MARSHALL DIVISION Aug. 4  • Harcol Research LLC v Vitacost.com Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00809 Plaintiff Harcol Research is a limited liability company organized in Nevada with a principal place of business in Tyler, Texas. It claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,817,364 for a Beverage Containing Alpha-Ketoglutaric Acid and Method of Making. Defendant makes and sells nutritional supplement products, including ARO-Vitacost Black Series Pre-Workout Concentrate, Black Powder (MRI), NO2 Ripcuts (MRI), Endorush (BSN) and N.O.-Xplode (BSN) including Advanced Strength, Caffeine Free and Ignitor Shots. Harcol alleges Vitacost’s products infringe the ‘364 Patent. It is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, interest, punitive damages and other relief the court may deem just and proper. A jury trial is demanded. William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm PC in Longview is counsel for the plaintiff.   Aug. 5 • QualiQode LLC v Embarcadero Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00811 • QualiQode LLC v EMC Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00812 • QualiQode LLC v Igrafx LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00813 • QualiQode LLC v Kaisha-Tec Co. Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-00814 • QualiQode LLC v Lanner Group Ltd. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00815 • QualiQode LLC v Newgen Software Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00816 • QualiQode LLC v Pegasystems Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00817 • QualiQode LLC v QPR Software PLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00818 • QualiQode LLC v Select Business Solutions Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00819 • QualiQode LLC v Talend Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00820 • QualiQode LLC v Ultimus Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00821 • QualiQode LLC v Usoft B.V. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00822 • QualiQode LLC v Visual Paradigm International Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-00823 • QualiQode LLC v Webratio S.R.L. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00827 • QualiQode LLC v Whitestein Technologies AG et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00829 Plaintiff QualiQode is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Marshall. The plaintiff claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 5,630,069 issued May 13, 1993, for a Method and Apparatus for Creating Workflow Maps of Business Processes. Defendants are accused of infringing the ‘069 Patent. “Acts of infringement by Defendants include, without limitation, utilizing computer based systems and methods for creating a representation of a business process and its associated workflows that include every element of at least one claim of the ‘069 Patent within the United States” court paper state. QualiQode is seeking an injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is requested. Todd Y. Brandt, Scott E. Stevens and David P. Henry of Stevens Henry in Longview and Darrell G. Dotson of The Dotson Law Firm in Longview are representing the plaintiff.   Aug. 5 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Acer Inc. and Acer America Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00824 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Amazon.com Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00825 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00826 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v ASUSTek Computer Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00828 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Barnes & Noble Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00830 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Cantor Fitzgerald LP et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00845 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Google Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00831 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00832 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v HTC Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00833 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00834 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v IGT Case No. 2:14-cv-00846 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Konami Digital Entertainment Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00847 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v LG Electronics Case No. 2:14-cv-00835 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00836 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Nintendo of America Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00837 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v NVIDIA Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00838 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v OL2 Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00840 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Pantech Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00841 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00842 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v Toshiba America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00843 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v WMS Gaming Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00848 • Multiplayer Network Innovations LLC v ZTE Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00844 Plaintiff MNI holds U.S. Patent No. 5,618,045, issued Feb. 8, 1997, for an Interactive Multiple Player Game System and Method of Playing a Game Between at Least Two Players. The ‘045 Patent was invented by Dr. Michael Kagan and Ian Solomon. According to the complaints, Dr. Kagan is a noted scholar and inventor. He holds a PhD in chemistry from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is the author of numerous books and journal articles relating to technology, chemistry, and religion. Dr. Kagan’s articles have been published in the journals including Nature and the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. Ian Solomon is an inventor and entrepreneur who is the co-founder of medical device makers SteadyMed Therapeutics, Inc. and Aespira Ltd. During the mid-1990’s, Dr. Kagan and Mr. Solomon conceived of a way for electronic devices to communicate with one another for the playing of computer games, the suit states. Dr. Kagan and Mr. Solomon’s idea was conceived in part against the backdrop of the conflict in the Middle East. The idea was to use wirelessly connected gaming devices to open up channels of communication between people with divergent views, according to the suits. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the MNI patent by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling multiple player game systems and/or services covered by one or more claims of the MNI patent, the suits allege. MNI is seeking compensatory damages, interest and any and all relief to which it may be entitled.  A jury trial is demanded. Elizabeth L DeRieux, S. Calvin Capshaw and D. Jeffery Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater are representing the plaintiff. Marc Fenster, Dorian Berger and Daniel Hipskind of Russ August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif., are of counsel.   Aug. 6 • Aten International Co. Ltd. vs Uniclass Technology Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00852 Plaintiff Aten International, a Taiwanese company, claims it is a leading innovator in the area of electronic switching devices. Defendants named are Uniclass Technology Co. Ltd., Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. of Dongguan Uniclass, Airlink 101, Phoebe Micro Inc. and Broadtech International Co. Ltd. doing business as Linksey. The defendants are accused of infringing: U.S. Patent No. 6,564,275 issued March 26, 2013; U.S. Patent No. 7,640,289 issued Dec. 29, 2009; U.S. Patent No. 6,957,287 issued Oct. 18, 2005; U.S. Patent No. 7,472,217 issued Dec. 30, 2008; and U.S. Patent No. 8,589,141 issued Nov. 19, 2003. Aten is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is requested. Jane J. Du of Fish & Richardson PC in Dallas is counsel for the plaintiff.   Aug. 8 • GRQ Investment Management LLC v Financial Engines Inc. and Financial Engines Advisors LLC Case NO. 2:14-cv-00851 Plaintiff GRQ Investment Management is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Plano. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 7,120,600 issued Oct. 10, 2006, for Systems and Methods for Improving Investment Performance and U.S. Patent No. 8,229,825 issued July 24, 2012, for Systems and Methods for Improving Investment Performance. According to the suit, Brian C. Tarbox and Mark Greenstein are listed as the inventors of the ‘600 and ‘825 Patents. Allegedly infringing products include Financial Engines’ Personal Asset Manager Program, Vanguard Personal Online Advisor, Vanguard Managed Account Program and Income Plus. GRQ is seeking damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded. Neal G. Massand of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas is counsel for the plaintiff.

More News