Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marilyn Tennissen Dec. 16, 2014, 10:12am


MARSHALL DIVISION

Dec. 10 

Optical Tech IP LLC v Huawei Technologies USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01102

Plaintiff Optical Tech is a limited liability company with a place of business in Plano.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,747,172 issued June 29, 2010, for an Optical Communication System Having Enhanced Spectral Efficiency Using Electronic Signal Processing.

Allegedly infringing products include the OptiX ONS 8800 Intelligent Optical Transport Platforms which include tunable filters used to filter data channels prior to each optical transmitter. Multiple channels of differing bandwidth coexist in the same spectrum thus bandwidth-limiting is performed to provide a functional optical transmission, according to the suit.

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

Optical Tech’s counsel is Andrew W. Spangler of Longview; and Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC of Wilmington, Del.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

Dec. 10

TeleCommunication Systems Inc. v Cassidian Communications Inc. and Airbus DS Communications Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01103

Plaintiff TeleCommunication Systems is a Maryland corporation with a principal place of business in Annapolis, Md.

According to the complaint, TCS is a leading provider of mission-critical wireless data solutions to carriers, enterprise and government customers. Its wireless data offerings include location-based Enhanced 9-1-1 services and messaging and location service infrastructure for wireless operators, real-time market data and alerts for financial institutions, mobile asset management and mobile office solutions for enterprises and encrypted satellite communications for government customers. The suit claims TCS has been granted more than 300 U.S. patents.

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,681,946 issued March 25, 2014, for a Mobile Automatic Location Identification for First Responders;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,940,950 issued Sept. 6, 2005, for Enhanced E911 Location Information Using Voice Over Internet Protocol;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,903,791 issued March 8, 2011, for Enhanced E911 Location Using Voice Over Internet Protocol;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,149,997 issued April 3, 2012, for Protocol Converting 9-1-1 Emergency Messaging Center; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,458,184 issued Dec. 2, 2008, for Location Based Messaging.

Defendant’s allegedly infringing products include “Call-to-Car” solutions that allow a citizen to interact all the way out to a police unit in the field involving a 911 dispatcher.

TCS is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiff’s counsel is J. Thad Heartfield and M. Dru Montgomery of The Heartfield Law Firm of Beaumont and attorneys from Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP in Washington, D.C.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

Dec. 11

• MemSmart Semiconductor Corp. v AAC Technologies Pte. Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-01107

• MemSmart Semiconductor Corp. v Akustica Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01108

Plaintiff MemSmart Semiconductor is a Taiwanese corporation with a principal address in Hsinchu, Taiwan.

Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,829,364 issued Nov. 9, 2010, for a Method of Fabricating a Suspension Microstructure.

According to the suits, the ‘364 Patent is a method for fabricating a micro-electro-mechanical structure and more particularly to a suspension microstructure and its fabrication method which effectively avoids improper corrosion and exposure, and reduces costs.

Allegedly infringing products include the AAC Technologies acoustic MEMS microphones and Akustica MEMS microphones that have a suspension microstructure.

MemSmart is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiff’s counsel is Winston O. Huff and Deborah Jagai of W.O. Huff & Associates PLLC in Dallas.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

Dec. 12

• Dynamic Hosting Co. LLC v Samsung Electronics America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01118

Plaintiff Dynamic Hosting is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler.

The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,826,026 issued Oct. 20, 1998, for an Internet Message Communicator with Direct Output to a Hard Copy Device; and

• U.S. Patent No. 6,216,156 issued April 10, 2001, for an Internet Message Communicator with Direct Output to a Hard Copy Device.

The allegedly infringing products include printers made or sold by defendants using Google Cloud Print. The allegedly infringing printers have hardware and/or software components that are especially designed to be used with Google Cloud Print.

Dynamic Hosting is seeking compensatory damages, costs, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Matthew J. Antonelli of Antonelli Harrington & Thompson LLP in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiff, along with Stafford Davis of Tyler.

 

Dec. 12

• Manitto Technologies LLC v American Honda Motor Co. Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01110

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Chrysler Group LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01109

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Ferrari North America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01105

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Hyundai Motor America Case No. 2:14-cv-01111

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01112

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Kia Motors America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-0113

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01106

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Nissan North America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01114

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Subaru of America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01115

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Toyota Motor Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-01116

• Manitto Technologies LLC v Volvo Cars of North America LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01117

Plaintiff Manitto Technologies is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Austin.

Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,900,825 issued May 4, 1999, for a System and Method for Communicating Location and Direction Specific Information to a Vehicle.

Allegedly infringing products include Traffic Service systems for automobiles that have features that allow a vehicle to receive information based on the vehicle’s location and direction of travel.

Manitto claims additional allegations regarding indirect and willful infringement by defendants.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiff’s counsel is Matthew Antonelli, Zachariah Harrington, Larry Thompson Jr. and Califf T. Cooper of Antonelli Harrington & Thompson LLP in Houston.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

More News