Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

Jan. 22 

• E2E Processing Inc. v Cabela’s Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00036-JRG-RSP

• E2E Processing Inc. v Crocs Inc. and Crocs Retail LLC Case No 2:14-cv-00037-JRG-RSP

• E2E Processing Inc. v Hallmark Cards Inc., Hallmark.com LLC and Hallmark Interactive LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00038-JRG-RSP

• E2E Processing Inc. v Nordstrom Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00039

Plaintiff E2E is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,981,222 issued Dec. 27, 2005, for End-to-End Transaction Processing and Statusing System and Method.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

Andrew Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview and Randall Sunshine, Ted S. Ward and Ryan Hatch of Liner LLP in Los Angeles, Calif., are representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne.

 

Jan. 24

• Genband US LLC v Metaswitch Networks Ltd., Metaswitch Networks Corp. and Metaswitch Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00033-JRG-RSP

Plaintiff Genband is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Frisco, Texas.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,772,210 issued for a Method and Apparatus for Exchanging Communication  Between Telephone Based Devices in an Internet Protocol Environment;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,791,971 for a Method and Apparatus for Providing a Communications Service for Communication and for Extending Packet Network Functionality;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,885,658 issued for a Method and Apparatus for Interworking Between Internet Protocol Telephony Protocols

• U.S. Patent No. 6,934,279 and 7,995,589 for Controlling Voice Communications over a Data Network;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,047,561 for a Firewall for Real-Time Internet Applications; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,184,427 and 7,990,984 for a System and Method for Communicating Telecommunications Information from a Broadband Network to a Telecommunications Network.

The plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

Douglas M. Kubehl, Jeffery Baxter, Roshan S. Mansinghani, Vernon Evans and Timothy Calloway of Baker Botts LLP in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne.

 

TYLER DIVISION

Jan. 21

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v JBGoodwin Realtors Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00032-JDL

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Redfin Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00034-JDL

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Re/Max LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00035-JDL

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Zillow Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00037-JDL

• Property Disclosure Technologies LLC v Weichert Co. Case No. 6:14-cv-00036-JDL

Plaintiff Property Disclosure is a Delaware limited liability company.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,584,167 issued Sept. 1, 2009, and U.S. Patent No. 7,945,530 issued May 17, 2011, for a Real Estate Disclosure Reporting Method were issued to invento­­­r G. Randall Bell, Ph. D.

"(The defendants) will have been aware of the `167 Patent since at least the date it was provided notice of this Complaint and may have been aware of the `167 Patent prior to this date given that the inventor, Dr. Bell, is a well-known economist and property damages consultant in the real estate industry," the suit states.

Property Disclosure Technologies is seeking judgment for all damages caused by the alleged infringements, interest, enchanced damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper.

A jury trial is requested.

The plaintiff is represented by Christopher M. Joe of Beuther Joe & Carpenter LLC in Dallas.

The cases have been assigned to Magistrate Judge John D. Love.

 

• Lone Star WiFi LLC v Omni Hotel Corp. and Omni Hotels Management Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00033

Plaintiff Lone Star WiFi is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler.

The patents-in-suits are generally directed to particular implementations of wireless networks in which multiple, overlapping wireless streams provide varying levels of access to content and resources.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,490,348 issued Feb. 10, 2009, for a Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,312,286 issued Nov. 13, 2012, for a Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,583,935, issued Nov. 12, 2013, for a Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances.

The suit cites may surveys that show the increasing demand by hotel guests to have access to wireless Internet.

"Omni was one of the first hotel chains to offer free WiFi to guests," the suit states. "Omni saw free Wi-Fi access as a way to maintain customer loyalty."

The suit says that Omni owns and/or manages 50 hotels and resorts in North America, 46 of which are located in the United States.

Upon information and belief, all of Omni’s hotels and resorts maintain multiple, overlapping wireless networks. Omni maintains network infrastructures comprising multiple overlapping networks at its hotels and resorts, including wired and wireless networks. The networks are configured to provide different methods of access and levels of service. Such networks include lobby networks, guest networks, conference room networks and private, secure networks.

The 49 page suit goes on to list Omni properties and cites the facilities’ websites noting “high speed wireless Internet access.”

Lone Star WiFi is seeking compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is requested.

Brent N. Baumgardner is lead attorney for the plaintiff along with Edward R. Nelson III, Jaime K. Olin, Jonathan H. Rastegar of Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Michael Schneider.