The typical summer filing trend continued in July, NPEs appeared to be on a summer break as filings remained low.  Frequent filers included Coding Technologies, Internet Media Interactive and Landmark Technology.

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.

Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. (D. Del.; N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Charles P. Kocoras

Claim:            Infringement


  • Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc.
  • The Coca-Cola Company
  • The Boeing Company

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).

Coding Technologies, LLC v. Xymogen, Inc. (M.D. Fla.; N.D. Ga.; D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Judges:           Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly; District Judge Gregory A. Presnell; District Judge Anne C. Conway

Claim:             Infringement


  • Xymogen, Inc.
  • Elmer’s Products Inc.
  • Primo Water Corporation
  • SOL Republic, Inc.
  • Delta Faucet Company

Plaintiff:        Coding Technologies, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Watson LLP; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            8,540,159 (Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern).

Aeritas, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Best Buy Co., Inc.

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).

Sookbox Development LLC v. Walmart Inc. f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement


  • Walmart Inc. f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
  • Best Buy Co., Inc.

Plaintiff:        Sookbox Development LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Chaudhari Law

Patent:            9,497,137 (Digital content connectivity and control via a plurality of controllers that are treated discriminatively).

Allconnect, Inc. v. Consumer Brands, LLC (C.D. Cal.; W.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Lee Yeakel

Claim:             Infringement


  • Consumer Brands, LLC
  • Microbrand Media, LLC
  • Kandela, LLC

Plaintiff:        Allconnect, Inc.

Pls. Cnsl:        Morris Manning & Martin; and Russ August & Kabat

Patents:          8,346,624 (Systems and methods for recommending third party products and services); and 8,433,617 (Systems and methods for identifying third party products and services available at a geographic location).

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Learning Resources, Inc. (N.D. Ill.).

Judge:             District Judge Robert W. Gettleman

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Learning Resources, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Landmark Technology, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law

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

UnoWeb Virtual, LLC v. Hong Kong Limited (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement


  • com Hong Kong Limited
  • com Limited
  • Sears Holdings Corporation

Plaintiff:        UnoWeb Virtual, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Capshaw DeRieux; and Carsten Law

Patents:          8,307,047 (Method of a first host of first content retrieving second content from a second host and presenting both contents to a user); 9,589,273 (Method of three-level hosting infrastructure); and 8,037,091 (Method of using a code to track user access to content).

Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement


  • Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
  • Micro Focus International plc
  • Wells Fargo & Company
  • Bank of America Corp.


  • Wapp Tech Corp.
  • Wapp Tech Limited Partnership

Pls. Cnsl:        Toler Law Group

Patents:          8,924,192 (Systems including network simulation for mobile application development and online marketplaces for mobile application distribution, revenue sharing, content distribution, or combinations thereof); 9,298,864 (System including network simulation for mobile application development); and 9,971,678 (Systems including device and network simulation for mobile application development).

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Treasure Island, LLC, et al. (D. Nev.).

Judges:           District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II; Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr.

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Treasure Island, LLC

Plaintiff:        Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Law Office of Kurt C. Lambeth

Patents:          RE 37,342 (Dual format digital video production system); and RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system).

Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).

Judge:             District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

Claim:             Infringement

Defendant:     Shopify, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Chapterhouse, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        The Mort Law Firm

Patents:          7,552,087 (Electronic transaction receipt system and method); 7,742,989 (Digital receipt generation from information electronically read from product); 8,112,356 (System and method for providing automated secondary purchase opportunities to consumers); and 8,606,698 (Electronic transaction receipt system and method).

Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC v. McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. (D. Del.) (multiple cases).

Claim:            Infringement


  • McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.
  • Internet Brands, Inc.
  • Thomson Reuters USA Inc.

Plaintiff:        Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Rabicoff Law; and Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Patent:            7,299,067 (Methods and systems for managing the provision of training provided remotely through electronic data networks to users of remote electronic devices).

Blue Spike LLC v. Dish Network Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).

Claim:             Infringement


  • DISH Network Corporation
  • DISH Network LLC
  • Dish Network Service LLC
  • American Airlines Group Inc.
  • American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff:        Blue Spike LLC

Pls. Cnsl:        Garteiser Honea

Patents:          7,159,116 (Systems, methods and devices for trusted transactions); 7,287,275 (Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth); 7,475,246 (Secure personal content server); 8,224,705 (Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth); 8,473,746 (Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth); 8,538,011 (Systems, methods and devices for trusted transactions); 8,739,295 (Secure personal content server); 9,021,602 (Data protection method and device); 9,104,842 (Data protection method and device); 9,934,408 (Secure personal content server); RE 44,222 (Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth); RE 44,307 (Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth); and 7,664,263 (Method for combining transfer functions with predetermined key creation).