MARSHALL DIVISION
Feb. 24
• eDekka LLC v L.L. Bean Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00117
• eDekka LLC v Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00118
• eDekka LLC v Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00113
• eDekka LLC v Avon Products Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00114
• eDekka LLC v Belk Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00115
• eDekka LLC v Euromarket Designs Inc., dba Crate & Barrel Case No. 2:14-cv-00116
• eDekka LLC v MSC Industrial Direct Co. Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00119
• eDekka LLC v Nordstrom Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00120
• eDekka LLC v Ralph Lauren Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00121
• eDekka LLC v Restoration Hardware Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00122
• eDekka LLC v Sierra Trading Post Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00123
• eDekka LLC v Systemax Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00124
• eDekka LLC v The Home Depot USA Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00125
• eDekka LLC v Toys “R” Us Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00126
• eDekka LLC v Valuevision Media Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00127
• eDekka LLC v Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00128
• eDekka LLC v Walgreen Co. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00129
• eDekka LLC v Williams Sonoma Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-130
Plaintiff 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. 6,266674 for Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels.
According to the complaint, the ‘674 Patent has been forward-cited as prior art in connection with the examination of several subsequently-issued U.S. patents, including patents originally assigned to such prominent technology companies as Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc., Verizon Business Network Services Inc., Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corp. and Agilent Technologies Inc.
The defendants’ allegedly infringing products include websites that include “shopping cart” functionality.
eDekka is seeking injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is requested.
Craig Tadlock of the Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano is representing eDekka.
The cases have been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Feb. 25
• QualiQode LLC v Appian Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00132
• QualiQode LLC v Avolution Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00133
• QualiQode LLC v Casewise Systems Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00134
• QualiQode LLC v Bosch Software Innovations Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00136
• QualiQode LLC v Bonitasoft Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00138
• QualiQode LLC v Colosa Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00139
• QualiQode LLC v Cordys Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00140
Feb. 27
• QualiQode LLC v Fujitsu America Inc. nka Fujitsu Management Services of America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00151
• QualiQode LLC v Informatica Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00152
• QualiQode LLC v Intalio Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00153
• QualiQode LLC v KANA Software Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00154
• QualiQode LLC v Kofax Inc. aka Kofax Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-00157
Plaintiff QualiQode is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.
The defendants are accused of infringing on:
• U.S. Patent No. 5,630,069 issued May 13, 1993, for a Method and Apparatus for Creating Workflow Maps of Business Processes;
• U.S. Patent No. 5,734,837 issued March 31, 1998, for a Method and Apparatus for Building Business Process Applications in Terms of its Workflows;
• U.S. Patent No. 6,058,413 issued May 2, 2000, for a Method and Apparatus for Utilizing a Standard Transaction Format to Provide Application Platform and Medium Independent Representation and Transfer of Data for the Management of Business Process and their Workflows; and
• U.S. Patent No. 6,073,109 issued June 6, 2000, for a Computerized Method and System for Managing Business Processes Using Linked Workflows.
Acts of alleged infringement by defendants include utilizing computer based systems and methods for creating a representation of a business process and its associated workflows.
QualiQode is seeking a monetary judgment no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.
The plaintiff is represented by Todd Y. Brandt of Stevens Love PLLC in Longview.
The cases have been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
TYLER DIVISION
Feb. 17
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Amway Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00107
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Ancestry.com Case No. 6:14-cv-00108
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Buy.com Inc. dba Rakuten.com Shopping Case No. 6:14-cv-00109
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Cabela’s Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00110
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Estee Lauder Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00111
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Etsy Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00112
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Fanatics Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00113
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Footlocker Inc. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00114
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Gilt Groupe Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00115
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Groupon Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00116
• Qommerce Systems LLC v J. Crew Group Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00117
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Kohl’s Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00119
• Qommerce Systems LLC v PC Connection Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-001120
• Qommerce Systems LLC v PCM Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00121
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Peapod LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00122
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Saks Direct LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00123
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Shop MA Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00124
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Wayfair LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00125
• Qommerce Systems LLC v Weight Watchers International Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00126
Qommerce Systems LLC v 1-800-FLOWERS.com Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00127
Plaintiff Qommerce Systems is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Tyler.
The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,356,606 for Dynamic Web Storefront Technology.
‘606 Patent has been forward-cited as prior art in connection with the examination of several subsequently-issued U.S. patents, including patents originally assigned to such prominent technology companies as IBM, Oracle, Google, SAP, and Sprint, the suit states.
Qommerce is seeking an injunction against defendants to stop the infringing activities, compensatory damages, interest, costs and other relief to which it may be entitled.
A jury trial is demanded.
Craig Tadlock of the Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano is representing the plaintiff.
The cases have been assigned to District Judge K. Nicole Mitchell.