MARSHALL DIVISION
Sept. 28
Theft Prevention Innovations LLC v. Elpas, Inc. et al 2:16-cv-01057-RWS
Theft Prevention Innovations LLC v. RF Code, Inc. 2:16-cv-01059-RWS
Theft Prevention Innovations LLC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al 2:16-cv-01060-RWS
The plaintiff Theft Prevention asserts ownership of United States Patent Number 7,671,741, alleging the ‘741 patent was infringed upon.
Recent court documents show that the ‘741 patent, entitled “Anti-Theft Security Device and Perimeter Detection System,” “generally covers security systems and tags that, among other things, can be connected to merchandise and have the ability to monitor whether a party removes or attempts to remove the tag, and to emit a signal when a party has done so without authorization.”
Theft Prevention seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Attorneys Zachariah S. Harrington, Matthew J. Antonelli, and Larry D. Thompson, Jr. of the law firm Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP in Houston.
Sept. 30
Aurelian IP Management, LLC v. Fair Isaac Corporation 2:16-cv-01063-RWS-RSP
Aurelian IP Management, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 2:16-cv-01064-RWS-RSP
Aurelian IP Management, LLC v. Oracle Corporation 2:16-cv-01065-RWS-RSP
Plano-based Aurelian is the plaintiff.
It alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,272,495, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Processing Free-Format Data.”
The ‘495 patent was issued to the complainant on Aug. 7, 2001, according to recent court papers.
Aurelian seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Attorneys Richard C. Weinblatt and Stamatios Stamoulis of the law firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC in Wilmington, Del. are representing the complainant.
Retrospection Marketing LLC v. Best Buy Company, Inc 2:16-cv-01067
Retrospection Marketing LLC v. Kohl's Corporation 2:16-cv-01068
Retrospection Marketing LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc 2:16-cv-01069
The plaintiff Retrospection Marketing is based in Plano.
Recent court documents claim that it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062.
Entitled “Method for Generating a Presentation for Re-Locating an Information Page That Has Already Been Called,” the ‘062 patent was issued on Nov. 13, 2007.
Court papers show that “the claims of the ‘062 patent are directed to, for example, a ‘method for generating a presentation for re-locating an information page that has been called, via a network selected from the group consisting of the Internet, an intranet, and an extranet, from a home page of an information vendor having a vendor server and which has subsequently been exited.’”
Retrospection Marketing seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
It is represented by attorney Stephen M. Lobbin of the law firm One LLP in Newport Beach, Calif.