Trolls continued their summer vacation in July.  Repeat filers included Antennatech, EMG Technology, Eclipse IP, GPNE, Hawk Technology and Interface IP.

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.

Market Track, LLC v. Efficient Collavorative Retail Marketing, (N.D. Ill.).

Claim:            Infringement

Defendant:     Efficient Collaborative Retail Marketing, LLC

Plaintiff:         Market Track, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Latham & Watkins

Patent:            7,849,083 (Automatic creation of output file from images in database).

ServiceMax v. Eclipse IP LLC, (C.D. Cal.).

Claim:            Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:     Eclipse IP, LLC

Plaintiff:         ServiceMax

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); and 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., (M.D. Fla.; W.D. Wis.; N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III; District Judge Mary S. Scriven; Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker; District Judge James D. Peterson; District Judge Andrea R. Wood; District Judge Milton I. Shadur

Claim:                        Infringement

Defendants:

  • Tampa Bay Downs, Inc.
  • Kwik Trip, Inc.
  • Benedictine University
  • De Paul University

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker; Schulz Law

Patent:           RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system); 5,860,946 (Instrument for inserting a suppository); and 7,018,992 (Hormone composition).

GPNE Corp. v. Cassens Transport Company, (N.D. Ill.)

Judge:             District Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:    Cassens Transport Company

Plaintiff:         GPNE Corp.

Pls. Cnsl:        Niro Haller & Niro; and O’Kelly Ernst & Bielli

Patents:          7,570,954 (Communication system wherein a clocking signal from a controller, a request from a node, acknowledgement of the request, and data transferred from the node are all provided on different frequencies, enabling simultaneous transmission of these signals); and 8,086,240 (Data communication system using a reserve request and four frequencies to enable transmitting data packets which can include a count value and termination indication information).

Eclipse IP LLC v. Cobra Electronics Corporation, (N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:            District Judge Ronald A. Guzman; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

  • Cobra Electronics Corporation
  • Deckers Outdoor Corporation
  • ABT Electronics, Inc
  • Ashford, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Eclipse IP LLC; Olavi Dunne; Wawrzyn; and Tadlock Law Firm

Patents:          7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,482,952 (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); and 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems).

Gonzalez v. Anastasia International, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:                        Infringement

Defendants:

  • Homes.com, 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).

Antennatech, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:                        Infringement

Defendants:

  • Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
  • Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Plaintiff:    Antennatech, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:   Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:       6,885,845 (Personal communication device connectivity arrangement); and 8,180,279 (Wireless hotspot arrangement).

Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:         Infringement

Defendants:

  • The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:       Black & Hamill; and Farnan

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

Icon Laser Solutions LLC v. Gap Inc, (N.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:    Gap, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Icon Laser Solutions LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Friedman Suder & Cooke

Patent:            5,567,207 (Method for marking and fading textiles with lasers).

EMG Technology, LLC v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases)

Claim:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Rite Aid Corporation
  • Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund
  • Toys “R” Us – Delaware, Inc.

Plaintiff:        EMG Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell; Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:          6,600,497 (Apparatus and method to navigate interactive television using unique inputs with a remote control); 7,194,698 (Method to advertise and search on television for web content using a simplified interface); and 7,441,196 (Apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content).

Aeritas, LLC v. GameStop Corp., (N.D. Tex.).

Judges:           District Judge Ed Kinkeade; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claim:              Infringement

Defendant:    GameStop Corp.

Plaintiff:         Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Law Office of David H Judson

Patents:          7,706,819 (Mixed-mode interaction; and 8,055,285 (Mixed-mode interaction).

Bank of America, NA v. Wolf Run Hollow, LLC., (N.D. Ill.).

Claim:              Declaratory Judgment

Defendant:    Wolf Run Hollow, LLC

Plaintiff:        Bank of America, NA

Pls. Cnsl:        Goodwin Procter; and Reed Smith

Patent:           6,115,817 (Methods and systems for facilitating transmission of secure messages across insecure networks).