Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION 

Jan. 13 

• Industrial Print Technologies LLC v Canon USA Inc. and Canon Solutions America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00019

Plaintiff IPT is a Texas corporation. According to the suit, IPT is in the business of licensing patented technology owned by Mr. Forrest P Gauthier.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,027,195 issued Feb. 22, 2000, for a System and Method for Synchronizing the Piezoelectric Clock Sources of a Plurality of Ink Jet Printheads

• U.S. Patent No. 6,145,946 issued Nov. 14, 2000, for a Method for Generating a Stroke Frequency Signal on a Plurality of Ink Jet Printheads; and

• U.S. Patent No. 6,493,106 issued Dec. 10, 2002, for a Method for Synchronizing Pixel Deposition Frequencies Between a Plurality of Print Engines.

The patented technology relates to industrial ink jet printing presses and provides systems and methods for controlling multiple inject printheads arranged within an inkjet printing press. According to the suits, the defendants have been and are engaged in infringing activities with regard to product lines of high speed industrial sized inkjet printing presses.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, economic damages, interest, treble damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is requested.

Timothy P. Maloney of Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery of Chicago, Ill., is lead attorney for the plaintiff along with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

 

Jan. 14

• Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Kao USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00021

• Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Select Comfort Retail Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00022

• Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v The Procter & Gamble Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00023

• Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Walgreen Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00024

Plaintiff Marshall Feature Recognition is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Texas with a principal place of business in Marshall.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,886,750 for a Method and Apparatus for Accessing Electronic Data Via a Familiar Printed Medium. According to the suit, MFR is majority controlled by inventors of the '750 Patent -- Spencer A. Rathus, Lois Fichner-Rathus and Jeffrey s. Nevid.

The patent deals with QR codes on printed commercial advertisement to be used by viewers for accessing programmed material. The mobile smartphone device uses a barcode scanner application to communicate with the QR Code, featured within the defendants' printed advertisements to obtain programmed information.

The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages adequate to compensate for the alleged infringement, interest, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. A jury trial is requested.

Austin Hansley of Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

 

Jan. 17

• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00030

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

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 issued June 29, 2004;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 issued Nov. 27, 2007;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 issued June 10, 2008;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 issued July 29, 2008;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 issued May 26, 2009; and

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

According to the suit, Apple's infringing display products include desktops, laptops, mobile phones, music players and tablets with an LCD, e.g. the iPad3, iPad 4, iPhone 5 and MacBook Air.

The plaintiff is seeking an accounting of all damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other just and equitable relief. A jury trial is requested.

Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy PC in Dallas is lead attorney for the plaintiff, along with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

 

SHERMAN DIVISION

Jan. 13

Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v CTA Digital Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00020

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 4:14-cv-00021

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v Monoprice Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00022

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v Monster Cable Products Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00023

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v Staples Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00025

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v StarTech.com USA LLP Case No. 4:14-cv-00026

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v Tera Grand Corp. Case No. 4:14-cv-00027

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v Lindy Computer Connection Technology Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00028

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v Phillips Electronics North America Corp. Case No. 4:14-cv-00031

• Ideative Product Ventures Inc. v TigerDirect Inc. Case No. 4:14-cv-00032

Plaintiff Ideative is a corporation licensed in Texas with a place of business in Carrollton.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,494,343 B2 issued Feb. 24, 2009, for Multiple Degrees of Freedom Connectors and Adapters.

Defendants’ allegedly infringing products include HDMI cables and connectors with swivel plugs.

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, costs and other relief.

James E. Davis of Klemchuck Kubasta LLP in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

 

TYLER DIVISION

Jan. 13

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC and David Winans GMAC TexasMLS.com LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00013

Jan. 14

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Century 21 Real Estate LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00015

Jan. 15

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v BRER Affiliates LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00016

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00017

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v ERA Franchise Systems LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00018

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Keller Williams Realty Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00019

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Sotheby's International Realty Affiliates LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00020

Plaintiff Property Disclosure Technologies is a Delaware corporation with an address in Wilmington, Del.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,584,167 issued Sept. 1, 2009, for a Real Estate Disclosure Reporting Method; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,945,530 issued May 17, 2011, for a Real Estate Disclosure Reporting Method, invented by G. Randall Bell, PhD.

The allegedly infringing products include computer implemented websites which provide computerized real estate searching and reporting.

The plaintiff is seeking an accounting of all damages caused by infringement, interest, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. A jury trial is requested.

Christopher M. Joe, Eric Buether, Brian Carpenter, Mark Perantie and Monica Tavakoli of Buether Joe & Carpenter LLC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

 

Jan. 15

• Landmark Technology LLC v Deluxe Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00021

• Landmark Technology LLC v Louis Vitton North America Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00022

• Landmark Technology LLC v Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00023

• Landmark Technology LLC v Nutrisystem Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00024

• Landmark Technology LLC v The Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00025

• Landmark Technology LLC v Union Pacific Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00026

Plaintiff Landmark Technology is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler, Texas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951 issued Nov. 19, 1996, to inventor Lawrence B. Lockwood for an Automated Sales and Services System. The '951 Patent was reexamined on Jan. 29, 2008, and again on May 9, 2013; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,010,508 issued May 7, 2006, for an Automated Multimedia Data Processing Network.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, destruction of infringing products, reasonable royalty, exemplary damages, enhanced damages, costs, attorneys' fees, interest and other just and proper relief.

A jury trial is requested.

Charles Ainsworth and Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC in Tyler are representing the plaintiff. Stanley M. Gibson and Ali Shalchi of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP in Los Angeles, Calif., are of counsel.

 

Jan. 16

• Touchscreen Gestures LLC v ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00029

• Touchscreen Gestures LLC v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00030

Plaintiff Touchscreen Gestures is a Texas limited liability company.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,180,506 issued Feb. 12, 2004, for a Method for Identifying a Movement of Single Tap on a Touch Device; and U.S. Patent No. 7,190,356 issued March 13, 2007, for a Method and Controller for Identifying Double Tap Gestures.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief. A jury trial is requested.

Winston O. Huff of W. O. Huff & Associates PLLC in Dallas is attorney in charge for the plaintiff.

 

Jan. 17

• Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v Apple Inc. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00031

Plaintiff 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 issued for a Mobile Communication System;

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

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

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

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

The defendants named in the suit are Apple Inc., AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless, Sprint Corp., Sprint Solutions Inc., Sprint Spectrum LP, Boost Mobile LLC, T-Mobile USA Inc. and T-Mobile US Inc.

The plaintiff is seeking damages and costs, royalties, treble damages, interest and other costs. A jury trial is requested.

Edward R. Nelson III, Brent Bumgardner, S. Brannon Latimer, Thomas Cecil and MIchael Fagan Jr. of Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth; and T. John Ward Jr., J. Wesley Hill and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview are representing the plaintiff.