Source: https://www.retailpatentlitigation.com/2013/10/may-2013-retail-patent-litigation-report/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:11:15+00:00

Document:
Like April, May saw a few large filings. Data Carriers sued about twenty retailers Ubicomm also hit about twenty retailers. Additionally, NeoMedia, Blue Calypso and Landmark Technology also filed suits. Of particular interest, Neiman Marcus filed a declaratory judgment suit against a patent holder that sent a cease and desist letter, but refused to identify itself, presumably at least in part to avoid the very declaratory judgment action that Neiman Marcus filed.
Data Carriers, LLC v. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., (D. Del.) (multiple cases).
Patent: 5,388,198 (Proactive presentation of automating features to a computer user).
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Doe, (N.D. Tex.).
Plaintiff: The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., (D. Colo.) (multiple cases).
Ameranth, Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation, (S.D. Cal.).
Patents: 6,384,850 (Information management and synchronous communications system with menu generation); 6,871,325 (Information management and synchronous communications system with menu generation); and 8,146,077 (Information management and synchronous communications system with menu generation, and handwriting and voice modification of orders).
Parallel Networks, LLC v. Spotify USA Inc., (D. Del.).
Patents: 7,188,145 (Method and system for dynamic distributed data caching); and 7,730,262 (Method and system for dynamic distributed data caching).
Blue Calypso, Inc. v. Groupon, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).
Patent: 8,438,055 (System and method for providing endorsed advertisements and testimonials between communication devices); and 8,452,646 (System and method for providing endorsed electronic offers between communication devices).
UbiComm, LLC v. Ace Hardware Corporation, (D. Del.) (multiple cases).
Global Custom Commerce, Inc. d/b/a Blinds.com.
H-W Technology LC v. Papa John’s International Inc et al, (N.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).
Patent: 7,525,955 (Internet protocol (IP) phone with search and advertising capability).
Landmark Technology, LLC v. iRobot Corporation, (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).
DataTreasury Corporation v. Fiserv, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) (multiple cases).
First Liberty National Bancshares, Inc.
Texas Peoples National Bancshares, Inc.
Bankers Bancorp of Oklahoma, Inc.
Commerce National Financial Services, Inc.
Patents: 5,910,988 (Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage); and 6,032,137 (Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage).
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. First National Bank of Omaha, (D. Neb.).
Patents: 5,745,574 (Security infrastructure for electronic transactions); 6,314,409 (System for controlling access and distribution of digital property); 6,715,084 (Firewall system and method via feedback from broad-scope monitoring for intrusion detection); 6,826,694 (High resolution access control); and 7,634,666 (Crypto-engine for cryptographic processing of data).
Motivation Innovations, LLC v. PetSmart, Inc., (D. Del.).
Patent: 5,612,527 (Discount offer redemption system and method).
Mobile Transformation LLC v. Spotify USA Inc., (S.D. N.Y.).
Patent: 6,351,736 (System and method for displaying advertisements with played data).

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