Case No. 6:13-cv-00948

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. PhotoShelter Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00949

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Photo Stock Plus Case No. 6:13-cv-00950

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. VectorStock Media Limited Case No. 6:13-cv-00951

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 Davis is assigned to the case.