<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Patent infringement cases filed Jan. 27-31, 2014.<br /><br /><strong>MARSHALL DIVISION</strong><br /><br /><em>Jan. 27</em><br /><br /><strong>&bull; Fego Precision Industrial Co. Ltd. v Fitbit Inc.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00040<br /><br /><strong>&bull; Fego Precision Industrial Co. Ltd. v Withings Inc.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00042<br /><br /><strong>&bull; Fego Precision Industrial Co. Ltd. v BodyMedia Inc.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00043<br /><br /><strong>&bull; Fego Precision Industrial Co. Ltd. v Scosche Industries Inc.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00044<br /><br /><strong>&bull; Fego Precision Industrial Co. Ltd. v Garmin International Inc.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00045<br /><br />Plaintiff Fego is a Taiwanese company.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,680,629 issued March 16, 2010, for a System and Method for Providing Notes in Measurement Devices; and U.S. Patent No. 8,070,430 issued Dec. 13, 2011, for a System and Method for Providing Notes in Measurement Devices.<br /><br />The patents provide a measuring device with the capabilities of note taking, at least one measuring component, a note control component and a CPU adapted to link the measuring event to a note.<br /><br />The defendants&rsquo; allegedly infringing products include the Fitbit Force Wireless Activity + Sleep Wristband, Fitbit Flex Wireless Activity + Sleep Wristband, Fitbit One Wireless Activity + Sleep Tracker, Fitbit Zip Wireless Activity Tracker, Withings Plus, BodyMedia Link Armband, BodyMedia Core Armband,&nbsp;Scosche RHYTHM Bluetooth Armband Heart Rate Monitor, Scosche RHYTHM Bluetooth Smart Heart Rate Chest Strap, Scosche RHYTHM + Heart Rate Monitor, Garmin Fit App for iOS in combination with the Garmin ANT+ Adapter for iPhone, Garmin Fit App for Android, Garmin Speed/Cadence Bike Sensor, Garmin Heart Rate Monitor, Garmin Foot Pod and other related products.<br /><br />Fego is seeking an injunction to prevent further infringement, damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which it might be entitled.<br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />Timothy T. Wang, Neal Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Wang &amp; Associates PLLC of Dallas are representing the plaintiff.<br /><br />The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><br /><em>Jan. 29</em><br /><br /><strong>&bull; Industrial Print Technologies LLC v O&rsquo;Neil Data Systems Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00048_JRG<br /><br />Plaintiff Industrial Print Technologies is a Texas corporation in the business of licensing patented technology owned by Mr. Forrest P. Gauthier.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on:<br /><br />&bull; U.S. Patent No. 5,729,665 issued March 17, 1998, for a Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields with a Page Description Language;<br /><br />&bull; U.S. Patent No. 5,937,153 issued Aug. 10, 1999, for a Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields with a Page Description Language;<br /><br />&bull; U.S. Patent No. 7,274,479 issued Sept. 25, 2007, for a Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields with a Page Description Language; and<br /><br />&bull; U.S. Patent No. 7,333,233 issued Feb. 19, 2008, for a Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields with a Page Description Language.<br /><br />The patents-in-suit enable industrial printing presses to rapidly and efficiently process jobs involving variable data fields.<br /><br />According to the suit, the defendants&rsquo; allegedly infringing products include the HP&rsquo;s Inkjet Web Presses, e.g., T200, T300, T350 and T400 presses and its Indigo Digital Presses, e.g., W3250, 3550, WS4600, 5000, 5600, WS6600, WS6600p, W7250, 7500, 7600,10000, 20000, and 30000 presses.<br /><br />&ldquo;Upon information and belief, O&rsquo;Neil provides an Internet website portal through which it provides its products and services to third-party customers and their print media agents. The website portal and/or instructions provided through the website portal directs these third-parties to provide print specification files such that O&rsquo;Neil can process variable data print jobs according to the remaining steps of the patented invention,&rdquo; the suit states.<br /><br />Industrial Print Technologies is seeking an injunction to stop the alleged acts of infringement, interest, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys&rsquo; fees, costs and other relief the court may deem just and proper.<br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />Timothy P. Maloney of Fitch Even Tabin &amp; Flannery LLP in Chicago is lead attorney for the plaintiff.<br /><br />The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><br /><strong>&bull; Hilltop Technology LLC v Apple Inc.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00050-JRG-RSP<br /><br />Plaintiff Hilltop Technology is a Texas limited liability corporation.<br /><br />Apple is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,864,503 issued Jan. 4, 2011, for a Capacitive Type Touch Panel. The patent relates to a capacitive type touch panel having a transparent substrate having opposite top and bottom surfaces, an array of first and second conductors on said top surface, an array of second conductors and a plurality of spaced apart conductive first and second bridging lines.<br /><br />According to the suit, Apple allegedly infringes the &lsquo;503 Patent through its iPad Air having capacitive-type Touch-On-Lens.<br /><br />Hilltop Technology is seeking a permanent injunction against Apple, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys&rsquo; fees and other relief to which it may be entitled.<br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />Winston O. Huff of W. O. Huff &amp; Assoc. in Dallas is attorney in charge for the plaintiff.<br /><br />The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><br /><em>Jan. 30</em><br /><br /><strong>&bull; Tune Hunter Inc. v Samsung Telecommunications America LLC, SoundHound Inc., HTC America Inc. and HTC Corp.</strong> Case No. 2:14-cv-00051<br /><br />Plaintiff Tune Hunter is a Texas corporation.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on&nbsp;U.S. Patent No. 6,941,275 issued Sept. 6, 2005, for a Music Identification System.<br /><br />The suit claims Samsung cell phones use the SoundHound apps including Galaxy Note 3, Galaxy S4 and Galaxy Mega which allow the consumer to identify music and then purchase the music that was identified.<br /><br />According to the complaint, the Samsung Apps store includes two SoundHound Apps &ndash; a &ldquo;free&rdquo; version and a version for sale for $5.95. The Samsung Apps store advises and encourages consumers that the SoundHound has &ldquo;Blazing fast music recognition,&rdquo; &ldquo;singing and humming recognition,&rdquo; &ldquo;Buy links&rdquo; and &ldquo;much more.&rdquo; The information provided by Samsung also advises that the SoundHound App is &ldquo;used to record audio for both music and voice search.&rdquo;<br /><br />The allegedly infringing HTC products include the HTC One and One Max which are sold pre-loaded with the SoundHound app.<br /><br />&ldquo;As a consequence of the infringement complained of herein, Tune Hunter has been irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined and will continue to be irreparably damaged by such acts in the future unless each Defendant is enjoined by this Court from committing further acts of infringement,&rdquo; the suit states.<br /><br />Tune Hunter is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, attorneys&rsquo; fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper.<br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />Elizabeth DeRieux and S. Calving Capshaw for Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater and John Polasek, Dale Quisenberry and Jeffrey David of Polasek, Quissenberry &amp; Errington LLP in Bellaire are representing the plaintiff.<br /><br />The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><br /><b>TYLER DIVISION</b><br /><br /><i>Jan. 28</i><br /><br /><strong>&bull; Lone Star WiFi LLC v Marriott International Inc.</strong> Case No. 6:14-cv-00050-MHS<br /><br />Plaintiff Lone Star WiFi is a Texas limite liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler.<br /><br />The patents-in-suit are:<br /><br />&bull; U.S. Patent No. 7,490,348 issued Feb. 10, 2009, for a Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances<br /><br />&bull; U.S. Patent No. 8,312,286 issued Nov. 13, 2012, for a Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances; and<br /><br />&bull; U.S. Patent No. 8,583,935 issued Nov. 12, 2013, for a Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication Allowances<br /><br />The defendants allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit by owning, operating and managing hotels and resorts in a way that includes maintaining multiple, overlapping wireless networks with differing levels of access.<br /><br />Lone Star WiFi is seeking compensatory damages, interest, attorneys&rsquo; fees and other relief the court deems just and proper.<br /><br />Brent Bumgardner of Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth is lead attorney for the plaintiff, along with attorneys from Ward &amp; Smith Law Firm in Longview.<br /><br />The case has been assigned to District Judge Michael Schneider."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://setexasrecord.com/stories/510623222-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas>