SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

MARSHALL DIVISION

Sept. 22 

• Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00902

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

Samsung is accused of infringing:

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 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. 7,452,045 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.

Samsung’s allegedly infringing products include the Galaxy series of phones.

PUMA is seeking a permanent injunction against Samsung, compensatory damages, enhanced damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Demetrios Anaipakos of Ahmad Savistanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing PC in Houston is representing the plaintiff.

 

Sept. 23

• BMC Software Inc. v ServiceNow Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00903

Plaintiff BMC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Houston.

According to the complaint, BMC is a leading provider of information technology management systems and serves thousands of customers around the globe, from small and mid-size businesses to the largest companies in the world. The company was founded in Houston by Scott Boulette, John Moores and Dan Cloer, who worked as software programmers for Shell Oil and then left to start BMC in 1980.

Today, it has around 6,000 employees and more than 20,000 customers.

BMC’s IT management systems enable companies to easily manage, track, and service the ever-increasing number of network servers, computers, printers, software applications and other computing resources needed across an enterprise, to ensure users are not disrupted in their business activities. According to the suit BMC has invested approximately $8 billion in research and development to help build many of today’s leading IT management solutions.

To ensure that companies do not free-ride on BMC’s enormous investments in research and development, BMC relies on the protection of its intellectual property and the enforcement of its intellectual property rights, including the hundreds of patents awarded to BMC employees for their innovations.

“BMC’s ability to earn sufficient profits from demand for its innovations is harmed when others freely use these patented technologies and offer them at below market prices because such infringers do not need to recoup BMC’s enormous R&D investments,” the suit states. “If such infringement is permitted, BMC will be unable to continue to make the kinds of investments needed to develop and grow the industry. And, ultimately, this will have an adverse impact on BMC’s ability to continue to create thousands of jobs for the people of Texas and many others worldwide.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 5,978,594 issued Nov. 2, 1999, for a System for Managing Computer Resources Across a Distributed Computing Environment by First Reading Discovery Information About How to Determine System Resources Presence;

U.S. Patent No. 6,816,898 issued Nov. 9, 2004, for an Interfacing External Metrics into a Performance Management System;

U.S. Patent No. 6,895,586 issued May 17, 2005, for an Enterprise Management System and Method Which Includes a Common Enterprise-Wide Namespace and Prototype-Based Hierarchical Inheritance;

U.S. Patent No. 7,062,683 issued June 13, 2006, for a Two-Phase Root Cause Analysis;

U.S Patent No. 7,617,073 issued Nov. 10, 2009, for a System and Method for Assessing and Indicating the Health of Components;

U.S. Patent No. 8,646,093 issued Feb. 4, 2014, for a Method and System for Configuration Management Database Software License Compliance; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,674,992 issued March 18, 2014, for Spotlight Graphs.

According to the suit, ServiceNow’s founder Fred Luddy admitted that copying and stealing are key aspects of ServiceNow’s business model.

The defendant’s allegedly infringing products include

ServiceNow Automation Platform and related products such as ServiceNow Incident Management, ServiceNow Problem Management, ServiceNow Performance Analytics, ServiceNow Business Services Management Map, ServiceWatch, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, ServiceNow Configuration Management, including the ServiceNow Configuration Management Database (CMDB), ServiceNow Discovery, ServiceNow Orchestration (formerly known as ServiceNow Runbook Automation), and ServiceNow Change and Release Management.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against ServiceNow, compensatory and supplemental damages, treble damages for willful infringement, costs, interest and other relief deemed just and proper.

Samuel F. Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall; Robert A. Cote, Radu Lelutiu and David Dehoney of McKool Smith PC in New York, N.Y.; and Holly Englemann of McKool Smith PC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

 

 

KelDar Inc. v The Betesh Group Holding Corp. doing business as the Betesh Group, Baby Brezza and BabyBrezza.com. Case No. 2:14-cv-00904

KelDar Inc. v Mayborn USA Inc., doing business as Tommee Tippee and Tommeetippee.us, Mayborn Group Ltd. and Jackel International Ltd.  Case No. 2:14-cv-00905

Plaintiff KelDar is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Euless.

Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,671,325 issued Sept. 23, 1997, for an Apparatus for Preparing Infant Formula from Powder.

According to the suit, Danny J. Roberson of Euless is the inventor of the ‘325 Patent.

Mr. Roberson conceived of his invention on or about Jan. 10, 1992, when his first daughter was a baby and Mr. Roberson wanted a product and method for easily preparing infant formula at body temperature without scalding his daughter or losing nutrients from the formula.

KelDar is a Texas corporation jointly owned by Dan and Denise Roberson. According to the suit, KelDar is a non-practicing entity, but it is not a “patent troll.”

“KelDar does not purchase patents for suing companies for patent infringement,” the suit states. “KelDar is a holding company for Mr. Roberson’s patents and the Robersons’ business interests.”

The suit claims defendant Betesch has been selling the Baby Brezza Temp Control Water Kettle in the U.S., United Kingdom and Canada since 2012.

KelDar is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, expenses and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Peter J. Corcoran III of Corcoran IP Law PLLC in Texarkana is representing the plaintiff.

 

 

• Emmanuel C. Gonzalez v InfoStream Group Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00906

• Emmanuel C. Gonzalez v New Life Ventures Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00907

• Emmanuel C. Gonzalez v This Life Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00908

Plaintiff Emmanuel C. Gonzalez is an individual residing in the Philippines.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,558,807 issued July 7, 2009, for a Host Website for Digitally Labeled Websites and Methods;

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,339 issued Jan. 12, 2010, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites;

U.S. Patent No. 7,873,665 issued Jan. 18, 2011, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites;

U.S. Patent No. 8,065,333 issued Nov. 22, 2011, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,296,325 issued Oct. 23, 2012, for a Method for Digitally Labeling Websites.

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

M. Scott Fuller, Paul D. Lein and Darrian L. Campbell of Locke Lord LLP in Dallas are representing Gonzalez.

 

Sept. 26

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00911

Plaintiff Core Wireless is a corporation organized under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Core Wireless Licensing Ltd. is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Plano.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 issued April 29, 2014, for a Computing Device with Improved User Interface for Applications;

U.S. Patent No 8,498,671 issued July 30, 2013, for a Mobile Telephone Device with User-Selectable Content Displayed and Updated During Idle Time;

U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 issued April 30, 2013, for a Computing Device with Improved User Interface for Applications;

U.S. Patent No. 7,072,667 issued July 4, 2006, for a Location Information Service for a Cellular Telecommunications Network; and

U.S. Patent No. 5,907,823 issued May 25, 1999, for a Method and Circuit Arrangement for Adjusting the Level or Dynamic Range of an Audio Signal.

Defendant LG is allegedly infringing the patents through its Android Products, Optimus, G, L, F and Nexus devices, G Pad tablets and other products including Connect 4G MS840, D820, Elite LS696, Enact VS890, Escape P870, Intuition VS950, Lucid VS840, Lucid 2 VS870, Mach LS860, Marquee LG855, Motion 4G MS770, Nitro P930, Rumor Reflex S LN272S, Spectrum VS920, Spectrum 2 VS930, Spirit 4G MS870, Splendor US370, Venice LG370, and Viper LS840 products.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reasonable royalties, attorneys’ fees, interest, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Henry Bunsow, Brian A.E. Smith, Denise De Mory and Craig Allison of Bunsow De Mory Smith & Allison LLP in San Francisco, Calif., and S. Calvin Capshaw and Elizabeth DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladwater.