MARSHALL DIVISION

June 9 

Olivistar LLC v EB Brands LLC dba Sync Case No. 2:14-cv-00674

Olivistar LLC v New Balance Athletic Shoes Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00673

Olivistar LLC v TomTom Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00675

Olivistar LLC v Under Armour Inc. Case No. 2;14-cv-00676

Plaintiff Olivistar is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in McKinney.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,944,469 for a System and Method for Using Self-Learning Rules to Enable Adaptive Security Monitoring.

The allegedly infringing products include the Sync BURN Activity+24 Hr. Calorie Burn Tracker, New Balance BodyTRNr, TomTom Multi-Sport GPS Watch and Armour39 System.

Olivistar is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, interest, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper.

A jury trial is requested.

Olivistar is represented by Austin Hansley of Austin Hansley PLLC in Dallas.

 

NNPT LLC v Huawei Investment & Holding Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00677

Plaintiff NNPT is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Longview.

Defendants named in the suit are Huawei Investment & Holding Co. Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Technologies USA Inc., Huawei Technologies Cooperatif U.A. and Futurewei Technologies Inc. Huawei Investment & Holding Co. Ltd. is a corporation in the People’s Republic of China.

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,578,086 issued June 10, 2003, for Dynamically Managing the Topology of a Data Network;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,130,877 issued Oct. 10, 2000, for Rate Controlled Broadcast for Activation of Entities in Large Scale Data Networks;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,697,325 issued Feb. 24 ,2004, for a System, Device and Method for Expediting Reconvergence in a Communication Network;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,664,123; issued Feb. 16, 2010, for a Generalized Virtual Router; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,607,323 issued Dec. 10, 2013, for a Method for Providing Media Communication Across Firewalls.

According to the suits, the Huawei defendants represent one of the world’s largest manufacturers and sellers of routing and switching products for high-performance networks. Although headquartered in China, the Huawei Defendants have a world-wide presence, including multiple offices in the United States alone including its North American headquarters in Plano, Texas.

Allegedly infringing products include Huawei’s Cloud Engine 5800 Series Switches, Cloud Engine 12800 Series Switches, AR150 Series Enterprise Routers, AR200 Series Enterprise Routers, AR250 Series Enterprise Routers and AR G3 Series Enterprise Routers.

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

Barry Golob of Cozen O’Connor in Washington, D.C., is lead attorney for the plaintiff with attorneys from Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

 

June 10

SimpleAir Inc. v Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00679

Plaintiff SimpleAir is a Texas corporation.

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,035,914 issued April 24, 2006;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,090,803 issued Jan. 3, 2012;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,572,279 issued Oct. 29, 2013;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,601,154 issued Dec. 3, 2013; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,639,838 issued Jan. 28, 2014.

Each patent is titled System and Method for Transmission of Data.

According to the suit, defendant Amazon has infringed these patents in making and using the methods and systems claimed by the foregoing patents by developing, offering, operating, using, and putting into service the Amazon Device Messaging (ADM) and the Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS) services and systems. Devices include the Kindle Fire (2nd generation), Kindle Fire HD, Kindle Fire HDX, and Fire TV media player, without permission or license from SimpleAir.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against Amazon, compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, interest and other relief as justice requires. A jury trial is requested.

Jeff Eichmann of Dovel & Luner LLP in Santa Monica, Calif.; and Calvin Capshaw and Elizabeth DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater are representing the plaintiff.

 

June 11

My Health Inc. v Biotronik Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00680

My Health Inc. v Cardionet Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00681

My Health Inc. v Health Dialog Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00682

My Health Inc. v LifeScan Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00683

My Health Inc. v Tandem Diabetes Care Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00684

My Health Inc. v Tunstall Healthcare USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00685

According to the complaints, Dr. Michael E. Eiffert is a resident of Plano and is the CEO of My Health and the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,612,985 for a Method and System for Monitoring and Treating a Patient.

While affiliated with the University of Rochester, Dr. Eiffert and Lisa C. Schwartz invented a unique technology that assists healthcare providers in monitoring and treating patients. Consequently, on Sept. 2, 2003, the University of Rochester was awarded the ’985 Patent.

The allegedly infringing products include Biotronik’s home Monitoring, Cardionet’s Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry, Health Dialog’s CareDialog, LifeScan’s One Touch Verio IQ System, Tandem Diabetes Care’s T:Connect Platform and associated blood glucose monitoring devices and Tunstall Healthcare’s MyMedic Telehealth Monitor.

My Health is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, a permanent injunction, treble damages for willful infringement, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded. T

he plaintiff is represented by Elizabeth DeRieux and S Calvin Capshaw of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater; Dale Quisenberry and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire. Joseph G. Pia of Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss LLC in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Michael R. Wolford of Rochester, N.Y., are of counsel.

 

June 12

Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v HTC Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00690

Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00687

Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v LG Electronics Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00691

Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v Motorola Mobility Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00689

Plaintiff Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture (PUMA) is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

Defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No 5,812,789 issued Sept. 22, 1998, for a Video and/or Audio Decompression and/or Compression Device that Shares a Memory Interface;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,960,464 issued Sept. 28, 1999, for a Memory Sharing Architecture for a Decoding in a Computer System;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,058,459 issued May 2, 2000, for a Video/Audio Decompression/Compression Device Including an Arbiter and Method for Accessing a Shared Memory;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,427,194 issued July 30, 2002, for an Electronic System and Method for Display Using a Decoder and Arbiter to Selectively Allow Access to a Shared Memory;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368 issued Jan. 22, 2008, for an Electronic System and Method for Display Using a Decoder and Arbiter to Selectively Allow Access to a Shared Memory;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,542,045 issued June 2, 2009, for an Electronic System and Method for Display Using a Decoder and Arbiter to Selectively Allow Access to a Shared Memory;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753 issued Aug. 17,2010, for an Electronic System and Method for Selectively Allowing Access to a Shared Memory;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,054,315 issued Nov. 8, 2011, for an Electronic System and Method for Selectively Allowing Access to a Shared Memory; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,681,164 issued March 25, 2014, for an Electronic System and Method for Selectively Allowing Access to a Shared Memory.

Allegedly infringing products named in the suits include HTC 7Pro, HTC Arrive, HTC 8XT, HTC Amaze, HTC Desire, HTC Droid Incredible, HTC Evo, HTC First, HTC Nexus One, HTC HD7, HTC HD7S, HTC Hero, HTC Imagio, HTC Inspire, HTC Merge, HTC One, HTC Radar, HTC Titan, HTC Titan II, HTC Trophy, HTC Vivid, HTC Wildfire, Huawei Ascend, Huawei Mercury, Huawei Mercury Ice, Huawei myTouch, Huawei P1, Huawei Unite, Huawei Valiant, Huawei Vitria, Huawei Comet, LG Elite, LG Enact, LG Enlighten, LG Escape, LG Expo, LG Exceed, LG Fathom, LG Fluid, LG G Flex, LG G2, LG Google Nexus 5, LG Ignite, LG Incite, LG Intuition, LG L40, LG L70, LG L90, LG Lucid, LG Mach, LG Marquee, LG Nexus 4, LG Optimus, LG Spectrum, LG Splendor, Motorola Moto G, Motorola Moto X, Motorola Admiral, Motorola Defy, Motorola Cliq, Motorola Droid, Motorola Electrify, Motorola Milestone and Motorola Photon.

PUMA is seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Demetrios Anaipakos, Amir Alavi, Michael McBride, Allisa Lipski and Justin Chen of Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing PC in Houston are representing the plaintiff, along with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

More News