Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC v. Dell, Inc. 6:15-cv-00971-JRG-JDL
Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC v. Sharp Electronics Corporation 6:15-cv-00972-JRG-JDL
Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al 6:15-cv-00973-JRG-JDL
Dallas-based Lone Star is the plaintiff.
It seeks to stop what it asserts is infringement of United States Patent Numbers 6,724,435 (the “’435 Patent”) and 6,122,012 (the “’012 Patent”). The ‘435 Patent, titled “Method for Independently Controlling Hue or Saturation of Individual Colors in a Real Time Digital Video Image,” was issued on Apr. 20, 2004 while the ‘012 Patent, titled “Method of Selective Control of Digital Video Images,” was issued on Sept. 19, 2000.
“The patents-in-suit disclose systems and methods for controlling individual color saturation and/or hue of a digital video input image,” the complaint says.
Lone Star purportedly owns the patents in question.
The complainant seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
It is represented by attorneys John D. Saba Jr., Adam G. Price and Daniel L. Schmid of the law firm DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP in Austin and John Lee of the law firm Banie & Ishimoto LLP in Menlo Park, Calif.
VStream Technologies, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al 6:15-cv-00976-JRG-JDL
VStream Technologies, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corporation et al 6:15-cv-00977-JRG-JDL
Plaintiff VStream has initiated legal action in response to alleged infringement of five patents.
Court documents list the patents in dispute as: 1.) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,690,731 titled “Method and Apparatus for Diagonal Processing of Video Data” (the “’731 Patent”); 2.) 8,179,971 titled “Method and Apparatus for Video Data Compression” (the “’971 Patent”); 3.) 6,850,647 titled “System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Decompressing Digital Camera Sensor Data” (the “’647 Patent); 4.) 7,627,183 titled “System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Decompressing Digital Camera Sensor Data” (the “’183 Patent”); 5.) 7,489,824 titled “System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Decompressing Digital Camera Sensor Data” (the “’824 Patent”).
These patents “are generally directed to methods, systems, apparatus, and articles of manufacture for encoding and decoding signals representative of image and/or video signals.”
VStream consequently seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Attorney John S. Kyle of the law firm Kyle Harris LLP in San Diego is representing the plaintiff.
MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. Apricorn, Inc. 6:15-cv-00979
MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. CDW Corporation 6:15-cv-00980
MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. Nxt-Id, Inc. 6:15-cv-00981
MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. La Cie, Ltd. et al 6:15-cv-00982
The plaintiff is MAZ.
The company has brought a lawsuit following purported infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,359,476 (the “’476 Patent”) and 8,762,713 (the “’713 Patent”).
According to the complaint, MAZ owns the disputed patents with engineer Stephen J. Zizzi listed as their inventor. The MAZ technology includes, among other things, information security that is transparent and seamless to the users, the suit says.
MAZ consequently seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Attorneys Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang, Neal G. Massand, Stevenson Moore V and Krystal L. Gibbens of the law firm Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC in Dallas serve as its counsel.
Pherah LLC v. MicroStrategy Incorporated 6:15-cv-00983
Pherah LLC v. Viewpoint Inc. d/b/a Viewpoint Construction Software 6:15-cv-00984
Pherah LLC v. Adaptive Insights Inc. 6:15-cv-00985
Pherah LLC v. Sisense Inc. 6:15-cv-00986
Pherah LLC v. GoodData Corporation 6:15-cv-00987
The plaintiff Pherah is based in Plano.
Pherah claims ownership of U.S. Patent No. RE44,652 (“the ‘652 patent”). The ‘652 patent, titled “Computer-Readable Data Product for Managing Sales Information,” was issued on Dec. 17, 2013.
Pherah consequently seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
It is represented by attorney Papool S. Chaudhari of the law firm Chaudhari Law, PLLC in Wylie.