MARSHALL DIVISION

March 3

Penovia LLC v Acer America Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00161 

Penovia LLC v Aliph Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00162

Penovia LLC v Alpine Electronics of America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00163

Penovia LLC v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00165

Penovia LLC v Archos Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00166

Penovia LLC v  Voxx International Corp. dba Audiovox Case No. 2:14-cv-00167

Penovia LLC v Blackberry Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00168

Penovia LLC v BlueAnt Wireless Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00169

Penovia LLC v Bose Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00170

Penovia LLC v Casio Computer Co. Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-00171

Penovia LLC v Creative Labs Inc. Case No. 2-14-cv-00172

Penovia LLC v Fujitsu America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00173

Penovia LLC v Grace Digital Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00174

Penovia LLC v Griffin Technology Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00175

Penovia LLC v Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00176

Penovia LLC v HTC America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00177

Penovia LLC v SDI Technologies dba iHome Case No. 2:14-cv-00178

Penovia LLC v Kyocera Communications Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00179

Penovia LLC v Lenovo (United States) Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00180

Penovia LLC v LG Electronics USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00181

Plaintiff Penovia is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,822,221 issued Oct. 13, 1998, for an Office Machine Monitoring Device.

Penovia is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed appropriate.

A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is being represented by Andrew W. Spangler in Longview and attorneys from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC in Wilmington, Del.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

QualiQode LLC v Orbus Software Case No. 2:14-cv-00159

QualiQode LLC v PMNsoft Ltd. Case No 2:14-cv-00164

QualiQode LLC v Progressive Software Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00183

QualiQode LLC v Troux Technologies Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-00184

Plaintiff QualiQode is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Marshall.

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.

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.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled.

Todd Y. Brandt of Stevens Love in Longview is representing the plaintiff.

The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

March 4

John B. Adrain v Hikvision Digital Technology Ltd. and Hikvision USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00182

Plaintiff John B. Adrain is the inventor and owner of all rights, title and interest in the patents at issue in this case.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,813,669 issued Nov. 3, 1998, for a Facility Monitoring System with Image Memory and Correlation. A reexamination certificate was issued on Aug. 21, 2012.

Hikvision makes and sells surveillance cameras, software and network video recorders. The suit alleges their security monitoring systems are covered by the ‘669 Patent.  Examples given include the DS-2DF52776-AEL camera that can be used with the DS-7600NI-SE Series Hik Vision Network Video Recorder and iVMS-4200 software.

Adrain is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

Attorneys from Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire, Ireland Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler, Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater and Fairchild Price Haley & Smith LLP in Nacogdoches are serving as counsel for the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

March 7

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v MFR V Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00190

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v CVS Caremark Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00191

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v H.J. Heinz Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00192

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Target Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00193

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v  Toni & Guy USA LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00194

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00197ßå

Plaintiff Marshall Feature Recognition 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. 6,886,750 issued May 3, 2005, for a Method and Apparatus for Accessing Electronic Date Via a Familiar Printed Medium.  Marshall Feature Recognition is controlled by Spencer A. Rathus, Lois Fichner-Rathus  and Jeffrey S. Nevid, the inventors of the ‘750 Patent.

The defendants allegedly infringe the ‘750 Patent by providing printed commercial documents that have at least one machine recognizable feature, i.e. a QR Code, which is used by a mobile smartphone device.

According to the suit, 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 relating to the advertisement.

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees and costs.

A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is being represented by Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas.

The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to  Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

TYLER DIVISION

March 7

3rd Eye Surveillance LLC v Vision Video Security LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00161

3rd Eye Surveillance LLC v Stealth Monitoring Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00162

Plaintiff 3rd Eye is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

According to the suit, defendant Vision Video is a Texas limited liability company located in Dallas. Defendant Stealth Monitoring Inc. is a Texas limited liability company based in Addison.

Defendants are accused of infringing on:

U.S. Patent No. 7,323,980 issued Aug. 17, 2004, for a Security System and Method with Realtime Imagery.

U.S. Patent No. 6,798,344 issued Sept. 28,2004, for a Security Alarm System and Method with Realtime Streaming Video.

U.S. Patent No. 7,323,980 issued Jan. 29, 2008, for a Security System and Method with Realtime Imagery.

The patents relate generally to video security systems that record, store and transmit images through the use of computer equipment, digital storage and an electronic communications network.

3rd Eye is seeking damages to compensate for Vision Video’s alleged infringement no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, enhanced damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled.

A jury trial is requested.

Stephen A. Kennedy  of Kennedy Law PC in Dallas is counsel for the plaintiff.

The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge John D. Love.

More News