Patent suits filed Oct. 12, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

TQP Development LLC v. Target Corp.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00652-MHS-CMC
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 and James A. Fussell III, Spangler & Fussell, Longview

TQP Development LLC v. TracFone Wireless Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00654-MHS-CMC
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 and James A. Fussell III, Spangler & Fussell, Longview

TQP Development LLC v. Yelp Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00656-MHS-CMC
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 and James A. Fussell III, Spangler & Fussell, Longview

TQP Development LLC v. Zones, Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00657-MHS-CMC
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 and James A. Fussell III, Spangler & Fussell, Longview

Telinit Technologies LLC v. British Telecommunications plc, Ribbit Corp., BT Americas Inc. and BT Conferencing Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00658-JRG-RSP
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,192,123, entitled “Method and apparatus for initiating telephone calls using a data network.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: William E. Davis III, The Davis Firm, Longview; Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola, Ferraiuoli LLC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, of counsel

Telinit Technologies LLC v. GENBAND Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00659-JRG-RSP
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,192,123, entitled “Method and apparatus for initiating telephone calls using a data network.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: William E. Davis III, The Davis Firm, Longview; Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola, Ferraiuoli LLC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, of counsel

Telinit Technologies LLC v. SHORETEL INC., M5 Networks LLC and M5 Networks Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00660-JRG-RSP
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,192,123, entitled “Method and apparatus for initiating telephone calls using a data network.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: William E. Davis III, The Davis Firm, Longview; Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola, Ferraiuoli LLC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, of counsel

Telinit Technologies LLC v. Telefónica Europe plc and JaJah Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00661-JRG-RSP
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,192,123, entitled “Method and apparatus for initiating telephone calls using a data network.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: William E. Davis III, The Davis Firm, Longview; Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola, Ferraiuoli LLC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, of counsel

Telinit Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Skype Communications S.à. r.l. and Skype Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00662-JRG-RSP
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,192,123, entitled “Method and apparatus for initiating telephone calls using a data network.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: William E. Davis III, The Davis Firm, Longview; Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola, Ferraiuoli LLC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, of counsel

Telinit Technologies LLC v. Twilio Inc., Trulia Inc. and Match.com LLC
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00663-JRG-RSP
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,192,123, entitled “Method and apparatus for initiating telephone calls using a data network.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: William E. Davis III, The Davis Firm, Longview; Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola, Ferraiuoli LLC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, of counsel

Telinit Technologies LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.
Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-00664-JRG-RSP
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,192,123, entitled “Method and apparatus for initiating telephone calls using a data network.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: William E. Davis III, The Davis Firm, Longview; Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola, Ferraiuoli LLC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, of counsel

Charge Lion LLC v. Semtech Corp.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00769-LED
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,543,702, entitled “Alkaline Battery Charging Method and Battery Charger.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang and Stevenson Moore V, Ni Law Firm, Dallas

Charge Lion LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00770-LED
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,543,702, entitled “Alkaline Battery Charging Method and Battery Charger.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang and Stevenson Moore V, Ni Law Firm, Dallas

Charge Lion LLC v. Maxim Integrated Products Inc.
Civil Action No: 6:12-cv-00771-LED
Cause of Action: Filed for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,543,702, entitled “Alkaline Battery Charging Method and Battery Charger.”
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang and Stevenson Moore V, Ni Law Firm, Dallas

Comments

[0870 numbers]

The risk of any two-way communication system is that a third party will intercept the conversation. Early encryption methods for analog telephones typically scrambled the conversations. This, however, only provided rudimentary protection that could not withstand aggressive attacks. More advanced encryption methods for analog telephones are harder to break.