The trolls continued the fourth quarter the way they ended the third — quiet.  Repeat filers included Hawk Technology, Interface IP and Phoenix Licensing.

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.

Eclipse IP LLC v. Express, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Express, Inc.
  • Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. Partsbandit.com, LLC

Plaintiff:        Eclipse IP LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Olavi Dunne; and Tadlock Law Firm

Patent:            7,479,899 (Notification systems and methods enabling a response to cause connection between a notified PCD and a delivery or pickup representative); 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); and 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia).

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Travelzoo Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Travelzoo Inc.
  • HomeAway, Inc.
  • RetailMeNot, Inc.
  • Singapore Airlines Limited

Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Black & Hamill; and Farnan

Patents:          7,406,663 (Graphical input device with dynamic field width adjustment for input of variable data via a browser-based display); 7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device); 7,743,542 (Magazine entrance guide); and 7,080,325 (Graphical device for comprehensive viewing and input of variable data via a browser-based display).

Magnacross LLC v.Best Buy Purchasing, LLC d/b/a Insignia Products, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Defendants:

  • BlackBerry Corporation
  • Fujitsu America, Inc.
  • HTC America, Inc.
  • LG Electronics USA, Inc.
  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Motorola Mobility LLC
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  • Sony Electronics Inc.
  • ZTE (USA) Inc.

Plaintiff:        Magnacross LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Direction IP Law

Patent:            6,917,304 (Wireless mutliplex data transmission system).

Phoenix Licensing, LLC et al v. CenturyLink, Inc.(E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • T-Mobile
  • Charter Communications
  • Cox Communications
  • DISH Network
  • Holland America Line, NV
  • Kohl’s Corporation
  • Southwest Airlines Co.
  • Macy’s Inc.
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
  • Hilton Worldwide
  • Hyundai
  • TDS Telecommunications Corporation
  • Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.
  • United States Cellular Corporation
  • Insight Communications Company, Inc.
  • Time Warner
  • Hyatt

Plaintiffs:

  • LPL Licensing, LLC
  • Phoenix Licensing, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Russ August & Kabat

Patents:          5,987,434 (Apparatus and method for transacting marketing and sales of financial products); 6,999,938 (Automated reply generation direct marketing system); 7,890,366 (Personalized communication documents, system and method for preparing same); 8,234,184 (Automated reply generation direct marketing system); 8,352,317 (System for facilitating production of variable offer communications); 8,606,632 (System, method, and computer program product for selecting and presenting financial products and services); 8,738,435 (Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services); 7,860,744 (System and method for automatically providing personalized notices concerning financial products and/or services); and 7,991,649 (Method for automatically preparing a plurality of client communications offering one or more financial products or services).

Gonzalez v. Snap Interactive, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Snap Interactive, Inc.
  • Tagged, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Emmanuel C Gonzalez

Pls. Cnsl:        Locke Lord

Patents:          7,558,807 (Host website for digitally labeled websites and method); 7,647,339 (Method for digitally labeling websites); 7,873,665 (Method for digitally labelling websites); 8,065,333 (Method for digitally labelling websites); and 8,296,325 (Method for digitally labelling websites).

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Terra Holdings, LLC, (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge:            District Judge George B. Daniels

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     Terra Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff:        Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Levisohn Berger

Patents:          6,886,750 (Method and apparatus for accessing electronic data via a familiar printed medium); and 6,929,182 (Method and apparatus for accessing electronic data via a familiar printed medium).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC (C.D. Cal.; D.N.J.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth; District Judge Christina A. Snyder

Claim:            Infringement

Defendants:

  • Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC
  • Breezin’ Up, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker; and Patrick J Cerillo, LLC

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