Recent patent/copyright infringement cases filed in U.S. District Courts

Marilyn Tennissen Jan. 31, 2008, 5:28am

Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Jan. 23

  • Ennova Direct Inc. vs. LG Electronics USA et al

    Dallas-based Ennova Direct claims to hold the legal rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,979,210 for a Thumb Drive with Retractable USB Connector issued Dec. 27, 2005.

    Ennova alleges that defendants LG electronics, Thomsom, Nspire Systems and Flash Ventures are infringing the '210 Patent through making, using or selling thumb drives that are covered by at least one claim of the patent.

    "As a consequence of the infringement complained herein, Ennova has been irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined and will continue to be irreparably damaged by such acts in the future unless each defendant is enjoined by this court from committing further acts of infringement," the complaint states.

    Ennova is asking that each defendant account for and pay all damages caused by its infringements. The plaintiff is seeking interest, fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    The plaintiff is represented by the Polasek, Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire, Brown McCarroll firm in Longview, Jones & Jones in Marshall and Ireland, Carroll & Kelley in Tyler.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-022-TJW

  • Source Inc. vs. Access Development Corp. et al

    Source Inc. has filed a complaint against 38 companies alleging patent infringement.

    In question are four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 4,941,09, for a Centralized Consumer Cash Value Accumulation System for Multiple Merchants. Source Inc. alleges the patents were issued to Patrick D. McCarthy and licensed to Source.

    The suit alleges that the defendants are infringing on Source's patents through shopping rewards and rebate programs and services. Defendants named include Access Rewards by Access Development, Cash Back Program, Ebates Shopping Cash Back Rewards Program, FatWallet Cash Back Program, MBC Direct Online Mall, MiserMoney Rebate Program, Once Click Rebates, Quick Rewards, Shop Zero, Affinity Rewards Program, Chase Freedom Credit Card, Communitysmart Card and U.S. Bank Cash Rewards Program.

    "The aforementioned reward, rebate and/or loyalty programs, and similar programs whose identities are not yet known (Accused Instrumentalities) utilize and practice the inventions in the '116 Patent," the complaint states.

    Source also alleges that the defendants' acts of infringement were willful and deliberate.

    "On information and belief, Defendants' appropriation of the inventions through infringement of the '116 Patent has allowed Defendants to gain substantial market share in the customer loyalty, rebate and rewards and member services market and to reap unjustified profits," the complaint states.

    The plaintiff is seeking damages adequate to compensate for defendants' infringement, costs, interest, fees and other just and proper relief. Source is also asking that damages by trebled.

    The plaintiff wants an injunction against each defendant and for each defendant to file a written report detailing its compliance with the court order.

    David K. Anderson of Anderson & Cunningham and Todd Patterson of Patterson & Sheridan, both of Houston, are representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and referred to Magistrate Charles Everingham.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-023-TJW-CE

    Jan. 24

  • SMDK Corp. vs. Creative Labs Inc. et al

    SMDK claims it is the legal owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,658,202 for a Portable Data Transfer and Mass Storage Device for Removable Memory Modules, and of U.S. Patent No. 6,987,927 for an Enhanced Digital Data Collector for Removable Memory Modules.

    The plaintiff alleges that Creative Labs Inc., Creative Technology Ltd., Coby Electronics, Espson America, Seiko Corp., TIC Computer dba Wolverine Data, Vosonic Technology, Phison, RCA by Thomson and Audiovox have infringed on the '202 and '927 Patents.

    "Each defendant's aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from SMDK," the complaint states. "SMDK is entitled to recover from the defendants the damages sustained by SMDK as a result of defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial."

    In addition, SMDK alleges that the infringement was willful and deliberate and as a result SMDK is entitled to increased damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

    "Defendants' infringement of SMDK's exclusive rights under the '202 and '927 patents will continue to damage SMDK, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this court," the petition states.

    SMDK is seeking adequate compensation, treble damages, a permanent injunction and other just and proper relief.

    Sam Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall is lead attorney for the plaintiff, with attorneys Ward & Olivo of New York of counsel.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-026-TJW

    Jan. 25

  • VTran Media Technologies LLC vs. Cebridge Acquisition LP dba Suddenlink Communications

    VTran Media Technologies, a Texas limited liability company based in Marshall, claims it the legal owner of the rights to U.S. Patent No. 4,890,320, and U.S. Patent No. 4,995,078; for Television Broadcast System for Selective Transmission of Viewer-Chosen Program at Viewer-Requested Times.

    The suit alleges that Suddenlink has committed patent infringement through its video-on-demand service.

    VTran claims Suddenlink's activities have been without authority or license from VTran and claims it is entitled to damages in an amount subject to proof at trial.

    The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against defendant, compensation and interest for damages caused by the infringement and other relief.

    Andrew Spangler of Marshall is representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Heninger Garrison & Davis LLC in Birmingham, Ala., and Ward & Olivo in New York are of-counsel.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-028

    Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

    Jan. 29

  • Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. et al vs. Tellabs Inc. et al

    Fujitsu Network Communications Inc., a California corporation, and Fujitsu Ltd., a Japanese corporation, filed an infringement suit regarding four patents. The patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163, generally relate to optical amplifiers and optical communication systems.

    Fujitsu alleges that Tellabs Inc. and Tellabs Operations Inc. have infringed the patents through Tellabs 7100, Tellabs 6325 and Tellabs 6370.

    "Plaintiffs have suffered damage by reason of defendants' infringement and will continue to suffer additional damage until this court enjoins the infringing conduct," the complaint states.

    Fujitsu alleges that the acts of infringement have been willful and with wanton disregard, making it entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

    The plaintiffs are seeking a reasonable royalty and interest and trebled damages.

    Doug McSwane Jr. of Potter Minton PC in Tyler is representing the plaintiffs.

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

    Case No. 6:08-cv-022-LED

  • More News