Editor’s note: What follows is brief information regarding some of the patent suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas from Oct. 31 to Nov. 6, as listed on PACER, the federal courts’ online filing system.

Blue Calypso Inc. v. Foursquare Labs Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00837-LED
Date Filed: Oct. 31
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,516, entitled “Method and System for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices” and U.S. Patent No. 8,155,679, entitled “System and Method for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Thomas M. Melsheimer and Carl E. Bruce, Fish & Richardson, Dallas; Wesley Hill, Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview

Blue Calypso Inc. v. MyLikes Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00838-LED
Date Filed: Oct. 31
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,516, entitled “Method and System for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices” and U.S. Patent No. 8,155,679, entitled “System and Method for Peer-to-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Thomas M. Melsheimer and Carl E. Bruce, Fish & Richardson, Dallas; Wesley Hill, Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview

NovelPoint Tracking LLC v. Ford Motor Co.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00832-LED
Date Filed: Oct. 31
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,617 and U.S. Patent No. 6,442,485, both entitled “Method and Apparatus for an Automatic Vehicle Location, Collision Notification, and Synthetic Voice.”
Plaintiff’s Attorney: Everett Upshaw, Law Office of Everett Upshaw, Dallas

SportBrain Inc.v. Adidas America Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00700-JRG
Date Filed: Nov. 2
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,002, entitled “Integrating Personal Data Capturing Functionality Into a Portable Computing Device and a Wireless Communication Device.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Melissa R. Smith, Gillam & Smith, Marshall; Steven R. Ritcheson and Joseph C. Gabaeff, Heninger Garrison Davis, Chatsworth, Calif.

SportBrain Inc.v. Fitbit Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00701-JRG
Date Filed: Nov. 2
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,002, entitled “Integrating Personal Data Capturing Functionality Into a Portable Computing Device and a Wireless Communication Device.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Melissa R. Smith, Gillam & Smith, Marshall; Steven R. Ritcheson and Joseph C. Gabaeff, Heninger Garrison Davis, Chatsworth, Calif.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Real Communications Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00842-LED
Date Filed: Nov. 2
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069, entitled “Wireless LAN.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: James M. Wagstaffe, Michael Ng, Daniel A. Zaheer and Maria Radwick, Kerr & Wagstaffe, San Francisco; S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin, Capshaw DeRieux, Gladewater; Frederick G. Michaud, Capshaw DeRieux, Washington, D.C.; Michael F. Heim, Miranda Y. Jones and Nathan J. Davis, Heim, Payne & Chorush, Houston

TQP Development LLC v. The Hertz Corp.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00702
Date Filed: Nov. 2
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730, entitled “Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Marc A. Fenster, Kevin P. Burke, Adam S. Hoffman and Alexander C.D. Giza, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles; Hao Ni, Ni Law Firm, Dallas; Andrew W. Spangler, Spangler & Fussell, Longview; James A. Fussell III, Spangler & Fussell, Alexandria, Va.

TQP Development LLC v. Intel Corp.; Wind River Systems Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00703
Date Filed: Nov. 2
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730, entitled “Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Marc A. Fenster, Kevin P. Burke, Adam S. Hoffman and Alexander C.D. Giza, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles; Hao Ni, Ni Law Firm, Dallas; Andrew W. Spangler, Spangler & Fussell, Longview; James A. Fussell III, Spangler & Fussell, Alexandria, Va.

MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. NXP Semiconductors USA
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00846-LED
Date Filed: Nov. 5
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,306, entitled “Managing Power on Integrated Circuits Using Power Islands;” U.S. Patent No. 5,577,230, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Computer Processing Using an Enhanced Harvard Architecture Utilizing Dual Memory Buses and the Arbitration for Data/Instruction Fetch;” U.S. Patent No. 5,724,505, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Real-Time Program Monitoring via a Serial Interface;” U.S. Patent No. 5,958,036, entitled “Circuit for Arbitrating Interrupts with Programmable Priority Levels;” U.S. Patent No. 6,256,725, entitled “Shared Datapath Processor Utilizing Stack-Based and Register-Based Storage Spaces;” and U.S. Patent No. 6,446,193, entitled “Method and apparatus for single cycle processing of data associated with separate accumulators in a dual multiply-accumulate architecture.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin, Capshaw DeRieux, Gladewater; Steven G. Hill and Douglas R. Kertscher, Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, Atlanta, of counsel

MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. ST-Ericsson Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00845-LED
Date Filed: Nov. 5
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,306, entitled “Managing Power on Integrated Circuits Using Power Islands;” U.S. Patent No. 5,577,230, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Computer Processing Using an Enhanced Harvard Architecture Utilizing Dual Memory Buses and the Arbitration for Data/Instruction Fetch;” U.S. Patent No. 5,724,505, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Real-Time Program Monitoring via a Serial Interface;” U.S. Patent No. 5,958,036, entitled “Circuit for Arbitrating Interrupts with Programmable Priority Levels;” U.S. Patent No. 6,256,725, entitled “Shared Datapath Processor Utilizing Stack-Based and Register-Based Storage Spaces;” and U.S. Patents No. 7,945,885 and 7,996,811, entitled “Power managers for an integrated circuit.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin, Capshaw DeRieux, Gladewater; Steven G. Hill and Douglas R. Kertscher, Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, Atlanta, of counsel

MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. STMicroelectronics Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00848-LED
Date Filed: Nov. 5
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,306, entitled “Managing Power on Integrated Circuits Using Power Islands;” U.S. Patent No. 5,577,230, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Computer Processing Using an Enhanced Harvard Architecture Utilizing Dual Memory Buses and the Arbitration for Data/Instruction Fetch;” U.S. Patent No. 5,724,505, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Real-Time Program Monitoring via a Serial Interface;” U.S. Patent No. 5,958,036, entitled “Circuit for Arbitrating Interrupts with Programmable Priority Levels;” U.S. Patent No. 6,256,725, entitled “Shared Datapath Processor Utilizing Stack-Based and Register-Based Storage Spaces;” U.S. Patent No. 6,397,240, entitled “Programmable accelerator for a programmable processor system;” U.S. Patent No. 6,446,193, entitled “Method and apparatus for single cycle processing of data associated with separate accumulators in a dual multiply-accumulate architecture;” and U.S. Patent No. 6,064,712, entitled “Autoreload loop counter.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin, Capshaw DeRieux, Gladewater; Steven G. Hill and Douglas R. Kertscher, Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, Atlanta, of counsel

MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Xilinx Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00847-LED
Date Filed: Nov. 5
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,397,240, entitled “Programmable accelerator for a programmable processor system;” U.S. Patent No. 5,577,230, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Computer Processing Using an Enhanced Harvard Architecture Utilizing Dual Memory Buses and the Arbitration for Data/Instruction Fetch;” U.S. Patent No. 5,724,505, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Real-Time Program Monitoring via a Serial Interface;” U.S. Patent No. 5,958,036, entitled “Circuit for Arbitrating Interrupts with Programmable Priority Levels;” and U.S. Patent No. 6,256,725, entitled “Shared Datapath Processor Utilizing Stack-Based and Register-Based Storage Spaces.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin, Capshaw DeRieux, Gladewater; Steven G. Hill and Douglas R. Kertscher, Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, Atlanta, of counsel

Patent Group LLC v. BMW of North America LLC
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00706-JRG
Date Filed: Nov. 6
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,603,490, entitled “Web Site Screen Rotation.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Stafford Davis, The Stafford Davis Firm, Tyler; John F. “Jack” Walker and Marisa Schouten, Martin Walker, Tyler

Tommy Stutts v. BSN Sports Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00705-JRG
Date Filed: Nov. 6
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,789,787, entitled “Portable, Evaporative Cooling Unit having a Self-Contained Water Supply.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Stafford Davis, The Stafford Davis Firm, Tyler; Derek Gilliland, John Hull and Kirk Voss, Nix Patterson & Roach, Daingerfield

VirnetX Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation v. Apple Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00855-LED
Date Filed: Nov. 6
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135, entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System Availability;” U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211, entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications Using Secure Domain Names;” and U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151, entitled “Establishment of a Secure Communication Link Based on a Domain Name Service (DNS) Request.”
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: Douglas A. Cawley, Bradley W. Caldwell, Jason D. Cassady, John Austin Curry, Daniel R. Pearson, Stacie L. Greskowiak and Mitchell R. Sibley, McKool Smith, Dallas; Sam F. Baxter, McKool Smith, Marshall; Robert M. Parker, R. Christopher Bunt and Andrew T. Gorham, Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, Tyler