Qos IP, LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al 6:15-cv-00880-JRG-KNM
Plano-based QoS is the plaintiff.
It pursues legal action in response to alleged infringement upon United States Patent Number No. 7,385,982 (the “’982 Patent”), titled “Systems and Methods for Providing Quality of Service (Qos) In an Environment That Does Not Support Qos Features,” of which it asserts ownership.
The ‘982 Patent was issued by the United States Patent Office on June 10, 2008.
Court papers state among the infringing products in question include models from each of the CloudEngine 6800 Series (except the 6810LI), CloudEngine 7800 Series, and the CloudEngine 12800 Series.
The CloudEngine Switches have multiple input and output ports for data ingress and egress. The CloudEngine Switches examine received packet information including source and/or destination address information in order to apply QoS policies.
QoS consequently seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Its lead counsel is attorney Cabrach John Connor of the law firm Taylor Dunham and Rodriguez, LLP in Austin.
LGRT PRO LLC v. AN. DEL. U.S.A. INC. 5:15-cv-00162-RWS-CMC
Plaintiff LGRT is based in Plano.
As the purported owner of U.S. Patent Number 6,895,554 (the “554 patent”), entitled “Method of Document Assembly,” LGRT seeks to stop what it claims to be infringement.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘555 patent on May 17, 2005.
The complainant seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
It is represented by attorney Peter Joseph Corcoran, III of the law firm Corcoran IP Law, P.L.L.C in Texarkana.
Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc 2:15-cv-01559-JRG
Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. athenahealth Inc 2:15-cv-01560-JRG
Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. Epic Systems Corporation 2:15-cv-01561-JRG
Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. NextGen Healthcare Information Systems LLC 2:15-cv-01562-JRG
Plaintiff Preservation Wellness is based in Plano.
It claims ownership of U.S. Patent Number 7,640,271 (the “’271 Patent”), entitled “System For
Maintaining Patient Medical Records for Participating Patients,” which the USPTO issued on Dec. 29, 2009.
According to court documents, the claims of the ’271 Patent provide an inventive concept and do not claim an abstract idea. The ’271 Patent provides for a “two way firewall program” that limits a patient’s access to certain parts of his or her health information, while allowing the patient’s physician to have full access to the entire record, including the physician notes, as well as other patient health information, they state.
Alleging the ‘271 Patent was infringed, Preservation Wellness seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
It is represented by attorney Andrew W. Spangler of the law firm Spangler Law P.C. in Longview.
CDR Printing LLC v. Bank of America Corporation 2:15-cv-01566
CDR Printing LLC v. Wells Fargo & Company 2:15-cv-01567
CDR Printing LLC v. BestBuy.com, LLC 2:15-cv-01568
CDR Printing LLC v. DSW Inc. 2:15-cv-01569
Austin-based CDR Printing is the plaintiff.
It intends to put a stop to what it asserts is infringement of U.S. Patent Number 7,271,929 (“the
’929 Patent”) titled “System and Method for Integrated Printing and Assembly of Electronic
The ‘929 Patent was issued on Sept. 18, 2007.
CDR Printing seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
It is represented by attorneys Krystal La'Shae Gibbens, Neal Massand, Stevenson Moore, V and Hao Ni of the law firm Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC in Dallas.