Untitled case

This case, 6:12-cv-00911, is a patent infringement litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The plaintiff is Landmark Technology, LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) with a history of aggressively asserting its patents. The defendant is Henry Schein, Inc., a publicly traded operating company that is the world's largest provider of healthcare products and services to office-based dental, animal health, and medical practitioners. Henry Schein's offerings include dental equipment, instruments, supplies, practice management software, and e-commerce solutions. The specific accused products or services in this particular lawsuit against Henry Schein are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but Landmark Technology's (and related entities') typical infringement allegations for the patent at issue have targeted general e-commerce functionalities such as home pages, customer login pages, and product-ordering pages on websites.

The patent asserted in this litigation is US Patent 7,010,508, titled "Automated multimedia data processing network." This patent generally describes a system and method for interactively processing and retrieving data, initially conceived for applications like screening loan applications through interactive sequences of inquiries and answers, and broadly encompassing functions for selectively retrieving and combining textual and graphical data for display. The case was initially presided over by Judge Michael H. Schneider, with Magistrate Judge John D. Love assigned for referral. The Eastern District of Texas is historically known as a "rocket docket" and a plaintiff-friendly venue for patent litigation, often chosen by NPEs due to its reputation for rapid adjudication and local rules perceived as favorable to patent holders.

This case is notable due to the plaintiff's pattern of assertion. Landmark Technology, or entities related to its inventor Lawrence B. Lockwood and later Raymond Mercado (Landmark Technology A, LLC), have extensively leveraged US Patent 7,010,508 and its predecessors to send thousands of demand letters, primarily targeting small businesses, and have been described as a "patent troll." These demand letters typically request a $65,000 licensing fee. The patent has faced significant validity challenges, including being deemed invalid on indefiniteness grounds in a separate proceeding, and has been subject to covered business method (CBM) review and multiple reexaminations by the USPTO, which confirmed the validity of some claims while canceling others. US Patent 7,010,508 officially expired on March 7, 2023.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Landmark Technology, LLC v. Henry Schein, Inc. (6:12-cv-00911)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court under case number 6:12-cv-00911, involves US Patent 7,010,508, owned by Landmark Technology, LLC. The case has seen several key developments, including general case management, and has been significantly impacted by parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and a separate district court case involving the same patent.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Landmark Technology, LLC filed the patent infringement complaint against Henry Schein, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While the exact filing date of the initial complaint is not readily available in public search results without direct PACER access, the case was active by at least January 14, 2013, when it was listed in a general order regarding pending case transfers within the Eastern District of Texas. This order transferred the case, along with many others, from one judge to another to conform pending caseloads.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Beyond the general case transfer order of January 14, 2013, specific substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment for this particular case (6:12-cv-00911) are not detailed in public records. The overall "critical" status of the case suggests it remained active for some period, or that the patent itself became critically impacted.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

Publicly available information does not explicitly detail a Markman order or specific claim construction outcomes for Landmark Technology, LLC v. Henry Schein, Inc. (6:12-cv-00911).

Discovery Milestones

Specific discovery milestones for this case are not publicly detailed.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

There is no public record indicating that the case proceeded to trial, a verdict, or subsequent post-trial motions for this specific litigation.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

The direct final disposition of Landmark Technology, LLC v. Henry Schein, Inc. (6:12-cv-00911) is not readily available in public summaries. However, the asserted patent, US Patent 7,010,508, has faced significant challenges in other venues, which likely influenced the outcome or posture of this case.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect on Litigation

US Patent 7,010,508 has been the subject of significant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in other district court litigation, which directly impacted its enforceability:

• Covered Business Method (CBM) Review CBM2014-00026: On May 20, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision in eBay Enterprise, Inc. v. Lawrence B. Lockwood (CBM2014-00026) regarding US Patent 7,010,508. In this contested matter, the PTAB found that the '508 patent "does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, and is therefore not a technological invention." This constitutes a significant invalidity finding under the CBM program.
• Subsequent PTAB Rulings: In a related CBM proceeding, the PTAB, guided by its prior decision in CBM2014-00026, denied a patent owner's request to terminate the CBM proceeding on November 13, 2015, clarifying that standing for a CBM proceeding is evaluated at the time of petition filing and does not require a continuous infringement controversy.
• District Court Invalidity Ruling: A North Carolina federal judge, in NAPCO, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC, case number 1:2021cv00025 (M.D.N.C.), issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on August 4, 2023, declaring claim 1 of US Patent 7,010,508 invalid for indefiniteness. This ruling arose from a declaratory judgment action filed by NAPCO after receiving a demand letter from Landmark Technology A, LLC.
• Washington State Attorney General Lawsuit: In May 2021, the Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Landmark Technology A, LLC, accusing it of "predatory 'patent troll' practices" and bad-faith assertions of infringement related to US Patent 7,010,508. The complaint alleged that Landmark Technology A sent thousands of demand letters for websites infringing on the '508 patent, despite the patent claiming "the abstract idea of automated data processing of business transactions between remote computer terminals." This case was removed to federal court and is ongoing as of October 2023.

Given the PTAB's finding in 2014 that the '508 patent was not a technological invention, and the subsequent district court ruling in 2023 declaring a key claim invalid for indefiniteness, it is highly probable that the litigation against Henry Schein, Inc. was either dismissed, settled, or otherwise concluded in light of these significant challenges to the underlying patent's validity. The overall context suggests a comprehensive invalidation of the patent across various challenges.

I have identified the plaintiff as Landmark Technology, LLC and the case number as 6:12-cv-00911 in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent at issue is US Patent 7,010,508. Despite multiple targeted searches using the case number, plaintiff's name, and terms like "counsel of record," "attorney appearance," and "litigation counsel," I have not found a direct listing of the specific attorneys representing Landmark Technology, LLC in this particular case. The search results provide general information about Landmark Technology's patent assertion activities and the firms active in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, but none explicitly connect specific lawyers or firms to representing the plaintiff in 6:12-cv-00911.

Therefore, I cannot provide the specific counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case with the current information.I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Landmark Technology, LLC, in case 6:12-cv-00911 in the Eastern District of Texas.

Despite multiple targeted web searches using the case number, plaintiff's name, and terms such as "counsel of record," "attorney appearance," and "litigation counsel," no direct listings of the attorneys for Landmark Technology, LLC in this specific case were found. The available search results primarily discuss Landmark Technology, LLC's history as a patent assertion entity (often referred to as a "patent troll") and its frequent assertions of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,508 against numerous companies, particularly small businesses, often leading to settlements. While general information about prominent patent litigation firms in the Eastern District of Texas is available, and some attorneys are mentioned in the context of other patent cases, none are explicitly linked to representing Landmark Technology, LLC in 6:12-cv-00911.

Without direct access to the PACER docket for this specific case, or news articles/legal databases that explicitly name the appearing counsel for the plaintiff, I cannot provide the requested information.

I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing Henry Schein, Inc. in case 6:12-cv-00911 in the Eastern District of Texas based on the current search results.

While Henry Schein, Inc. has an in-house legal team, including Walter Siegel (Chief Legal Officer and Senior Vice President as of 2021, and General Counsel since 2013) and Kelly Murphy (General Counsel as of 2021), these individuals are identified as corporate counsel rather than specific litigation counsel of record for this particular case. Henry Schein also utilizes outside counsel for various legal matters, such as Proskauer Rose LLP for mergers and acquisitions. However, none of the search results directly name any specific outside law firms or individual attorneys representing Henry Schein, Inc. in Landmark Technology, LLC v. Henry Schein, Inc. (6:12-cv-00911).

The court's general order regarding pending case transfers from January 14, 2013, mentions "the parties and their counsel of record" but does not enumerate specific attorneys for each case listed, including 6:12-cv-00911.

Therefore, without direct access to the PACER docket for this specific case or more detailed reporting on the litigation, I cannot provide the specific names of the defendant's counsel of record.