The trolls got more active in December.  Repeat filers included ArrivalStar, Eclipse IP, Hawk Technologies, and Landmark Technology. 

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.

Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like to see.  I am preparing it as a service for retailers and their supply chain who may want an overview of the patent litigation landscape.  So, I am very open to ways to improve the report for you.

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Allegiant Travel Company (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • AmerisourceBergen Corporation
  • Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
  • Choice Hotels International, Inc.
  • Weight Watchers International, Inc.
  • Zoetis Inc.
  • Panera Bread Company Shutterstock, Inc.
  • Wayfair Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:          5,576,951 (Automated sales and services system); 6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system); and 7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. HealthEast Care System, (N.D. Minn.; D.N.J.) (multiple cases).

Judges:          Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois; District Judge Joan N. Ericksen

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

HealthEast Care System St. Joseph’s Healthcare System, Inc.

Plaintiff:       Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Lockridge Grindal Nauen; and Patrick J Cerillo, LLC

Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

Video Insight Inc. v. Hawk Technology Systems, LLC, (S.D. Fla.)

Claim:            Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:   Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Plaintiff:        Video Insight Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:       Jones Day

Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

West Corporation v. Eclipse IP, LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Claim:            Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:   Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiff:        West Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,479,901 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,504,966 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,528,742 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,538,691 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,561,069 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to change particulars of delivery or pickup); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,232,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,242,935 (Notification systems and methods where a notified PCD causes implementation of a task(s) based upon failure to receive a notification); 8,284,076 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to quantity of goods and/or services for delivery and/or pickup); 8,362,927 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,368,562 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to stop location for delivery and/or pickup of good and/or service); 8,531,317 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,564,459 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to purchase order information for delivery and/or pickup of goods and/or services); and 8,711,010 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data).

WorldPantry.com, Inc. et al v. Eclipse IP, LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Percy Anderson; Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:    Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiffs:

Balance Bar, Inc. WorldPantry.com, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,479,901 Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location; 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,504,966 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,528,742 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,538,691 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,561,069 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to change particulars of delivery or pickup); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia; 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,232,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,242,935 (Notification systems and methods where a notified PCD causes implementation of a task(s) based upon failure to receive a notification); 8,284,076 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to quantity of goods and/or services for delivery and/or pickup); 8,362,927 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,368,562 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to stop location for delivery and/or pickup of good and/or service); 8,531,317 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,564,459 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to purchase order information for delivery and/or pickup of goods and/or services); and 8,711,010 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data).

BSG Tech LLC v. Beauty Encounter Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Bodybuilding.com, LLC
  • The Bon-Ton Department Stores, Inc.
  • Discount Ramps.com LLC
  • Fat Brain Toys LLC
  • HRM USA, Inc.
  • HSNi, LLC
  • HSN
  • Musicnotes, Inc. d/b/a Musicnotes.com
  • Protocol II, Incorporated d/b/a Artbeads.com
  • Sears Holdings Management Corporation
  • Sur La Table, Inc.
  • XO Group Inc.

Plaintiff:        BSG Tech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Patents:          6,035,294 (Wide access databases and database systems); 6,195,652 (Self-evolving database and method of using same); and 6,243,699 (Systems and methods of indexing and retrieving data).

Farfetch UK Limited et al v. Eclipse IP, LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Judges:           District Judge Margaret M. Morrow; Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal

Claim:              Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:    Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiffs:

Farfetch.com US, LLC Farfetch UK Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        Durie Tangri

Patents:          7,064,681 (Response systems and methods for notification systems); 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,31,9414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,479,901 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,504,966 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,528,742 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,538,691 (Mobile thing determination systems and methods based upon user-device location); 7,561,069 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to change particulars of delivery or pickup); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,232,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,242,935 (Notification systems and methods where a notified PCD causes implementation of a task(s) based upon failure to receive a notification); 8,284,076 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to quantity of goods and/or services for delivery and/or pickup); 8,362,927 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems); 8,368,562 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to stop location for delivery and/or pickup of good and/or service); 8,531,317 (Notification systems and methods enabling selection of arrival or departure times of tracked mobile things in relation to locations); 8,564,459 (Systems and methods for a notification system that enable user changes to purchase order information for delivery and/or pickup of goods and/or services); and 8,711,010 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data).

ArrivalStar SA et al v. Fanatics Inc d/b/a Fanatics Holdings, Inc., (S.D. Fla.)

Judge:              District Judge Kenneth A. Marra

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:     Fanatics Inc d/b/a Fanatics Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • ArrivalStar SA
  • Melvino Technologies Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        Leslie Robert Evans & Associates

Patents:          6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); 6,952,645 (System and method for activation of an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).