Recent patent infringement suits filed in U.S. District Courts

Marilyn Tennissen Nov. 20, 2007, 11:11am

Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Nov. 15

  • Whipstock Services Inc. vs. Key Energy Services Inc.

    Whipstock, a Baytown-based corporation, claims to have the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,769,166. The '166 Patent was issued June 23, 1998 to inventor John Duke for a Wellbore Window Milling Method. Duke assigned the patent to Whipstock on May 24, 2004.

    The plaintiff alleges that Key Energy had actual notice of the '166 Patent and has been and is now infringing on claims of the patent without Whipstock's consent. Specifically, the original complaint states, Key Energy is using, offering for sale or selling a method that provides whipstock and milling services covered by the '166 Patent.

    Whipstock Services is seeking actual damages in an amount no less than reasonable royalty. Because the plaintiff believes that Key Energy's infringement is willful, Whipstock claims it is entitled to enhanced damages in an amount equal to treble the actual damages.

    The plaintiff is asking for a permanent injunction and for the court to schedule a Markman hearing regarding interpretation of the scope of the claims of the '166 Patent.

    Whipstock wants Key Energy to account for all sales, revenues and profits derived from the infringement and is seeking attorney fees and other relief as may be just and appropriate.

    Guy Matthews of Matthews, Lawson, Bowick PLLC in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiffs with assistance from Andy Tindal of Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP-Tyler Office.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 2:07-cv-502-LED

    Nov. 16

  • IP Innovation LLC et al vs. Google Inc.

    Texas limited liability-company IP Innovation and Technology Licensing Corp. have filed a claim for patent infringement regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,276,785 and 5,675,819.

    The '785 Patent was issued Jan. 4, 1994, for a Moving Viewpoint with Respect to a Target in a Three-Dimensional Workspace. The '819 Patent was issued Oct. 7, 1997, for Document Information Retrieval Using Global Word Co-Occurrance Patterns.

    IP Innovation and Technology Licensing allege that Google Inc. has committed acts of infringement through products and services including Google Search Appliance, which infringes the '819 Patent, and the Google Earth feature which infringes the '785 Patent.

    "Google's infringement � has injured plaintiffs and plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate them for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty," the original complaint states.

    The plaintiffs also allege that Google received notice of its infringement of the patents, therefore the ongoing infringement is willful and deliberate.

    Plaintiffs are seeking increased damages, interest, a permanent injunction against Google and other just and proper relief.

    T. John Ward Jr. of the Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview is representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 2:07-cv-503-LED

  • Wall Cardiovascular Technologies LLc vs. Boston Scientific Corp. et al

    Wall Cardiovascular Technologies, the company of Dr. W. Henry Wall in Marshall, filed a complaint for patent infringement against Boston Scientific Corp. and Johnson & Johnson.

    According to the original complaint, on Dec. 13, 2005, U.S. Patent No. 6,974,475 was duly and legally issued to Dr. W. Henry Wall for an invention titled Angioplasty Stent. All rights to the '475 Patent were assigned to Wall Cardiovascular Technologies LLC in Marshall on Nov. 2, 2007.

    Coronary stents are tiny, mesh tubes used in the treatment of coronary artery disease and implanted in patients to prop open arteries and facilitate blood flow from the heart.

    The suit names the BSC Taxus Express products and J&J Cypher coronary stent products as infringing on the '475 Patent.

    Wall also alleges that the infringement is willful and deliberate.
    Because the plaintiff believes that the infringement was willful and deliberate, Wall is seeking enhanced damages, a permanent injunction, interest, fees, costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

    Wall is represented by lead attorney Stephen Susman of Susman Godfrey LLP in Houston.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.

    Case No. 2:07-cv-504-TJW

    Nov. 19

  • Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Inc. vs. Hoffmann-La Roche et al

    Novartis Vaccines claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,285,271 B1 issued Oct. 23, 2007. The patent is for an Antigenic Composition Comprising an HIV gag or env Polypeptide.

    Novartis alleges that defendants Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Roche Laboratories Inc., Roche Colorado Corp., Trimeris Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. infringe the '271 Patent.

    "Each of the defendants has been and is now infringing, contributorily infringing, and/or actively inducing infringement of the '271 Patent by making, using, offering to sell � a product known as FUZEON (enfuvirtide)," the plaintiff's original complaint states.

    Novartis V&D also claims that the infringement is willful and deliberate.

    "Defendants' infringement has injured and will continue to injure Novartis V&D, unless and until such infringement is enjoined by this court," the suit states.

    The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and treble damages, fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper.

    Samuel Baxter of McKool Smith in Marshall is lead attorney for plaintiff. Morrison & Foersier LLP of San Francisco are of counsel.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.

    Case No. 2:07-cv-507-DF

  • Litepanels LLC et al vs. Sony Electronics Inc. et al

    Litepanels LLC was assigned U.S. Patent No. 6,948,823 for Wide Area Lighting Apparatus and Effects System issued Sept. 27, 2005, and U.S. Patent No. 7,163,302 for Camera-Mounted Semiconductor Lighting Apparatus issued Jan. 16, 2007.

    Litepanels Inc. is the exclusive licensee of the '823 Patent and the '302 Patent from Litepanels LLC.

    Litepanels alleges that defendants Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Corporation of America Inc. and Sony Corporation sells camera accessory systems, including camera-mounted lighting systems, that infringe the '823 and '302 Patents.

    The lawsuit specifically names the Sony HVL-LBP which is available through dealers, at and also through B&H Photo and Electronics online store at

    "Litepanels LLC and Litepanels Inc. have been damaged as a result of the infringing activities of SEL, Sony America and Sony Japan and will continue to be damaged unless such activities are enjoined by this court," the complaint states.

    Plaintiffs are asking the court to enter a judgment awarding all damages adequate to compensate for infringement in an amount to be determined by a jury.

    The plaintiffs are also seeking an injunction, interest, enhanced damages, fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    S. Calvin Capshaw of Brown McCarroll LLP in Longview is representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Howrey LLP in California are also assisting with plaintiffs' representation.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.

    Case No. 2:07-cv-508-DF

  • More News