1. Failing to identifying the patent(s)-at-issue;
2. Failing to identify the patent owner;
3. Failing to explain the alleged infringement;
4. Making deceptive/meritless assertions; or
5. Demanding too much money or too fast a response.

It also offers factors suggesting good faith assertions:

1. The patentholder commercializes the patent;
2. The patentholder is the original inventor; or
3. The patent has been successfully asserted in court.

Where a court finds a bad faith assertion, there are several remedies:

• Damages. The statute provides for equitable relief which could include an injunction against further assertions, actual damages as well as increased damages of trebling the actual damages or $50,000, whichever is greater, and attorneys’ fees.
• State Enforcement.  Vermont’s attorney general can initiate civil enforcement proceedings under the law.
• Bond.  The court can require the accused patentholder to post a bond of up to $250,000 in case the accused infringer is awarded its attorney’s fees.  In my experience bonds rarely have the significant deterrent effect that they are expected to have.

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 a particular case, 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.

ArrivalStar SA et al v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., (S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             District Judge James Lawrence King

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
• Dewalt Industries, Inc.
• Edwin Watts Golf Shops, LLC.
• The Pep Boys-Manny
• Moe & Jack, Inc.
• Crocs, Inc.
• Golfsmith USA, LLC
• Billabong USA Holdings Party, Limited
• Killer Dana, Inc.
• Pacific Sunwear of California Inc.
• MIQ Global, LLC
• Ortec International USA, Inc.
• Aramex International
• McKesson Corporation
• Epes Transport System, Incorporated

Plaintiffs:

• ArrivalStar SA
• Melvino Technologies Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        McMahon Law Firm

Patents:          6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); 6,952,645 (System and method for activation of an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).

Eclipse IP, LLC v. Wayfair, Inc., (N.D. Ill.). 

Judge:             District Judge Ronald A. Guzman

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendant:     Wayfair, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Eclipse IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Wawrzyn

Patents:          7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); 7,319,414 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); and 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia).

Select Retrieval, LLC v. Backcountry.com, Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Backcountry.com, Inc.
• BodyBuilding.com, LLC
• LMC Right Start, Inc.
• MotoSport, Inc.
• Provide Commerce, Inc.
• QVC, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Select Retrieval, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            6,128,617 (Data display software with actions and links integrated with information).

Clear With Computers, LLC v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc.
• Tory Burch LLC

Plaintiff:         Clear With Computers, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Spangler & Fussell; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            8,266,015 (Inventory sales system and method).

PrivaCash, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.). 

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• American Express Prepaid Card Management Corporation
• American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:         PrivaCash, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Brooks Kushman; and Ward & Smith Law Firm

Patent:            8,219,474 (Method and system for distributing and activating a non-personalized purchase card).

Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. et al, (D. Del.). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendant:

• Electronic Arts, Inc.
• Harmonix Music Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Princeton Digital Image Corporation=

Pls. Cnsl:        O’Kelly Ernst & Bielli

Patent:            5,513,129 (Method and system for controlling computer-generated virtual environment in response to audio signals).

Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. OfficeMax Incorporated, (N.D. Ill.). 

Judge:             District Judge Charles P. Kocoras

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendant:     OfficeMax Incorporated

Plaintiff:         Cascades Branding Innovation LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Flachsbart & Greenspoon

Patents:          7,768,395 (Brand mapping); and 8,106,766 (Brand mapping).

Aeritas, LLC v. Virgin America Inc., (D. Del.; N.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Virgin America Inc.
• Cinemark USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Bayard; Russ August & Kabat; and Law Office of David H Judson

Patents:          7,209,903 (Method and system for facilitation of wireless e-commerce transactions); 7,933,589 (Method and system for facilitation of wireless e-commerce transactions); 7,706,819 (Mixed-mode interaction); and 8,055,285 (Mixed-mode interaction).

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

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• AOL Inc.
• Avis Budget Group, Inc.
• CNN Interactive Group, Inc.
• Delta Airlines, Inc.
• E*Trade Financial Corporation
• Kayak Software Corporation
• Priceline.com Incorporated
• TripAdvisor LLC
• The Vanguard Group, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Interface IP Holdings LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Black Chang & 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); and 7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device).

Lodsys Group, LLC v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc.
• Brooks Sports, Inc.
• John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• J&P Cycles, LLC
• B&H Foto & Electronics Corp.
• Charter Communications, Inc.
• Corbis Corporation
• Lamps Plus, Inc.
• Nordstrom, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Lodsys Group, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kelley Goldfarb Gill Huck & Roth; and The Davis Firm

Patents:          7,222,078 (Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network); and 7,620,565 (Customer-based product design module).

Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. 3M Company, (D. Del.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• 3M Company
• Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.
• Aramark Corporation
• AT&T, Inc.
• Bright House Networks, LLC
• Brother International Corporation
• CDW Corporation
• Comcast Corporation
• Comdata Corporation
• Crocs, Inc.
• Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
• Frontier Communications Corporation
• General Motors Company
• HSN, Inc.
• Lands’ End Inc.
• Lenovo (United States) Inc.
• Lexmark International, Inc.
• NIKE, Inc.
• OCE-America, Inc.
• Office Depot, Inc.
• Oriental Trading Company, Inc.
• Redbox, Inc.
• Rite Aid Corporation
• Sprint Spectrum, LP
• Thomson Reuters US, Inc.
• U-Haul International, Inc.
• Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Pragmatus Telecom, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Farnan; and Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson

Patents:          6,311,231 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contract channel changing system using voice over IP); 6,668,286 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contact channel changing system over IP); and 7,159,043 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via contact channel changing system).

LogMeIn, Inc. v. Pragmatus Telecom, LLC, (D. Del.). 

Claim:             Declaratory Judgment 

Defendant:     Pragmatus Telecom, LLC

Plaintiff:         LogMeIn, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Choate Hall & Stewart; and Potter Anderson & Corroon

Patents:          5,884,032 (System for coordinating communications via customer contact channel changing system using call centre for setting up the call between customer and an available help agent); 6,311,231 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contract channel changing system using voice over IP); 6,668,286 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contact channel changing system over IP); and 7,159,043 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via contact channel changing system).

LBS Innovations, LLC v. Alfred Angelo, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Alfred Angelo, Inc.
• Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings, Inc.
• Denny’s, Inc. (d/b/a Denny’s Restaurants, Inc.)
• Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.
• Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
• Randall’s Food & Drugs, LP
• Safeway, Inc.
• The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.

Plaintiff:         LBS Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Buether Joe & Carpenter

Patent:            6,091,956 (Situation information system).

CreateAds LLC v. 1&1 Internet Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• 1&1 Internet Inc.
• Endurance International Group Holdings, LLC
• Hostgator.com, LLC
• Just Host, Inc.
• Hewlett-Packard Company
• Google Inc.
• Federal Express Corporation
• Intuit Inc.
• Squarespace, Inc.
• Staples, Inc.
• Vistaprint USA Inc.
• Network Solutions, LLC
• Register.com, Inc.
• Web.com Group, Inc.
• Yahoo! Inc.

Plaintiff:         CreateAds LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Bayard; and Russ August & Kabat

Patent:            5,535,320 (Method of generating a visual design).

• Suing increases costs for manufacturers and customer (retailers) defendants alike.
• The cost of defense incentivizes and, in some cases, forces customer defendants to settle.  That is even true when the customer believes the suit is meritless.

As a solution, the authors propose strengthening the customer suit exception, as follows:

• Apply the exception where the claims are primarily directed at the manufacturer.  This will encompass more suits and avoid gamesmanship.
• There are no more than nominal fact questions the customers are needed to answer.
• In weighing the judicial economy, the Court should look at the exception’s narrowing impact not just on existing cases, but on preventing future cases as well.
• Courts should weigh the relative ability of customers and manufacturers to defend themselves.  As retailers know from experience with internet widgets, software and computer hardware, that balance will almost always favor staying customer suits.

This is an interesting, valuable strategy for retailers.  And it could be enacted by the Courts without legislative intervention.

• In 2012, trolls filed 62% of patent litigations - 2,921 of 4,701 suits.
• Retailers are “hit hardest” by troll suits filed against non-tech companies.  Unfortunately, that is no surprise for retailers.
• Individual inventors brought 5% of 2012 troll suits.  What is not clear is whether the 5% includes corporations that were the original assignees or just individual plaintiffs.
• The joinder law may be resulting in fewer filings against small companies that may not be able to be joined in a large group.  Of course, this is no help for smaller retailers with outsized name recognition that may still be getting sued.
• Trolls - purposefully or not - are picking on small companies.  55% of troll defendants have $10M or less in revenues per year.  And $100M or less captures 66% of troll defendants.
• Half of ITC respondents were in troll cases.  The impact of the ITC is growing for trolls.
• Based upon limited data, many more letters are sent by trolls than suits are filed.  Again, no surprise to retailers based upon their own anecdotal evidence.

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 a particular case, 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. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc, (C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.
• Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.
• Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
• Volvo Cars of North America LLC

Plaintiff:         Eclipse IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Newport Trial Group

Patents:          7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); and 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications).

The Tawnsaura Group, LLC v. Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, (C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases). 

Judges:           District Judge David O. Carter, Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Woodbolt Distribution, LLC
• Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Plaintiff:         The Tawnsaura Group, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Newport Trial Group

Patents:          5,874,471 (Orthomolecular medical use of L-citrulline for vasoprotection, relaxative smooth muscle tone and cell protection); and 6028107 (Orthomolecular medical use of L-citrulline for vasoprotection, relaxative smooth muscle tone and cell protection).

Infinite Data, LLC v. MySpace, LLC, (D. Del.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• MySpace, LLC
• Amazon.com, Inc.
• AOL Inc.
• eBay, Inc.
• LexisNexis Document Solutions Inc.
• MySpace, Inc.
• Overstock.com, Inc.
• PayPal, Inc.
• Yahoo! Inc.

Plaintiff:         Infinite Data, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Farnan; Russ August & Kabat

Patent:           5,790,530 (Message-passing multiprocessor system).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc.
• Polaris Industries, Inc.
• Henry Schein, Inc.
• Airgas, Inc.
• Belk, Inc.
• Burberry Limited
• Jos A Bank Clothiers, Inc.
• Fifth & Pacific Companies, Inc.
• Juicy Couture, Inc.
• Kate Spade, LLC
• Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Landmark Technology, LLC

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

Patents:          5,576,951 (Automated sales and services system); and 7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network).

Lodsys Group, LLC v. MakeMyTrip.com, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.). 

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• MakeMyTrip.com, Inc.
• Meijer, Inc.
• Musician’s Friend, Inc.
• Nuance Communications, Inc.
• SanDisk Corporation
• Burberry Limited
• Coldwater Creek, Inc.
• Dover Saddlery, Inc.
• Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
• Hanna Andersson Corporation

Plaintiff:         Lodsys Group, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Kelley Goldfarb Gill Huck & Roth; and The Davis Firm

Patents:          7,222,078 (Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network); and 7,620,565 (Customer-based product design module).

MacroSolve, Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc.
• Kmart Corporation
• Kmart Holding Corporation
• Sears, Roebuck and Co.
• Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

Plaintiff:         MacroSolve, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Antonelli Harrington & Thompson

Patent:           7,822,816 (System and method for data management).

DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Kellan Restaurant Management Corp. d/b/a 54th Street Grill & Bar, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven, District Judge Michael H. Schneider

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:  

• Kellan Restaurant Management Corp. d/b/a 54th Street Grill & Bar
• Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
• Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc.
• Freshii
• Marco’s Franchising, LLC
• Potbelly Sandwich Works, LLC
• CBC Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Corner Bakery Cafe
• Deli Management, Inc. d/b/a Jason’s Deli
• Pita Pit USA, Inc.
• Taco John’s International, Inc.
• Ufood Restaurant Group, Inc.
• Genghis Grill Franchise Concepts, LP
• Biglari Holdings, Inc.
• Steak ‘n Shake Enterprises, Inc.
• Steak ‘n Shake Operations, Inc.
• Tropical Smoothie Cafe, LLC

Plaintiff:         DietGoal Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Buether Joe & Carpenter; and Law Offices of Damon Young

Patent:           6,585,516 (Method and system for computerized visual behavior analysis, training, and planning).

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Diageo North America, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:

• Diageo North America, Inc.
• Frito-Lay, Inc.
• Pepsi-Cola Company
• JC Penney Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Gillam & Smith; and Maiorino Law Group

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

Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Trend Micro Incorporated, (C.D. Cal.) (N.D. Cal.) (D. Del.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Trend Micro Incorporated
• Netgear, Inc.
• AOL Inc.
• Bosch Security Systems, Inc.
• Dish Network Corporation
• Elavon, Inc.
• EMC Corporation
• goEmerchant, LLC
• L.L.Bean, Inc.
• Mediacom Communications Corporation
• Nordstrom, Inc.
• PerkinElmer, Inc.
• Philips Electronics North America Corporation
• Staples, Inc.
• Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
• Acer America Corporation
• Build.com, Inc.
• First Data Corporation
• Foot Locker, Inc.
• Georgia-Pacific LLC
• Reed Elsevier US Holdings Inc.
• Saks Incorporated
• Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc.
• Genuine Parts Company
• Leaders Merchant Services, LLC
• Newegg, Inc.
• Epson America, Inc.
• US Auto Parts Network, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Pragmatus Telecom, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson; and Farnan

Patents:          6,311,231 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contract channel changing system using voice over IP); 6,668,286 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contact channel changing system over IP); and 7,159,043 (Method and system for coordinating data and voice communications via contact channel changing system).

ArrivalStar SA et al v. The Gap Stores, Inc., (S.D. Fla.) 

Judge:             District Judge Kathleen M. Williams

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     The Gap Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs:

• ArrivalStar SA
• Melvino Technologies Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        McMahon Law Firm

Patents:          6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); 6,952,645 (System and method for activation of an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).

Clear With Computers, LLC v. Forty Niners Football Company LLC, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Forty Niners Football Company LLC
• American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
• Helly Hanson (U.S.) Inc
• Levi Strauss & Company
• NFL Enterprises LLC
• Spanx, Inc.
• MLB Advanced Media, LP

Plaintiff:         Clear With Computers, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Spangler & Fussell; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           8,266,015 (Inventory sales system and method).

Lone Star WiFi LLC v. Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd. et al, (E.D. Tex.). 

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Aimbridge Hospitality LP
• HAC Frisco Partners LP
• HAC Plano Partners LP
• Legacy Stonebriar Hotel II, Ltd.
• Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd.
• Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Lone Star WiFi LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Gartman Law Group; and Ward & Smith Law Firm

Patents:          7,490,348 (Wireless network having multiple communication allowances); and 8,312,286 (Wireless network having multiple communication allowances).

Cronos Technologies, LLC v. West Marine, Inc., (N.D. Cal.). 

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendant:     West Marine, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Cronos Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Heninger Garrison Davis

Patent:           5,664,110 (Remote ordering system).

75% of trolls are asserting only patents originally assigned to them (6%) or a mix (15%).  So as many as 75% of trolls could avoid the reach of the SHIELD Act.  That leaves a few or 1 of 4 trolls covered by the SHIELD Act.

That is a powerful statistic.  If it is correct, the SHIELD Act will not have nearly the impact many expected.  And Patent Freedom is a well-respected source of troll – related data that makes it its business to know trolls well. 

• Licensing revenues for the six year period was $68B.  The mean licensing revenue per defendant was $3.8M, including pre-suit settlements.
• There was an interesting breakdown by type of troll.  Middlemen trolls, such as Acacia that licensure for others made significantly less ($.7M/defendant) than research development trolls ($54M/defendant).
• Middlemen trolls file 80% of law suits, as opposed to 6% of suits by R&D entities.
• Very little licensing revenue flows to investors.  7% of R&D entities and 31% for middlemen entities.

What does this tell retailers?

• It reaffirms something we already knew - troll litigation is profitable and here to stay, barring legislative action.
• Arguments that trolls help inventory are attenuated, at least in terms of the amount of revenues inventors see from their patents. 

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 a particular case, 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.

Metasearch Systems, LLC v. TravelZoo Inc. d/b/a Fly.com, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Defendants:

• TravelZoo Inc. d/b/a Fly.com
• Yahoo! Inc., d/b/a Yahoo! Travel
• Kayak Software Corporation
• American Express Company
• American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
• Bookit.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Metasearch Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi; and Seitz Van Ogtrop & Green

Patent:           7,277,918 (Metasearching); 7,421,468 (Metasearching); and 7,490,091 (Metasearching a client’s request for displaying at least one list comprising at least one advertisement on the the client); 8,073,904 (Metasearch engine for ordering items returned in search results using multiple queries on multiple unique hosts); 8,171,079 (Metasearch engine for ordering items returned in travel related search results using multiple queries on multiple unique hosts); and 8,239,451 (Metasearch engine for ordering items returned in travel related search results using multiple queries on at least one host comprising a plurality of server devices).

Eclipse IP, LLC v. Cornerstone Brands, Inc., (N.D. W.V.; W.D. Ky.; S.D.W.V.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge John Preston Bailey

Defendants:

• Cornerstone Brands, Inc.
• Lucy Activewear, Inc.
• Nordstrom, Inc.
• ECCO USA, Inc.
• Callaway Golf Company

Plaintiff:         Eclipse IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Joseph H Fox, LLC; Betts Hardy & Rodgers; John & Werner Law Offices; and Bob Donald, Lawyer, PLLC

Patent:           7,119,716 (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); 7,482,952 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications); and 7,876,239 (Secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia).

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Bank of America Corp. et al, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Richard A. Schell

Defendants:  

• Bank of America Corp.
• Bank of America, NA
• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
• Citibank, National Association
• Citigroup, Inc.
• JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
• JPMorgan Chase & Co.
• Target Corporation
• US Bancorp
• US Bank NA
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
• Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC
• Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC
• Wells Fargo Bank, NA
• Wells Fargo & Co.

Plaintiff:         Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Agility IP Law; North Weber & Baugh; Spangler & Fussell; and Tensegrity Law Group

Patent:           5,940,510 (Transfer of valuable information between a secure module and another module); 5,949,880 (Transfer of valuable information between a secure module and another module); 6,105,013 (Method, apparatus, system and firmware for secure transactions); and 6,237,095 (Apparatus for transfer of secure information between a data carrying module and an electronic device).

Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Panasonic Corporation et al, (C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Andrew J. Guilford, Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth

Defendants:

• Panasonic Corporation
• Panasonic Corporation of North America
• Buy.com, Inc.
• Best Buy Co., Inc.
• BestBuy.com, LLC
• Best Buy Stores, LP
• Canon Inc.
• Canon USA, Inc.
• B&H Foto & Electronics Corp
• Sakar International, Inc.
• Leaf Imaging, Ltd.
• Mamiya America Corporation
• Mamiya Digital Imaging Co., Ltd
• Olympus Corporation
• Olympus Imaging America Inc.
• Leica Camera AG
• Leica Camera, Inc.
• Sony Corporation
• Sony Corporation of America
• Sony Electronics, Inc.
• Fujifilm Corporation
• Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation
• Fujifilm Holdings Corporation
• General Imaging Company

Plaintiff:         Digitech Image Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Collins Edmonds Pogorzelski Schlather & Tower

OnCard Marketing, Inc. v. Coupons.com Incorporated, (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge:             District Judge Ronnie Abrams

Defendant:     Coupons.com Incorporated

Plaintiff:         OnCard Marketing, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck

Patent:           5,907,830 (Electronic coupon distribution).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. RedBox Automated Retail, LLC, (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Defendant:     RedBox Automated Retail, LLC

Plaintiff:         Landmark Technology, LLC

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

Patent:           5,576,951 (automated sales and service system); and 7,010,508 (automated multimedia data processing network).

Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Target Corporation, (C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block, District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker; District Judge Andrew J. Guilford

Defendants:

• Target Corporation
• Nikon Americas, Inc.
• Nikon Corporation
• Nikon, Inc.
• Micro Electronics, Inc.
• Overstock.com, Inc.
• Newegg.com, Inc.
• Newegg, Inc.
• Pentax Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation
• Pentax Ricoh Imaging Co. Ltd.
• Ricoh Americas Corporation
• Ricoh Company, Ltd.
• Xerox Corporation
• Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA, Inc.
• Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc.
• Konica Minolta Holdings USA, Inc.
• CDW LLC
• Hasselblad USA Inc.
• Victor Hasselblad AB
• Casio America, Inc.
• Casio Computer Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff:         Digitech Image Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Collins Edmonds Pogorzelski Schlather & Tower

Wi-LAN, Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, (S.D. Fla.).

Judge:             District Judge Joan A. Lenard

Defendants:  

• LG Electronics, Inc.
• LG Electronics USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs:        

• Wi-LAN, Inc.
• Wi-LAN USA, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Carlson & Lewittes

Patent:           6,359,654 (Methods and systems for displaying interlaced video on non-interlaced monitors); and 7,034,889 (Signal processing unit and method for a digital TV system with an increased frame rate video signal).

EMG Technology, LLC v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Defendants:

• The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
• Union Pacific Corporation

Plaintiff:         EMG Technology, LLC

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

Patent:           7,441,196 (Apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content).

MacroSolve, Inc. v. American Express Company, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Defendants:

• American Express Company
• RedBox Automated Retail, LLC

Plaintiff:         MacroSolve, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Antonelli Harrington & Thompson

Patent:           7,822,816 (System and method for data management).

TQP Development, LLC v. Mattel, Inc. et al, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven, District Judge Michael H. Schneider

Defendants:

• American Girl Brands, LLC
• Fisher-Price, Inc.
• Mattel, Inc.
• MovieTickets.com, Inc.
• OTC Direct, Inc.
• Sierra Trading Post, Inc.
• Sling Media, Inc.
• SUPERVALU Inc.
• Target Corporation
• TracFone Wireless, Inc.
• Yelp Inc.
• Zones, Inc.

Plaintiff:         TQP Development, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ni Law Firm; Russ August & Kabat; Spangler & Fussell

Patent:           5,412,730 (Encrypted data transmission system employing means for randomly altering the encryption keys).

Credit Card Fraud Control Corporation v. CyberSource Corporation, (S.D. Fla.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Kenneth A. Marra; Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins, Senior District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp

Defendants:

• CyberSource Corporation
• PayPal, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Credit Card Fraud Control Corporation

Pls. Cnsl:        Nelson Bumgardner Casto; Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright

Patent:           8,229,844 (Method of billing a purchase made over a computer network).

ArrivalStar SA et al v. Overstock.com, Inc., (S.D. Fla.).

Defendants:

• Overstock.com, Inc.
• Stride Rite Children’s Group

Plaintiff:         ArrivalStar SA; Melvino Technologies Limited

Pls. Cnsl:        McMahon Law Firm

Patent:           6,904,359 (Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications based upon occurance of events); 6,952,645 (System and method for activation of an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel); and 7,400,970 (System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle).

CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Hotels.com LP et al, (ILND)

Defendants: 

• Hotels.com GP, LLC
• Hotels.com, LP

Plaintiff:         CIVIX-DDI, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Haller & Niro

Patent:           8,296,335 (Method for advertising information).

Hopewell Culture & Design LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., (E.D. Tex.).

Defendants:

• Amazon.com Inc
• Barnes & Noble, Inc.
• Coby Electronics Corp.
• Lenovo (United States) Inc.
• ViewSonic Corporation
• Vizio, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Hopewell Culture & Design LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Austin L Hansley

Patent:           7,171,625 (Double-clicking a point-and-click user interface apparatus to enable a new interaction with content represented by an active visual display element).

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.

The Tawnsaura Group, LLC v. Serious Nutrition Solutions, LLC (C.D. Cal.) (multiple cases). 

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian, District Judge James V. Selna

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:  

• Serious Nutrition Solutions, LLC
• Vitacost.com, Inc.
• Now Foods, Inc.
• Montiff, Inc.
• Nutrabulk, Inc.
• Nutrabolics, Inc.
• Swanson Health Products, Inc.
• Solaray, Inc.
• Supplement Direct Ventures, Inc.
• Superior Nutraceuticals, Inc.
• Dymatize Enterprises, LLC
• AST Sports Science, Inc.
• Twinlab Corporation
• Natrol, Inc.
• Ultimate Nutrition Products, Inc.
• SAN Nutrition Corp.
• Universal Nutrition, Inc.
• MusclePharm Corporation
• Infinite Labs, LLC
• Fizogen Precision Technologies, Inc.
• All American Pharmaceutical & Natural Foods Corporation
• Driven Sports, Inc.
• Anabolic Innovations, Inc.
• Controlled Labs
• Beverly International Nutrition, LLC
• Betancourt Nutrition, Inc.
• Cobra Labs Ltd.
• EverNutrition, Inc.
• Evogen, Inc.
• Elements of Health Care, LLC
• Epic Nutrition, Inc.
• Ergogenix
• Advanced Nutraceutical Engineers & Marketers, LLC
• Core Nutritionals, LLC
• Exclusive Nutrition Products, Inc.
• Exclusive Supplements, Inc.
• World Health Products, LLC
• Get Fit Nutrition
• Gamma Enterprises, LLC
• Fahrenheit Group Corporation
• Extreme V, Inc.
• Isatori, Inc.
• Isatori Technologies, Inc.
• Isatori Technologies, LLC

Plaintiff:         The Tawnsaura Group, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Newport Trial Group

Patents:          5,874,471 (Orthomolecular medical use of L-citrulline for vasoprotection, relaxative smooth muscle tone and cell protection); and 6,028,107 (Orthomolecular medical use of L-citrulline for vasoprotection, relaxative smooth muscle tone and cell protection).

Cronos Technologies, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., (D. Del.) (W.D. Ky.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
• Vitacost.com, Inc.
• Camping World Inc.
• Weight Watchers International, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Cronos Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Heninger Garrison Davis, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, Givhan & Spainhour, and Heninger Garrison Davis

Patent:           5,664,110 (Remote ordering system).

TQP Development, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven, District Judge Michael H. Schneider

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Adobe Systems Incorporated
• BNSF Railway Company
• Craigslist.com, Inc.
• Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.
• JetBlue Airways Corporation
• MLB Advanced Media, LP
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Samsung Information Systems America, Inc.
• Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
• Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC
• ADT LLC
• Avis Budget Group, Inc.
• LivingSocial, Inc
• PetSmart Store Support Group, Inc.
• TSA Stores, Inc.
• Kenexa BrassRing, Inc.
• Ally Financial Inc.
• Avon Products, Inc.
• BestBuy.com, LLC
• Boost Mobile, LLC
• Electronic Arts, Inc.
• First Data Corporation

Plaintiff:         TQP Development, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Ni Law Firm, Russ August & Kabat, and Spangler & Fussell

Patent:           5,412,730 (Encrypted data transmission system employing means for randomly altering the encryption keys).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Judge:             District Judge Leonard Davis

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:  

• Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.
• The Toro Company
• Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
• Cintas Corporation
• PetSmart, Inc.
• Tractor Supply Company
• Ann Inc.

Plaintiff:         The Toro Company Landmark Technology, LLC

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

Patents:          5,576,951 (Automated sales and services system); and 7,010,508 (Automated multimedia data processing network).

Select Retrieval, LLC v. Shoebuy.com, Inc., (D. Ma.). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendant:     Shoebuy.com, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Select Retrieval, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Miele Law Group

Patent:           6,128,617 (Data display software with actions and links integrated with information).

B E Technology, LLC v. Amazon Digital Services, Inc., (W.D. Tenn.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:  

• Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
• Facebook, Inc.
• LinkedIn Corporation
• Groupon, Inc.
• Pandora Media, Inc.
• Twitter, Inc.
• Barnes & Noble, Inc.
• Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC
• Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.
• Sony Electronics, Inc.
• Microsoft Corporation
• Google, Inc.
• Apple Inc.
• Spark Networks, Inc.
• People Media Inc
• Match.com, LLC

Plaintiff:         B E Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Freitas Tseng & Kaufman, and Martin Tate Morrow & Marston

Patents:          6,771,290 (Computer interface method and apparatus with portable network organization system and targeted advertising); 6,628,314 (Computer interface method and apparatus with targeted advertising)

Blue Spike, LLC v. SecuGen Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• SecuGen Corporation
• ZK Technology LLC
• ZkTeco, Inc.
• Fulcrum Biometrics, LLC
• NEUROtechnology
• Fujitsu America, Inc.
• Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.
• Green Bit Americas, Inc.
• Green Bit, Inc.
• Green Bit S.p.A.
• TvTak Ltd.
• TvTak USA, Inc.
• Innovatrics s.r.o.
• Swift Biometrics, Inc.
• BioLink Solutions Ltd.
• Bio-Metrica LLC
• Cross Match Technologies, Inc.
• Francisco Partners Management, LLC
• Digi-Key Corporation
• Griaule Technology LLC
• Integrated Biometrics, LLC
• TV Interactive Systems, Inc.
• 3M Cogent, Inc.
• Antheus Technology, Inc.
• Aware, Inc.
• ImageWare Systems, Inc.
• NEC Corporation
• NEC Corporation of America
• Precise Biometrics AB
• Precise Biometrics, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Blue Spike, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Albritton Law Firm, and Garteiser Honea

Patents:          7,346,472 (Method and device for monitoring and analyzing signals); 7,660,700 (Method and device for monitoring and analyzing signals); 7949494 (Method and device for monitoring and analyzing signals); and 8,214,175 (Method and device for monitoring and analyzing signals).

Eclipse IP, LLC v. Omaha Steaks International, Inc., (N.D. Cal.).

Judge:             Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

Defendant:     Omaha Steaks International, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Eclipse IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Comar Law

The Regents of the University of California et al v. Facebook, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement

Defendants:  

• Facebook, Inc.
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
• ESPN Internet Ventures
• The Walt Disney Company

Plaintiffs:

• Eolas Technologies Incorporated
• The Regents of the University of California

Pls. Cnsl:        McKool Smith

Patents:          5,838,906 (Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document ); 7,599,985 (Distributed hypermedia method and system for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document); 8,082,293 (Distributed hypermedia method and system for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document); and 8,086,662 (Distributed hypermedia method and system for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document).

Clear With Computers, LLC v. AGCO Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• AGCO Corporation
• Arctic Cat, Inc.
• Astec Industries, Inc.
• Clark Equipment Company (d/b/a Bobcat Company)
• CNH America LLC
• ECHO, Incorporated
• ET Works, LLC (d/b/a Equipment Technologies)
• Husqvarna, LLC
• JCB Manufacturing, Inc.
• Kinze Manufacturing, Inc.
• Kubota Tractor Corporation
• Swisher Acquisition, Inc.
• Terex Corporation
• TMBC, LLC
• Tracker Marine Retail, LLC
• Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.
• The Finish Line, Inc.
• Footlocker.com, Inc.
• Foot Locker, Inc.
• Mercedes-Benz of Plano
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
• Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.
• The Finish Line, Inc.
• Footlocker.com, Inc.
• Foot Locker, Inc.
• Mercedes-Benz of Plano
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Plaintiff:         Clear With Computers, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Russ August & Kabat; Stamoulis & Weinblatt; and Spangler & Fussell

Patents:          5,625,776 (Electronic proposal preparation system for selling computer equipment and copy machines); 7,606,739 (Electronic proposal preparation system); and 8,266,015 (Inventory sales system and method).

Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al, (E.D. Va.) (multiple cases). 

Judges:           Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson, District Judge Anthony J. Trenga

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Best Buy Co., Inc.
• BestBuy.com, LLC
• Best Buy Stores, LP
• LG Electronics, Inc.
• LG Electronics USA, Inc.
• Vizio, Inc.
• E&S International Enterprises, Inc.
• Acer America Corporation
• Acer, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Bluestone Innovations, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Cochran & Owen, and Niro Haller & Niro

Patent:           6,163,557 (Fabrication of group III-V nitrides on mesas).

Community United IP, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al, (D. Del.) (multiple cases). 

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendants:

• Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
• HSN, Inc.
• Match.com, LLC
• Oracle Corporation
• The Hertz Corporation
• Travelocity.com, Inc.
• 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.
• Cellco Partnership
• Discover Card Services, Inc.
• EarthLink, Inc.
• LivePerson, Inc.
• QVC, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Community United IP, LLC

Pls. Cnsl          Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:           5,862,223 (Method and apparatus for a cryptographically-assisted commercial network system designed to facilitate and support expert-based commerce).

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., (N.D. Ga.). 

Judge:             District Judge Amy Totenberg

Claim:             Infringement 

Defendant:     United Parcel Service, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Hill Kertscher & Wharton, and Reed & Scardino

Patent:           5,786,748 (Method and apparatus for giving notification of express mail delivery).

This morning, Congressman DeFazio (R-Oregon) introduced a new version of the SHIELD Act.  This new version addresses many of the issues with the original version.  The current SHIELD Act would award costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to a prevailing party that had asserted noninfringement and/or invalidity defenses in a patent case, if the Court holds that the patentholder does not meet any of the criteria that roughly define trolls.  Those criteria are:

1. The plaintiff is the inventor of the asserted patents, a joint inventor of the asserted patents or the original assignee of the patents;
2. The plaintiff provides “documentation . . . of substantial investment made by such party in the exploitation of the patent through production or sale of an item covered by the patent”; or
3. The plaintiff is an institution of higher education (as defined by the Higher Education Act) or a technology transfer organization associated with one or more institutions of higher education.

These three factors are a rough cut at identifying trolls.  Of course, we will have to see how courts interpret the “substantial investment” prong.  For example, does the investment have to result in the making or sale of a product, or is it enough that there was significant investment, even if the investment did not come to fruition.  And while allowing suits by the original inventor is defensible, there is some concern that this limitation is overbroad.  For example, an original inventor could be funded behind the scenes by a troll and side-step the SHIELD Act.

The current version of the SHIELD Act also makes an important timing change.  In order to get a fees award, the accused infringer will be required to file a motion seeking a finding that the patentholder does not meet any of the three conditions above.  If an accused infringer files that motion before the deadline for serving its initial disclosures, the Court must stay discovery except for that related to the motion until the Court rules upon whether the patentee meets any of the conditions.  If the accused infringer files its motion after the initial disclosures deadline, the Court is free to defer ruling until after a final judgment is entered in the case.  But the SHIELD Act gives accused infringers (including retailers) the ability to determine at the outset of the case whether they will get an award of its reasonable attorney’s fees when they prevail.

That would be a critical change in the law.  Today as a retailer evaluates its defenses and strategy throughout a case, it can weigh its opportunity to get its fees paid at the back end of the case if the retailer prevails and then if the Court finds the case exceptional.  But knowing at the outset of a case that it will gets its attorney’s fees if it prevails is a much more tangible possibility which will likely factor heavily into the analysis for many retailers.  And it may cause patentholders who know they do not fit any of the three conditions, to not file cases that they feel to be weak or even closer to the line.