March again saw a very slight increase as the NPEs continued waiting on Oil States. Frequent filers included Aeritas, Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, Grecia, Finjan, Hawk Technology, Hybrid Audio, Internet Media Interactive, Landmark Technology, Lit, Location Based Services, Tangelo IP, and Uniloc.

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. Logitech Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.; E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judges: Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Logitech Europe SA
  • Logitech Inc.
  • Uniloc Luxembourg SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.
  • Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

  • Uniloc Luxembourg SA
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Prince Lobel Tye; and Etheridge Law Group

Patents: 6,993,049 (Communication system); 8,484,089 (Method and system for a hosted digital music library sharing service); 8,606,856 (Digital media asset identification system and method); 6,580,422 (Remote computer display using graphics primitives sent over a wireless link); and 6,622,018 (Portable device control console with wireless connection).

Mod Stack LLC v. Aculab, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Aculab, Inc.
  • inContact, Inc.
  • Intermedia.net, Inc.
  • Jive Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff: Mod Stack LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Direction IP Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent: 7,460,520 (Apparatus and method for using multiple call controllers of voice-band calls).

Inventory Liquidators Corporation d/b/a Regent Products Corporation v. Landmark Technology, LLC (N.D. Ill.).

Claim: Declaratory Judgment

Defendant: Landmark Technology, LLC

Plaintiff: Inventory Liquidators Corporation d/b/a Regent Products Corporation

Pls. Cnsl: Dykema Gossett

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

Location Based Services, LLC v. Contour, LLC (D. Utah; C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Judges: District Judge Ted Stewart; District Judge R. Gary Klausner; Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Contour, LLC
  • Thinkware Systems USA Inc.
  • JVCKenwood USA Corporation

Plaintiff: Location Based Services, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Ni Wang & Massand; Shaver & Swanson; Feinberg Day Alberti Lim & Belloli; and Ni Wang & Massand

Patent: 8,311,733 (Interactive key frame image mapping system and method).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. BL Restaurant Operations, LLC (E.D. Mich.; E.D. Pa.) (multiple cases).

Judges: District Judge Sean F. Cox; Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub; District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • BL Restaurant Operations, LLC
  • Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, LP

Plaintiff: Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Marc Shulman & Associates; Fiore & Barber; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen

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

Tangelo IP, LLC v. Houdini Inc. (C.D. Cal.).

Judges: Magistrate Judge John D. Early; District Judge James V. Selna

Claim: Infringement

Defendant: Houdini Inc.

Plaintiff: Tangelo IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Law Office of Ryan E. Hatch; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent: 8,429,005 (Method for determining effectiveness of display of objects in advertising images).

Aeritas, LLC v. Taco Bell Corp. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Taco Bell Corp.
  • McDonald’s Corporation
  • McDonald’s USA, LLC

Plaintiff: Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: DelGiorno IP Law

Patents: 8,055,285 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,390,435 (Mixed-mode interaction); and 9,888,107 (Mixed-mode interaction).

JM Smith Corporation v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (D.S.C.).

Judge: District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks

Claim: Infringement

Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Plaintiff: JM Smith Corporation

Pls. Cnsl: Holcombe Bomar; and Southeast IP Group

Patent: 7,398,999 (Visual verification of prescription medication and information and warning label).

Grecia v. Walgreen Co. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges: District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.; District Judge Charles P. Kocoras

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Walgreen Co.
  • ALDI Inc.
  • Sears Holdings Corporation
  • True Value Company

Plaintiff: William Grecia

Pls. Cnsl: Wawrzyn & Jarvis

Patent: 8,533,860 (Personalized digital media access system–PDMAS part II).

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Beazer General Services, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Beazer General Services, Inc.
  • Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
  • Barnes & Noble, Inc.
  • NOOK Digital, LLC f/k/a barnesandnoble.com LLC

Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp.

Pls. Cnsl: Haller Law; and O’Kelly Ernst & Joyce

Patent: 6,049,835 (System for providing easy access to the World Wide Web utilizing a published list of preselected Internet locations together with their unique multi-digit jump codes).

Finjan, Inc. v. Carbon Black, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).

Claim: Infringement

Defendant: Carbon Black, Inc.

Plaintiff: Finjan, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel

Patents: 6,154,844 (System and method for attaching a downloadable security profile to a downloadable); 6,804,780 (System and method for protecting a computer and a network from hostile downloadables); 8,141,154 (System and method for inspecting dynamically generated executable code); and 8,677,494 (Malicious mobile code runtime monitoring system and methods).

Lit v. Caterpillar Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges: District Judge Ruben Castillo; District Judge Ronald A. Guzman; District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Caterpillar Inc.
  • Dover Corporation
  • Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated
  • Motorola Mobility, LLC
  • Ulta Beauty, Inc.

Plaintiff: Samuel Lit

Pls. Cnsl: Wawrzyn & Jarvis

Patent: 8,793,330 (Information display system and method).

IoT Consortium of Plano Texas, LLC v. Sound Around, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim: Infringement

Defendant: Sound Around, Inc.

Plaintiff: IoT Consortium of Plano Texas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Beard & Harris; and Ross IP Group

Patent: 7,286,799 (Remote caller identification (ID) device).

Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Macys.com, LLC
  • Macy’s, Inc.

Plaintiff: Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Kizzia Johnson

Patent: 8,534,551 (System and method for issuing digital receipts for purchase transactions over a network).

Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Nintendo of America Inc. et al. (W.D. Wash.).

Claim: Infringement

Defendants:

  • Nintendo Co., Ltd.
  • Nintendo of America Inc.

Plaintiff: Hybrid Audio, LLC

Pls. Cnsl: Devlin Law Firm; and Law Offices of Timothy J. Warzecha

Patent: RE 40,281 (Signal processing utilizing a tree-structured array).