• CYVA Research Holdings LLC v Luxury Link LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01054
Plaintiff CYVA is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.
CYVA claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,569 issued June 5, 2012, for an E-Bazaar Featuring Personal Information Security.
Defendant Luxury Link is allegedly infringing the ‘569 Patent through its website providing an electronic bazaar, and advertiser client and a buyer client, both configured to send one or more items of personal information, a product database and an electronic broker that provides trusted processing of transactions, according to the suit.
The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against defendant, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, expenses and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.
Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang, Neal G. Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.
St. Lawrence Communications LLC v LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics Alabama Inc. and LG Electronics USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01055
Plaintiff St. Lawrence is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.
The patents-in-suit are:
• U.S. Patent No. 6,795,805 issued Sept. 21, 2004, for a Periodicity Enhancement in Decoding Wideband Signals;
• U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524 issued Oct. 19, 2004, for a Perceptual Weighting Device and Method for Efficient Coding of Wideband Signals;
• U.S. Patent No. 7,151,802 issued Dec. 19, 2006, for a High Frequency Content Recovering Method and Device for Over-Sampled Synthesized Wideband Signal;
• U.S. Patent No. 7,260,521 issued Aug. 21, 2007, for a Method and Device for Adaptive Bandwidth Pitch Search in Coding Wideband Signals; and
• U.S. Patent No. 7,191,123 issued March 13, 2007, for a Gain-Smoothing in Wideband Speech and Audio Signal Decoder.
LG’s allegedly infringing products include HD Voice phones such as Saffron; LG A310; Nexus 4; LG Nexus 4 E960; Nexus 5; Optimus G; Optimus G Pro; Optimus L4 II; Optimus L5; Optimus L5 II; Optimus L7; Optimus L7 II; Optimus L9; Optimus LTE2 F160LV; LG Optimus F7; Optimus F180S; Optimus Vu2 F200; Optimus Vu3 F300; Optimus GX F310L; Optimus G2 F320S; Optimus G Pro F240S; Optimus LTE III F260S; Optimus G Flex F340S; Optimus 3D Max; Optimus 3D; Optimus 4XHD; Prada; Prada 3; LG G3; and LG G3 Vigor.
The plaintiff claims LG had actual knowledge of these patents.
St. Lawrence is seeking compensatory damages, enhanced damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.
The plaintiff is represented by Demtrios Anaipakos, Amir Alavi, Brian E. Simmons, Alisa A. Lipski and Michael McBride of Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing PC in Houston.
• Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01057
Plaintiff MTEL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lewisville, Texas.
According to the complaint, MTEL owns and controls a portfolio of patents developed by Mobile Telecommunication Technologies Corp. and its related entities such as Destineer and SkyTel Communications.
MTEL Corp. was a pioneer in wireless communications and is credited with launching the world’s first two-way wireless data messaging service, the SkyTel 2-Way, according to the suit. In 1993, MTEL Corp. was awarded a “Pioneer Preference” by the Federal Communications Commission, the suit states.
The patents-in-suit are:
• U.S. Patent No. 5,809,428 issued Sept. 15, 1998, for a Method and Device for Processing Undelivered Data Messages in a Two-Way Wireless Communication System; and
• U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946 issued May 19, 1998, for a Nationwide Communication System.
The ‘428 Patent describes methods, systems and devices for storing undeliverable messages, such as email and SMS messages. The ‘946 Patent describes devices and networks that provide for the transmission of unreceived portions of a message.
According to the suit, on Nov. 17, MTel received a favorable jury verdict in Mobile Telecomms. Techs. LLC v Apple (Case No. 2:13-cv-258). The jury found the accused features of iOS 7 and of various accused Apple devices infringed the same patents-in-suit asserted in this complaint. Apple’s iPhone 6 and 6+ and all versions of Apple’s iPad running iOS 8 contain similar features that are not colorably different from those found to be infringing in Mobile Telecomms. Techs. LLC v Apple.
The suit claims Apple has directly and willfully infringed the ‘428 Patent through iOS and networks that provide Apple’s iMessage communication service and other messaging services including MMS text messaging, XMPP-based messaging services and email services such as Google mail, Yahoo mail, AOL, Microsoft Exchange, Hotmail and Apple’s iCloud.
The ‘946 Patent is being directly and willfully infringed through mobile devices using iOS including all versions of Apple’s iPhone 6 and 6+ and all versions of Apple’s iPad running iOS 8 and compatible messaging services.
The plaintiff claims Apple had knowledge of its infringing activities since at least April 2, 2013, when MTel filed its other suit against Apple.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, costs, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC is being represented by Daniel Scardino and other attorneys from Reed & Scardino LLP in Austin.
• National Oilwell DHT LP v Flotek Industries Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01056
Plaintiff National Oilwell is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Houston. Defendant Flotek is a Delaware corporation with its place of business in Houston.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,508,317 issued Jan. 21, 2003, for a Downhole Apparatus and Method of Use.
Flotek has allegedly infringed the ‘317 Patent through its downhole flow pulsing apparatus such as the Flotek Stemulator vibration tool.
According to the suit, Flotek has been aware of the ‘317 Patent since at least Feb. 7, 2013, making the infringement willful.
National Oilwell is seeking a permanent injunction against Flotek, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Robert J. McAughan Jr. of Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC in Houston is attorney in charge for the plaintiff.
• Presqriber LLC v ADP Advanced MD Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00858
• Presqriber LLC v Advanced Data Systems Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00859
• Presqriber LLC v Allmeds Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00860
• Presqriber LLC v Collaborative Care Diagnostics LLC aka BioMedix Case No. 6:14-cv-00861
• Presqriber LLC v Compulink Business Systems Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00862
• Presqriber LLC v eClinicalWorks LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00863
• Presqriber LLC v HealthFusion Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00864
• Presqriber LLC v Integrated Practice Solutions Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00865
• Presqriber LLC v MacPractice Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00866
• Presqriber LLC v MD Logic Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00867
• Presqriber LLC v Med Informatix Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00868
• Presqriber LLC v Medflow Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00869
• Presqriber LLC v Meditab Software Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00870
• Presqriber LLC v NexTech Systems LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00871
• Presqriber LLC v Nexus Clinical LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00872
• Presqriber LLC v Partners Healthcare System Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00873
• Presqriber LLC v Practice Velocity LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00874
• Presqriber LLC v SRS Software LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00875
Plaintiff Presqriber is a Texas limited liability company based in Tyler.
Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,758,095 for an Interactive Medication Ordering System.
According to the suits, the ‘095 Patent is a prominent, pioneering patent in the medical services field, evidenced in part by the extent to which it has been forward-cited as prior art in subsequently issued patents. It has been forward-cited in more than 230 U.S. patents to date, including patents originally assigned to such prominent medical systems or services companies as Walgreen (22 times), Medco (16 times), Epic (10 times), Greenway (nine times), Cerner (seven times), General Electric (three times), McKesson (three times), Siemens (three times), Baxter (two times), Johnson & Johnson (two times), WebMD (two times), Becton Dickinson and Quest Diagnostics.
It has also been forward-cited in numerous non-medical patents assigned to companies such as Accenture, eBay, Ford, IBM and Microsoft as well as the University of Texas Board of Regents and the U.S. Army.
“And notwithstanding the fact that it was filed in 1995 and issued in 1998, the ‘095 Patent continues to be relevant today, as evidenced by the fact that the ‘095 Patent was forward-cited approximately 25 times in U.S. patents that issued in 2013 and 28 times in U.S. patents that issued in 2014 to date,” the suits claim.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctions against defendants, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.
Craig Tadlock, John J. Harvey Jr. and Keith Smiley of Tadlock Law Firm PLLC in Plano are representing the plaintiff.
Real Bonus Ltd. v Pier 1 Imports Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00878
Plaintiff Real Bonus is a limited company based in Samoa.
Real Bonus has decorative LED lights manufactured on its behalf and sells them to customers in the United States and throughout the world, the complaint states. In the U.S., Starlight Creations Inc. is Real Bonus’ exclusive importer and distributor of its products.
Real Bonus claims to be the owner of U.S. Letters Patent No. 7,926,978 issued April 19, 2011, for a Light Set with Surface Mounted Light Emitting Components.
According to the suit, Pier 1 was notified in a letter dated July 24, 2014, that it was infringing the ‘978 Patent by selling products under the “Glimmer Lights” brand, yet it continues to sell the products.
Real Bonus is seeking a permanent injunction against Pier 1, compensatory damages, enhanced damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Andrew W. Stinson and Tom Henson of Ramey & Flock PC in Tyler are representing the plaintiff.