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

Marilyn Tennissen Apr. 3, 2008, 4:42am

Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

April 1

  • Retractable Technologies Inc. et al vs. Becton Dickinson & Co.

    Plaintiff Retractable Technologies is a Texas corporation based in Little Elm. Plaintiff Thomas J. Shaw is a resident of Frisco, Collin County.

    According to the original complaint, Shaw invented and owns all rights to a retracting syringe covered by U.S. Patent No. 7,351,224 issued April 1, 2008. Retractable Technologies is the exclusive licensee of the patent.

    The plaintiffs allege that Becton Dickinson has infringed the '224 Patent by making and selling retractable syringes, including the Integra 1 and 3 cc syringes.

    "No right or license to practice the invention claimed in the '224 patent has been granted to BD," the complaint states. "Retractable and Shaw have been damaged by BD's infringement and will be irreparably injured unless the infringement is enjoined by this Court �"

    Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, actual damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages for willful and deliberate infringement, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief.

    Roy W. Hardin of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP of Dallas is representing the plaintiffs with assistance from Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-141-TJW-CE

  • eSeis Inc. vs. Commonwealth Scientific

    Plaintiff eSeis, a Houston-based company, claims it owns the rights to U.S. Letters Patent No. 6,681,185 for a Method of Seismic Signal Processing issued Jan. 20, 2004. The company claims it was assigned the patent from inventors Roger A. Young, Aleksey B. Pankratov and John F. Greve.

    According to the plaintiff's original complaint, eSeis has been "pioneering the emerging field of seismic petrophysics for the petroleum industry" since 1995.

    "eSeis' technologies and services provide the tools to interpret and define lithology, porosity, fluids, pore pressure and reservoir quality and provide seismic data in a geologically meaningful and multi-disciplinary useable format," the complaint states.

    Defendant Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is a corporate body established pursuant to the Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Act of 1949 in the commonwealth of Australia.

    According to the original complaint, CSIRO was assigned the rights to U.S. Letters Patent No. 7,274,992 B for a Method for Predicting Pore Pressure issued Sept. 25, 2007. The patent generally relates to determining pore pressures through the analysis of seismic attributes.

    eSeis claims that the methods described in CSIRO's '992 Patent infringe eSeis' earlier '185 Patent.

    "Based on publicly available information, eSeis believes that CSIRO is practicing the analytic methods described in the '992 Patent in the United States, and licensing or offering to license the '992 Patent technology in the United States," the complaint states.

    The plaintiff is asking for a declaratory judgment holding that CSIRO's practice of the invention covered in the '992 Patent constitutes infringement of the '185 Patent. eSeis is also requesting a full disclosure and audit of CSIRO activities in the U.S. that related to the technologies.

    eSeis is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, costs and other just and proper relief.

    David K. Anderson of Anderson & Cunningham in Houston is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-143-TJW-CE

    Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

    March 26

  • Invitrogen Corp. vs. General Electric et al

    Plaintiff Invitrogen filed two complaints for patent infringement against General Electric Co. dba GE Healthcare, GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences Corp. and Does 1 through 5.

    In the first complaint, Invitrogen claims it was lawfully issued six patent, including U.S. Patent No. 6,610,522, which expired Jan. 13, 2008. The patents deal generally with reverse transcriptase enzymes and kits.

    The complaint alleges that defendants have infringed one or more claims of the patents prior to their expiration. The infringing products include the CySript products, the plaintiff alleges.

    In the second complaint, the plaintiff claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,043,272 issued Aug. 27, 1991.

    The plaintiff alleges that defendants' GenomiPhi and TempliPhi products infringe the '272 Patent.

    "Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damage to its business in the form of lost profits by reason of Defendants' acts of patent infringement as alleged herein, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as a result of Defendants' acts," the complaint states.

    The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensation no less than reasonable royalty, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interests and other relief. Plaintiff is also asking for an accounting of all profits and unjust enrichment of the defendants and that the infringing products be delivered for destruction.

    Mathew Murphey of Gordon Rees LLP in Dallas is representing the plaintiff in both suits.

    The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-112-LED
    Case No. 6:08-cv-113-LED

  • More News