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

Marilyn Tennissen Jun. 4, 2008, 1:14pm

Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

May 29

  • j2 Global Communications Inc. vs. Protus IP Solutions Inc.
    Plaintiff j2 Global claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,597,688 for an invention called a Scalable Architecture for Transmission of Messages Over a Network. The '688 Patent was issued on July 22, 2003, to Anand Narashimhan, Yaacov Shemesh and Amit Kumar and assigned to j2.

    The original complaint states that Protus IP Solutions is a Canadian application service provider offering voice, e-mail and fax messaging services to businesses around the world. Protus allows users to send and receive faxes via e-mail and the Internet.

    The complaint states the defendant may be served with summons as authorized by the Hague Convention for the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents under Rule4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    The plaintiff alleges that Protus IP Solutions infringes the '688 Patent through MyFax and

    The plaintiff claims that Protus' activities have been without express or implied license by j2 and Protus will continue to infringe the patent unless enjoined by the court.

    The complaint also includes claims that j2 is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,020,132 also for Scalable Architecture for Transmission of Messages Over a Network.

    The plaintiff claims that as a result of Protus' infringement of the patents, j2 has been damaged and will be further damaged, and is entitled to be compensated for such damages in an amount that presently cannot be ascertained but that will be determined at trial.

    j2 is seeking injunctive relief and is asking that Protus be required to provide j2 an accounting of all gains, profits and advantages derived from the infringement. Because it believes that Protus' infringement was willful, j2 claims it is entitled to treble damages in addition to interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

    Nicholas Patton of Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder LLP in Texarkana is representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:08-cv-211-LED

  • Trent West vs. J.C. Penney Corp. Inc. et al

    According to the original complaint, plaintiff Trent West is a California resident who learned the craft of jewelry design and jewelry manufacture by apprenticing for his grandfather who was a successful and accomplished jewelry designer in Southern California.West opened his own jewelry studio in 1970.

    "After years of success in the design and manufacture of gold and platinum jewelry rings, in the late 1990s Mr. West started investigating how to utilize the unique esthetic and durability properties of tungsten carbide in jewelry rings," the complaint states. "He applied for his first tungsten carbide jewelry ring patent in 1998, and has been awarded seven patents for his innovations in the use of tungsten carbide for jewelry rings.

    "Mr. West's first sale of a tungsten carbide ring was in 1999. By 2002, Mr. West was being recognized by the jewelry industry for having pioneered the development for a previously unrecognized market for tungsten carbide jewelry rings. Despite industry-wide recognition that Trent West invented the tungsten carbide jewelry ring market, and despite U.S. Patents protecting Mr. West's inventor's rights, the defendants named herein have chosen to infringe certain of his tungsten carbine ring patents."

    The defendants named in the original complaint are J.C. Penney, Samuels Jewelers, Rogers Ltd. and Whitehall Jewelers.

    The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,928,734; 6,990,736; 7,032,314; and 7,076,972.

    "Unless restrained or enjoined by this court, defendants will continue their acts of infringement, and the resulting damages to plaintiff will be substantial, continuing and irreparable," the complaint states.

    West is seeking damages in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement and asking that damages be increased by three times the amount assessed due to defendants' willful infringement. The plaintiff is also seeking costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, interest and other equitable, just and proper relief.

    Edward Vincent King Jr. of King & Keller LLP in San Francisco, Calif., is lead counsel for the plaintiff, with Diane DeVasto of Potter Minton in Tyler.

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


  • More News