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

Marilyn Tennissen Mar. 5, 2008, 1:24pm

Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

March 3

  • Skullcandy Inc vs. Anycom Technologies Inc. et al

    Utah-based Skullcandy claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,187,948 for a Personal Portable Integrator for Music Player and Mobile Phone issued March 6, 2007.

    Skullcandy alleges that defendants Anycome Technologies, Audiovox Corp., Cardo Systems, I-O Data Device Systems and Mustek Inc. have infringed and continue to infringe products that are covered by one or more claims of the '948 Patent.

    "Defendants' acts of infringement have caused damage to Skullcandy, and Skullcandy is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Skullcandy as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial," the original complaint states.

    Plaintiff also alleges that defendants' acts of infringement were made with knowledge of the '948 Patent.

    Skullcandy is seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, interest, fees and other just and proper relief.

    Franklin Jones of Jones & Jones in Marshall is representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-090-DF

    March 4

  • Furminator Inc. vs. PetEdge Inc.

    Furminator is a Missouri company with its principal place of business in St. Louis.

    The company was started by Angela and David Porter, primarily selling pet grooming tools and other pet products.

    According to the original complaint, Angela Porter learned a pet grooming technique known as "carding," which removes the pet's shed hair without damaging the top coat. Porter claims that the blades previously used to perform the carding technique proved difficult and tiring for the groomer.

    The Porters then invented the Furminator DeShedding Tools, with great personal financial risk, the complaint states. U.S. Patent No. 7,334,540 was issued on the products.

    "Furminator markets its Furminator DeShedding Tools to pet grooming professionals, including pet groomers, veterinarians and animal rescue centers," the complaint states.

    Furminator says it also markets the products through QVC, catalogs, the Internet and mass retail outlets including PetSmart and PetCo.

    "Furminator DeShedding Tools have been and continue to enjoy significant commercial success as well as widespread approval in the pet industry," the complaint states. "As a result of these sales, Furminator has been recognized as one of the fastest growing companies �"

    The plaintiff alleges that PetEdge is infringing on the '540 Patent through its grooming tools and replacement blades.

    Furminator is seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, fees, interest and costs. The plaintiff is also asking for an accounting of PetEdge's profits resulting from its sales of infringing products and is requesting the impounding and destruction of the infringing products.

    In addition, Furminator is seeking punitive damages.

    J. Kurt Truelove of Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder LLP in Texarkana is representing the plaintiff.

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

    Furminator filed a similar suit on Feb. 26 against defendants Munchkin Inc., doing business as Bamboo, and Kim Laube & Co.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-091-DF

  • e.Digital Corp. vs. Avid Technologies et al

    Plaintiff e.Digital claims it is the sole owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 5,742,737 issued April 21, 1998, and three other patents generally for a Method for Recording Voice Messages on Flash Memory in a Hand Held Receiver.

    e.Digital alleges that defendants have infringed on the '737 Patent. Defendants named in the suit are Avid Technologies, Casio America, LG Electronics, Nikon, Olympus, Samsung and Sanyo.

    The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, costs and other general relief.

    Gary R. Maze of Duane Morris LLP in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom and referred to Magistrate Charles Everingham.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-093-DF-CE

    March 5

  • Lineage Power Corp. vs. Synqor Inc.

    Mesquite-based Lineage claims it has the rights to U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,571 for a Low Loss Synchronous Rectifier for Application to Clamped-Mode Power Converters issued Feb. 15, 2000. It also claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,191,964 for a Circuit and Method for Controlling a Synchronous Rectifier Converter issued Feb. 20, 2001.

    Lineage alleges that Synqor has been and is now infringing on the '571 Patent and the '964 Patent.

    "Accused products, such as power converters having a synchronous rectifier and clamping circuitry, which are used to practice the claims of the '571 Patent are known by Synqor to be especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the '571 Patent," the original complaint states.

    The plaintiff claims that Synqors' infringement has resulted in substantial unjust profits and unjust enrichment in an amount to be determined at trial.

    "Such acts of infringement are causing irreparable harm to Lineage and will continue to cause irreparable harm unless enjoined by the Court," the suit states.

    Lineage is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory and treble damages, fees and other relief determined to be just and proper.

    Michael E. Jones of Potter Minton in Tyler is 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-095-TJW-CE

  • More News