Source: https://www.retailpatentlitigation.com/2014/10/july-2014-retail-patent-litigation-report/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:13:27+00:00

Document:
Trolls continued their summer vacation in July. Repeat filers included Antennatech, EMG Technology, Eclipse IP, GPNE, Hawk Technology and Interface IP.
Market Track, LLC v. Efficient Collavorative Retail Marketing, (N.D. Ill.).
Patent: 7,849,083 (Automatic creation of output file from images in database).
ServiceMax v. Eclipse IP LLC, (C.D. Cal.).
Patents: 7,064,681 Response systems and methods for notification systems; 7,113,110 (Stop list generation systems and methods based upon tracked PCD’s and responses from notified PCD’s); and 7,119,716 (Response systems and methods for notification systems for modifying future notifications).
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., (M.D. Fla.; W.D. Wis.; N.D. Ill.) (multiple cases).
Patent: RE 43,462 (Video monitoring and conferencing system); 5,860,946 (Instrument for inserting a suppository); and 7,018,992 (Hormone composition).
Patents: 7,570,954 (Communication system wherein a clocking signal from a controller, a request from a node, acknowledgement of the request, and data transferred from the node are all provided on different frequencies, enabling simultaneous transmission of these signals); and 8,086,240 (Data communication system using a reserve request and four frequencies to enable transmitting data packets which can include a count value and termination indication information).
Eclipse IP LLC v. Cobra Electronics Corporation, (N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).
Patents: 7,479,900 (Notification systems and methods that consider traffic flow predicament data); 7,482,952 (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); and 8,068,037 (Advertisement systems and methods for notification systems).
Gonzalez v. Anastasia International, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).
Patents: 7,558,807 (Host website for digitally labeled websites and method); 7,647,339 (Method for digitally labeling websites); 7,873,665 (Method for digitally labelling websites); 8,065,333 (Method for digitally labelling websites); and 8,296,325 (Method for digitally labelling websites).
Antennatech, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).
Patent: 6,885,845 (Personal communication device connectivity arrangement); and 8,180,279 (Wireless hotspot arrangement).
Interface IP Holdings LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).
Patent: 7,500,201 (Data input method and system with multi-sub-field matching of user entries into a graphical input device; and 7,406,663 (Graphical input device with dynamic field width adjustment for input of variable data via a browser-based display).
Icon Laser Solutions LLC v. Gap Inc, (N.D. Tex.).
Patent: 5,567,207 (Method for marking and fading textiles with lasers).
Patents: 6,600,497 (Apparatus and method to navigate interactive television using unique inputs with a remote control); 7,194,698 (Method to advertise and search on television for web content using a simplified interface); and 7,441,196 (Apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content).
Aeritas, LLC v. GameStop Corp., (N.D. Tex.).
Patents: 7,706,819 (Mixed-mode interaction; and 8,055,285 (Mixed-mode interaction).
Bank of America, NA v. Wolf Run Hollow, LLC., (N.D. Ill.).
Patent: 6,115,817 (Methods and systems for facilitating transmission of secure messages across insecure networks).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.