SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

MARSHALL DIVISION

April 8 

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00301

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00302

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v Volkswagen AG et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00300

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

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 issued June 29, 2004, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 issued Nov. 27, 2007, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 issued June 10, 2008, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 issued July 29, 2008, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 issued Oct. 14, 2008, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies;

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

• U.S. Patent No. 6,886,956 issued May 3, 2005, for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like.

The defendants allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit through vehicles having navigation displays and desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players and tablets with an LCD.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages for willful infringement, interest and other just and equitable relief. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Demetrios Anaipakos of Ahmad Savitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing PC in Houston.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne.

 

April 8

PURL LLC v MindFire Internet Solutions Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00303

PURL LLC v Easy Purl Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00304

PURL LLC v Dukky LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00305

Plaintiff PURL is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Van Alstyne, Texas.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,271,507 issued Sept. 18, 2012, for a Web-Based Marketing Management System. The defendants allegedly infringe the patent by using personalized URL products.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest, increased damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is requested.

The plaintiff is represented by Hao Ni of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas.

The cases are assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

April 9

Telinit Technologies LLC v FLIR Systems Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00307

Plaintiff Telinit Technologies is a Texas corporation with a place of business in Plano.

The defendants in the suit are FLIR Systems Inc., Lorex Corp. and Lorex Technology Inc. They are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,016,942 issued March 21, 2006, for Dynamic Hosting.

The invention claimed in the ‘942 patent includes a computer-implemented method for channeling data through a network from an initial server or client connection to direct a communication from two client computers, according to the suit.

Defendants’ Products are systems and components of devices that include, inter alia, a camera with a built-in computer having data storage, computer memory (RAM) and a central processing unit (CPU), for performing a process for remotely connecting to another computing device with the assistance of a server.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief.

Telinit is represented by William E. Davis III of the Davis Firm PC in Longview and Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola of Ferraiuoli LLC in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

 

April 10

Z-Dimensional LLC v The Bradford Group and Hammacher Schlemmer & Co. Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00308

Z-Dimensional LLC v JVC Americas Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00309

Plaintiff Z-Dimensional (ZD) is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Allen.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,729,530 issued June 1, 2010, for a Method and Apparatus for 3-D Data Input to a Personal Computer with a Multimedia Oriented Operating System.

Allegedly infringing products include the Hammacher Schlemmer 3D Camcorder Binoculars and 3D Scanner, JVC’s 3D Everio Camcorder and ProHD 3D Camcorders.

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

Ronald W. Burns of Frisco is representing the plaintiff.

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

 

eDekka LLC v Abt Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00310

eDekka LLC v Beachbody LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00311

eDekka LLC v Crutchfield Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00312

eDekka LLC v Edible Arrangements LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00313

eDekka LLC v Ellison Systems Inc. dba Shoplet.com Case No. 2:14-cv-00314

eDekka LLC v Foster and Smith Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00315

eDekka LLC v Oakley Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00316

eDekka LLC v The Tire Rack Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00317

eDekka LLC v U.S. Auto Parts Network Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00318

eDekka LLC v Vitacost.com Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00319

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

Defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,266,674 for a Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs and other relief. A jury trial is requested.

Craig Tadlock of Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano is representing eDekka.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

April 11

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v The Cheesecake Factory Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00321

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Darden Concepts Inc. dba Olive Garden Case No. 2:14-cv-00322

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00323

Marshall Feature Recognition LLC v Kitchenaid Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00324

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,886,750 issued May 3, 2005, for a Method and Apparatus for Accessing Electronic Data Via a Familiar Printed Medium.

Defendants are accused of infringing the ‘750 Patent by providing QR Codes on printed advertisements.

QR Codes are features that can be recognized by a mobile smartphone device when the device, controlled by the user, scans the QR Code, in a manner claimed by the ‘750 patent. The mobile smartphone device uses a barcode scanner application to communicate with the QR Code, featured within the Defendant’s printed advertisement, to obtain programmed information relating to the advertisement.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, interest, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is requested.

Austin Hansley PLLC of Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

 

TYLER DIVISION

April 7

Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v Apple Inc. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00251

Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

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

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,377,804 for Mobile Communication Systems;

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

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

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

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

• U.S. Patent No. 6,810,019 for Reducing Interference in Inter-Frequency Measurement.

Cellular Communications Equipment claims infringing devices include Apple iPhones and iPads.

“On information and belief, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile have each purchased or otherwise acquired from Apple certain mobile devices for sale, resale, and/or distribution to their customers (and other end users) that are the subject of Counts I through VI (or some subset thereof). Thus, for these Counts, the right to relief against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and/or T-Mobile is asserted jointly and severally with Apple,” the suit states.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, royalties, treble damages for alleged willful infringement, interest and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is requested.

Edward R. Nelson III and other attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth and T. John Ward Jr. and other attorneys from Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

 

Clear With Computers LLC v Northern Tool & Equipment Co. Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00252

Clear With Computers LLC v OpticsPlanet Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00253

Clear With Computers LLC v Rag & Bone Inc. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00254

Plaintiff Clear With Computers (CWC) is a Texas limited liability company located in Plano.

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,625,776 issued April 29, 1997, for an Electronic Proposal Preparation System for Selling Computer Equipment and Copy Machines; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,606,739, issued Oct. 20, 2009, for an Electronic Proposal Preparation System.

CWC is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is requested.

Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview and Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC in Wilmington, Del., are representing CWC.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

 

April 8

Klever Marketing Inc. v LivingSocial Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00257

Klever Marketing Inc. v Jo-Ann Stores LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00258

Klever Marketing Inc. v Office Max Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00259

Plaintiff Klever Marketing is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,240,606 issued May 30, 1995, for an Instant Electronic Coupon Verification System.

The allegedly infringing activities include distributing electronic coupons directly to consumers through its own application available for download and use on a smartphone.

Klever Marketing is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Frank M. Washko of Tiburon Intellectual Property PLLC in San Francisco, Calif.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Michael Schneider.