Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

June 23 

• Effective Exploration LLC v Coreterra Operating LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00703

• Effective Exploration LLC v ETOCO LP Case No. 2:14-cv-00704

• Effective Exploration LLC v Fossil Resources Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00705

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

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,505,620 issued Aug. 13, 2013, for a Method and System for Accessing Subterranean Deposits from the Surface and Tools Therefore.

The ‘620 Patent is being infringed by defendants’ oil and gas wells, according to the suits.

Effective Exploration is seeking compensatory damages no less than reasonable royalty, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is demanded.

Steven R. Daniels of Farney Daniels PC in Georgetown is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

 

June 25

• Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00720

• Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v Sprint Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00721

• Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v T-Mobile US Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-723

• Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v Verizon Communications Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00722

Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group are limited liability companies with principal places of business in Plano.

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 issued June 29, 2004;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 issued Nov. 27, 2007;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 issued June 10, 2008;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 issued July 29, 2008;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 issued Oct. 14, 2008;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 issued May 26, 2009; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 issued July 10, 2012.

The patents are for Light Emitting Panel Assemblies and name Jeffery R. Parker as the sole inventor.

Also named in the suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196 issued March 29, 2011, for a Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements. Jeffrey R. Parker, Timothy A. McCollum and Robert M. Ezell are listed as the inventors of the ‘196 Patent.

Defendants allegedly infringe the patents by selling display products that use the fundamental technologies covered by the patents including mobile phones and tablets with an LCD that have longer displays, thinner displays, displays with higher light output, more uniform light output, lower power requirement and/or longer battery life.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and royalties, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and equitable. A jury trial is demanded.

Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy PC in Dallas is lead attorney for the plaintiff, with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

 

June 24

• LBS Innovations LLC v Berroco Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00706

Plaintiff LBS Innovations is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Austin.

The defendants named in the suit are: Berroco Inc., Mirage Flooring Inc., Boa-Franc Inc., Clark Equipment Co. doing business as Bobcat Co., Doosan Infracore International Inc., Discount Tire Inc., Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware Inc., Pizzeria Uno Corp., Rain Bird Corp., Transworld Entertainment Corp. doing business as FYE and UMB Bank NA.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,091,956 issued July 18, 2000, for a Situation Information System. Allegedly infringing products include websites with location interface.

LBS Innovations is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Christopher M. Joe of Dallas is lead counsel for the plaintiff.

 

June 25

• Traffic Information LLC v Ally Financial Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00708

• Traffic Information LLC v BeBe Stores Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00710

• Traffic Information LLC v Fandango LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00711

• Traffic Information LLC v Farmers Group Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00713

• Traffic Information LLC v Hyatt Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00714

• Traffic Information LLC v Kelley Blue Book Co. Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00715

• Traffic Information LLC v Michaels Stores Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00716

• Traffic Information LLC v Smoothie King Co. Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00717

• Traffic Information LLC v State Farm International Services Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00718

• Traffic Information LLC v The Allstate Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00709

• Traffic Information LLC v WebMD LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00719

Plaintiff Traffic Information is a Texas limited liability company.

Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,785,606 issued Aug. 31, 2004, for a System Providing Traffic Information. A Re-examination Certificate was issued on Dec. 6, 2011.

Accused products display traffic information on a a mobile device such as a mobile telephone or tablet.

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

The plaintiff is represented by C. Dale Quisenberry, John T. Polack and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire; and S Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth DeRieux and Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater.

 

TYLER DIVISION

June 23

• Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Avanquest North America Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00570

• Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Brocade Communication Systems Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00571

• Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Corel Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00572

• Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v DRS Technologies Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00573

• Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Rapid7 LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00574

• Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v SDL International America Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00575

• Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA v Zebra Technologies Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00577

Plaintiff Uniloc is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano.

According to the complaints, Uniloc has researched, developed, manufactured and licensed information security technology solutions, platforms and frameworks, including solutions for securing software applications and digital content.

Uniloc owns and has been awarded a number of patents that enable software and content publishers to securely distribute and sell their high-value technology assets with minimum burden to their legitimate end users.

They are used in several markets including software and game security, identity management, intellectual property rights management and critical infrastructure security, the suits state.

Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 for a System for Software Registration.

Defendants are accused of making, using, selling or importing a system for reducing software piracy, reducing casual copying and reducing the unauthorized use of software including product activation systems that permit customers to activate or register software.

Uniloc is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, costs, interest and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiffs are represented by E. Leon Carter, J. Robert Arnett II and Ryan S. Loveless of Carter Scholar Arnett Hamada & Mockler PLLC in Dallas; James L. Etheridge of Etheridge law Group PLLC in Southlake; and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.