Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marilyn Tennissen Jan. 5, 2015, 1:54pm


MARSHALL DIVISION

Dec. 22  

Diamond Grading Technologies LLC v American Gem Society and American Gem Society Laboratories LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-1161

Diamond Grading Technologies LLC v Gemological Institute of America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01162

Plaintiff Diamond Grading Technologies is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

Paul T. Shannon Sr. invented the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 5,966,673 for a System and Method for Computerized Evaluation of Gemstones. The patent was issued Oct. 12, 1999, and reissue of the patent was completed June 24, 2014. The patents were assigned to Diamond Grading Technologies Inc.

According to the suits, the “value of a diamond depends on the quality of the four main variables: color, clarity, carat weight and cut.” Of these, the suit states, cut is one of the most historically important and one of the least understood. The ‘673 Patent relates generally to a system and method for computerized grading of the cut of a gemstone.

The defendants have developed a cut grade system that uses technology that traces light as it travels through a diamond, and have developed software that provides a method of estimating a cut grade that they distribute to third-party diamond cutters and retailers. The allegedly infringing products include the defendants’ AGS Proportion Based Diamond Cut Grade System, AGS Visual Proportion Analyzer and GIA Diamond Cut Grading System.

Plaintiffs claim defendants had actual knowledge of the patent.

Diamond Grading is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, treble damages for willful infringement and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiff’s attorneys are Steven N. Williams, Kenneth P. Kula and William Z. Duffy of McDole Williams PC in Dallas.

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

 

Dec. 23

Better Mouse Co. v Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-01163

The Better Mouse Co. is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,532,200 issued May 12, 2009, for an Apparatus for Setting Multi-Stage Displacement Resolution of a Mouse.

Microsoft had knowledge of the ‘200 Patent at least from the date the patent was cited by the Patent Examiner during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,094,124, according to the suit.

Microsoft allegedly infringes the ‘200 Patent by selling the computer mouse the Sidewinder X3.

Better Mouse is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

A jury trial is demanded.

Larry D. Thompson Jr. of Antonelli Harrington & Thompson LLP in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

 

Dec. 30

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v Samsung Telecommunications America LLP, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01165

Plaintiff KPN is a telecommunications (including fixed, mobile, television and Internet) and ICT solution provider headquartered in the Netherlands.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 5,930,250 issued July 27, 1999, for a Communication System for Interactive Services with a Packet Switching Interaction Channel over a Narrow-band Circuit Switching Network. An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate was issued Sept 28, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 issued April 3, 2001, for Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with the Transmission Error Checking.

Samsung allegedly infringes the patents through the Samsung Galaxy S4 and S5 using Multimedia Messaging Service technology.

KPN is seeking compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Stephen D. Susman and Lexie G. White of Susman Godrey LLP in Houston are representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Dec. 31

 

Quad Powerline Technologies LLC v ActionTec Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01166

Quad Powerline Technologies LLC v Belkin International Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01167

Quad Powerline Technologies LLC v D-Link Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-01168

Quad Powerline Technologies LLC v Trendnet Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01169

Plaintiff Quad Powerline Technologies is a Texas limited liability company.

The defendant is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,157,581 issued April 17, 2012, for a Thermal Management Method and Device for Powerline Communications.

Defendant allegedly makes thermal management methods using a removable housing member, a first prong, a second prong, a communication port coupled to the first and second prongs, a spatial volume, an electronic module, a first set of air inlets and air outlets and a second set of air inlets and air outlets.

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

John J. Edwards of Collins, Edmonds, Pogorzelski, Schlather & Tower PLLC in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

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

 

 

 

 

Dec. 31

Entry Systems LLC v General Motors Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-01170

Plaintiff Entry Systems is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Tyler.

GM is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,161,005 issued Dec. 12, 2000, for a Door Locking/Unlocking System Utilizing Direct and Network Communications.

Allegedly infringing products include the OnStar Remote Link that provide locking and unlocking arrangements for a door including a controller, a telephone signal receiving circuitry, sensor to receive wireless signals and non-telephone wireless signal receiving circuitry.

Entry Systems is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, expenses and any other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang, Neal G. Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

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

 

Dec. 31

 

 

James Craig Orr v Canon USA Inc. and I.R.I.S. Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01171

Plaintiff James Craig Orr is a resident of the state of Texas.

Orr claims to be the receiver of U.S. Patent No. 5,977,958 issued Nov. 2, 1999, for a Method and System for Digitized Handwriting.

Defendant Canon and its subsidiary I.R.I.S. allegedly infringe the ‘958 Patent through making and selling various digital pen products, including IRISNotes and IRISNotes2.

Orr is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which he may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

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

Hao Ni, Timothy T. Wang, Neal G. Massand and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

 

 

Dec. 31

Trover Group Inc. et al v Hunt Electronics USA Case No. 2:14-cv-01177

Trover Group Inc. et al v Kaltec Electronics Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-01172

Trover Group Inc. et al v Logitech Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01173

Trover Group Inc. et al v Panasonic Corp. of North America Case No. 2:14-cv-01175

Trover Group Inc. et al v Pelco Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01175

Trover Group Inc. et al v USA Vision Systems Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-01176

Jan. 2

Trover Group Inc. et al v FireKing Security Group Case No. 2:15-cv-00001

The plaintiffs are Trover Group Inc. and The Security Center Inc. Trover Group is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano. Trover was formerly known as Dozier Financial Corp., according to the suits.

Plaintiff The Security Center is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Dallas. The two companies are sister corporations.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 5,751,345 and U.S. Patent No. 5,751,346 issued May 12, 1998, for an Image Retention and Information Security System.

According to the suits, the ‘345 Patent relates generally to video monitoring systems that store and retrieve images and related transaction data by the use of computer equipment and digital storage; and the ‘346 Patent relates generally to video monitoring systems that store images based on the detection of changes in the pixilation between images.

Accused products allow images to be compressed in various formats, including JPEG and/or MJPEG, which allow images to be captured along with transaction data, such that the images and the transaction data can be stored and later retrieved for examination.

Plaintiffs are seeking permanent injunctions against defendants, damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

A jury trial is demanded.

Plaintiff’s attorneys are Steven N. Williams, Kenneth P. Kula and William Z. Duffy of McDole Williams PC in Dallas.

The cases have been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

 

More News