While the TC Heartland venue decision came down in late May, June filings remained a bit slow, presumably as plaintiffs sorted out where to file and the implications of TC Heartland generally, as well as responded to numerous venue or transfer motions in light of TC Heartland. As with the late May, post-TC Heartland filings, East Texas filings stayed way down and the bulk of the non-Texas filings went to Delaware, as well as to a lesser degree California and Illinois district courts. Frequent filers included CryptoPeak Security, Express Mobile, Interface IP, Landmark Technology, Shipping & Transit, Uniloc, and VOIT Technologies.

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 your suggestions for improving the report.

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Google Inc. (E.D. Tex.; D. Del.; N.D. Cal.; C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Judges: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claims: Infringement; Declaratory Judgment

Defendants:

  • Google Inc.
  • H&R Block, Inc.
  • Apple Inc.
  • Hike Ltd.
  • Kik Interactive, Inc.
  • Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.
  • Nutanix, Inc.
  • Riot Games, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg, SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Etheridge Law Group; Nelson Bumgardner; O’Kelly Ernst & Joyce; Fenwick & West; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; and Prince Lobel Tye

Patents: 7,535,890 (System and method for instant VoIP messaging); 8,995,433 (System and method for instant VoIP messaging); 6,324,578 (Methods, systems and computer program products for management of configurable application programs on a network); 6,510,466 (Methods, systems and computer program products for centralized management of application programs on a network); 7,069,293 (Methods, systems and computer program products for distribution of application programs to a target station on a network); 7,690,556 (Step counter accounting for incline); 8,872,646 (Method and system for waking up a device due to motion); 8,199,747 (System and method for instant VoIP messaging); 6,110,228 (Method and apparatus for software maintenance at remote nodes); and 6,728,766 (Methods, systems and computer program products for license use management on a network).

OEC Logistics, Inc. v. Shipping & Transit, LLC (N.D. Cal.).

Judge: Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore

Claim: Declaratory Judgment

Defendant: Shipping and Transit, LLC

Plaintiff: OEC Logistics, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Otter Products

Patents: 6,415,207 (System and method for automatically providing vehicle status information); 6,763,299 (Notification systems and methods with notifications based upon prior stop locations); 6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).

W. Interactive Inc. v. Shipping & Transit, LLC (N.D. Cal.).

Claim: Declaratory Judgment

Defendant: Shipping and Transit, LLC

Plaintiff: W. Interactive Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Lamkin IP Defense

Patents: 6,317,060 (Base station system and method for monitoring travel of mobile vehicles and communicating notification messages); 6,415,207 (System and method for automatically providing vehicle status information); and 6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events).

Word to Info, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (D. Del.).

Claim: Infringement

Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff: Word to Info, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patents: 5,715,468 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language); 6,138,087 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes and/or directed graphs); 6,609,091 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes and/or directed graphs); 7,349,840 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes, directed graphs and/or context memory); 7,873,509 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language utilizing state representation data, word sense numbers, function codes, directed graphs, context memory, and/or purpose relations); 8,326,603 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language queries); and 8,688,436 (Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge by utilizing natural language responses).

Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. BB&T Corporation (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

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

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • BB&T Corporation
  • Capital One, National Association
  • Choice Hotels International, Inc.
  • Gym-Mark, Inc.
  • The Kroger Co.
  • Phillips 66 Company

Plaintiff: Geographic Location Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Kizzia Johnson

Patent: 7,917,285 (Device, system and method for remotely entering, storing and sharing addresses for a positional information device).

Express Mobile, Inc. v. Brainvire Infotech, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Brainvire Infotech, Inc.
  • eGrove Systems Corporation
  • Icreon Tech, Inc.
  • Mobikasa, LLC
  • Salzer Technologies, Inc.
  • ePages GmbH
  • ePages Inc.
  • Webflow, Inc.
  • AppGyver Inc.

Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Brent Coon & Associates; and Devlin Law Firm

Patents: 6,546,397 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine); 7,594,168 (Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine); and 9,471,287 (Systems and methods for integrating widgets on mobile devices).

VOIT Technologies, LLC v. Branding Iron Western Store, Inc. d/b/a Safety Source Apparel (E.D. Tex.; W.D. Tex.; S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judges: District Judge Ron Clark; District Judge Marcia G. Cooke; Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins; District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Branding Iron Western Store, Inc. d/b/a Safety Source Apparel
  • Mellow Johnny’s, LLC
  • JC Bath Corporation
  • Fishing Tackle Depot, Inc.

Plaintiff: VOIT Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Lipscomb & Partners

Patent: 6,226,412 (Secure digital interactive system for unique product identification and sales).

CryptoPeak Security, LLC v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
  • Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
  • Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
  • Cabela’s Incorporated
  • First Citizens BancShares, Inc.
  • GameStop Corporation
  • Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
  • com, Inc.
  • MGM Resorts International
  • Papa John’s International, Inc.
  • Teladoc, Inc.
  • Tractor Supply Company

Plaintiff: CryptoPeak Security, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Devlin Law Firm

Patent: 6,202,150 (Auto-escrowable and auto-certifiable cryptosystems).

Encoditech LLC v. Plantronics, Inc. (D. Del.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Plantronics, Inc.
  • TTE Technology, Inc.
  • HARMAN International Industries, Incorporated
  • Fossil Group, Inc.
  • Recreational Equipment, Inc.

Plaintiff: Encoditech LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Chaudhari Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent: 6,321,095 (Wireless communications approach).

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Ellie Mae, Inc. (D. Del.; S.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Ellie Mae, Inc.
  • Qatar Airlines QCSC

Plaintiff: Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Bradford Black; Farnan; Olavi Law; and Soni Law Firm

Patents: 7,296,221 (System and method for remote, automatic reporting and verification of forms); 7,406,663 (Graphical input device with dynamic field width adjustment for input of variable data via a browser-based display); and 7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device).

Vaultet LLC v. Disney Store USA, LLC (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Disney Store USA, LLC
  • Avis Rent A Car System LLC
  • American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.

Plaintiff: Vaultet LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Chaudhari Law

Patent: 7,814,009 (Anonymous on-line cash management system).

First-Class Monitoring, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim: Infringement

Defendant: JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiff: First-Class Monitoring, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent: 6,014,089 (Method for transmitting data using a digital control channel of a wireless network).

Mirror Imaging LLC v. BOKF NA (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • BOKF NA
  • First National Bank of Omaha
  • First National Bank Texas

Plaintiff: Mirror Imaging LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law

Patents: 6,963,866 (Method of obtaining an electronically stored financial document); 7,552,118 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document); 7,836,067 (Method of obtaining electronically-stored financial documents); and 9,141,612 (Method of obtaining an electronically-stored financial document).

Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim: Infringement

Defendant: Cisco Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff: Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Stamoulis & Weinblatt; and Van Cleef Law Office

Patent: 8,035,479 (Mesh network door lock).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Jones Soda Co. et al. (W.D. Wash.).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Jones Soda Co.
  • Jones Soda Co. (USA) Inc.

Plaintiff: Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Banie & Ishimoto

Patent: 6,289,319 (Automatic business and financial transaction processing system).