January 2020 was a typical start to a new year. NPEs started out slow and built up filings in the back half of the month. Frequent filers included Coding Technologies, Encoditech, Internet Media Interactive, Reflection Code, S3G and Symbology Innovations.

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.

Aeritas, LLC v. Air Canada (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:    Air Canada

Plaintiff:         Aeritas, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         The Mort Law Firm

Patents:         10,362,160 (Mixed-mode interaction); 7,209,903 (Method and system for facilitation of wireless e-commerce transactions); 7,706,819 (Mixed-mode interaction); 7,933,589 (Method and system for facilitation of wireless e-commerce transactions); 8,620,364 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,390,435 (Mixed-mode interaction); 9,888,107 (Mixed-mode interaction)

 Aido Mobility LLC v. CVS Health Corporation (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).        

Judges:           District Judge Jorge L. Alonso; District Judge Charles P. Kocoras; Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland; District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • CVS Health Corporation
  • Sephora USA, Inc.
  • Domino’s Pizza, Inc.
  • Walgreen Co.
  • Starbucks Corporation
  • Yelp, Inc.

Plaintiff:         Aido Mobility LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         Nelson Bumgardner Albritton

Patents:          6,983,139 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems); 7,058,395 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems); 7,212,811 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems); 7,292,844 (Geographical web browser, methods, apparatus and systems)

Browse3D LLC v. Macy’s, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:            Infringement

Defendant:    Macy’s, Inc. d/b/a Bloomingdale’s

Plaintiff:         Browse3D LLC

Pls. Cnsl:         The Mort Law Firm

Patent:           10,031,897 (System and method for web browsing)

Coding Technologies, LLC v. Mississippi Power Company (S.D. Miss., N.D. Tex.).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker; District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr.; District Judge Brantley Starr; District Judge Sam A. Lindsay

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Mississippi Power Company
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
  • Schneider Electric USA, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        McDavid & Associates; Kizzia Johnson

Patent:           9,240,008 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern); 8,540,159 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern)

Encoditech LLC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           District Judge Andrea R. Wood, District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:  

  • Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
  • The Swatch Group (US) Inc.

Plaintiff:        Encoditech LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

Patent:           6,321,095 (Wireless communications approach)

Intelligent Agency, LLC v. Neighborfavor, Inc. (W.D. Tex.).

Claims:           Infringement

Defendant:   Neighborfavor, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Intelligent Agency, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Emanuelson Firm

Patents:         9,286,610 (Method and apparatus for a principal / agent based mobile commerce); 9,439,035 (Method, system, and apparatus for managing attributes and functionalities of areas exhibiting density of users); 9,894,476 (Method, system and apparatus for location-based machine-assisted interactions)

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Unilever PLC (D. Del.).

Claims:            Infringement

Defendant:    Unilever PLC

Plaintiff:         Internet Media Interactive Corp.

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

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)

 Reflection Code LLC v. Carter’s, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

Judges:           District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland

Claims:           Infringement

Defendants:

  • Carter’s, Inc.
  • Conagra Brands, Inc.
  • The Hershey Company

Plaintiff:        Reflection Code LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Devlin Law Firm

Patents:         7,963,446 (Bar code device); 8,733,657 (Barcode device); 8,763,907 (Barcode device)

S3G Technology LLC v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC (E.D. Tex., W.D Tex.).

Judge:            District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; District Judge Alan D. Albright

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Whataburger Restaurants LLC
  • Qv21 Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff:        S3G Technology LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Patents:         10,261,774 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,081,897 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,940,124 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 8,572,571 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine); 9,304,758 (Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine)

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. (D. Del., C.D. Cal., S.D. Fla.).

Judge:            District Judge K. Michael Moore

Claims:          Infringement

Defendants:

  • Isagenix Worldwide, Inc.
  • Reflexis Systems, Inc.
  • Ascentis Corporation
  • NovaTime Technology Inc.
  • For Life Products, LLC

Plaintiff:        Symbology Innovations LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Budo Law; Sand Sebolt & Wernow

Patent:           8,424,752 (System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device)