Here are additional intellectual property cases recently filed in the Northern District of Texas:
- Lone Star Consolidated Foods v. Select Brands: the complaint (available here) asserts trademark and unfair competition claims.
- S&A Systems v. Fleet Watch: S&A claims Fleet Watch has committed trademark infringement and false advertising (complaint available here).
- Katch Kan v. Can-Ok: Katch Kan asserts that Can-Ok infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,666,287, which claims technology relating to enclosing oil drilling rigs (complaint available here).
- Morris & Schaefer Learning v. Soft Skills Learning: Morris asserts Soft Skills engaged in false advertising and unfair competition (complaint available here).
- RXpress Pharmacy v. Afgin Pharma: with its complaint (available here), RXpress seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent No. 8,329,734, titled “Topical Therapy for Migraine.”
- Jericho Systems v. Axiomatics: Jericho claims that Axiomatics infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,560,836, which claims technology relating to enterprise resource policies. (Complaint available here.)
- S-Line v. B2B Supply: S-Line accuses B2B of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,731,462, which claims a bulkhead (complaint available here).
- Mannatech v. Wellness Quest: Mannatech claims Wellness infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,157,431, entitled “Compositions of Plant Carbohydrates as Dietary Supplements.” (Complaint available here).
- Credit Card Fraud Control v. Chase Paymentech & First Data: Credit sued Chase and First Data asserting claims of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,630,942, entitled “Method of Billing a Purchase Made Over a Computer Network.” (Complaints available here and here.)
- Monster Moto v. APT Group: Monster Moto seeks a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement with respect to APT Group’s U.S. Design Patent No. D689,798. (Complaint available here).
- Icon Laser Solutions v. The Gap & V.F. Corporation: Icon claims The Gap and V.F. Corp. infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,567,207, entitled “Method for Marking and Fading Textiles with Lasers.” (Complaints available here and here).
- Aeritas v. Gamestop: Aeritas alleges that Gamestop infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,819 and 8,055,285, both of which are entitled “Mixed-Mode Interaction.” (Complaint available here).
- TransFirst v. Protegrity Corp.: TransFirst seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed Protegrity’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,321,201; 7,325,129; 7,490,248; 6,963,980; and 8,402,281. (Complaint available here).
- Corduro v. Protegrity Corp.: Corduro seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed Protegrity’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,321,201; 6,963,980; and 8,402,281. (Complaint available here).
- Credit Card Fraud Control Corp. v. TrustCommerce, Maxmind, & Elavon: CCFC accuses defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,630,942, entitled “Method of Billing a Purchase Made Over a Computer Network.” (The three complaints are available here, here, and here.)
- Cinsay v. wireWAX: Cinsay accusing wireWAX of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,782,690 and 8,549,555, both entitled “Interactive Product Placement System and Method Therefor.” (Complaint available here).
- Bascom v. AT&T: Bascom accuses AT&T of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606, entitled “Method and System for Content Filtering Information Retrieved from an Internet Computer Network.” (Complaint available here).
- Hawk Technology Systems v. Southern Methodist University: Hawk claims SMU infringes U.S. Patent No. RE43,462, which covers technology relating to video storage and display systems (complaint available here).
- Securus v. Global Tel*Link Corp.: Securus claims Global infringes four patents relating to call processing. (Complaint available here).
- Tucker-Rocky Corp. v. First Gear Project: Tucker-Rocky claims First Gear has committed trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition (complaint available here).
- Luve v. Triboro Quilt: Luve asserts a copyright infringement claim against Triboro (complaint available here).