Recent patent infringement cases filed in U.S. District Courts
Marshall Division, Eastern District of TexasTechnology Properties Ltd. and Patriot Scientific Corp. vs. HIC Corp. et al
Technology Properties Ltd. and Patriot Scientific Corp. vs. AsusTek Computer Inc.
Technology Properties Ltd. and Patriot Scientific Corp. vs. Acer Inc. and Gateway
Plaintiffs Technology Properties and Patriot Scientific claim to be co-owners of U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890 issued June 25, 1996, for a High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor.
The rights to the '890 Patent were assigned to Patriot Scientific and TPL has the exclusive right to enforce and license the '890 Patent.
The plaintiffs have filed three patent infringement suits relating to infringement of the '890 Patent.
In the first suit, the plaintiffs allege that defendants HIC Corp. and HIC America Inc. have infringed the '890 Patent.
The second suit accuses AsusTek Computer Inc. of infringing the '890 Patent.
In the third suit, Acer Inc., Acer America Corp. and Gateway Inc. are named as defendants.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants infringement have caused and will continue to cause damage to plaintiffs' business, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless enjoined by the court.
TPL and Patriot also allege that defendants' infringement was willful and deliberate.
The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, increased damages, attorneys' fees, interest and other just and proper relief.
Calvin Capshaw and other attorneys from Capshaw Law in Longview and Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP in San Francisco, Calif., are representing the plaintiffs.
The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judges T. John Ward and David Folsom.
HIC Corp. Case No. 2:08-cv-226-TJW
AsusTek Case No. 2:08-cv-227-DF
Acer Case No. 2:08-cv-228-TJW
Monster Cable Products Inc. vs. Accell Corp. et al
According to the original complaint, plaintiff Monster Cable has designed, manufactured and sold a broad array of electronic products and accessories since 1978. The company has a particular focus on superior cables and power products for high-end audio and video components, computers and computer games.
Monster claims that its power-conditioning and surge protection products possess distinctive features, such as color-coded, labeled black electrical outlets, LEDs indicating status of power, ground and surge protection set into an elongated, recessed center top strip and a distinctive metallic trapezoidal body with black end caps.
The plaintiff alleges that defendants Accell Corp. and Bizlink USA Technology Inc. infringe on its design and trademark patents.
Count I of the original complaint claims that Monster is owner of rights to U.S. Design Patent No. D484,098 and that defendants infringe the patent through the ProPower Surge Protector products.
The second count of the suit claims Monster's rights to U.S. Design Patent No. D505,390 and alleges infringement through defendants' Ultra audio, digital and fiber optic digital cables and kits.
Count III asserts that Monster owns all rights to U.S. Design Patent No. D405,367 and infringement by the Ultra AV High Performance HDMI Audio/Video Cable in packages embodying the patented design.
The complaint also alleges infringement of Monster's trademarks by defendants' use of markings and packaging for cable products which cause confusion, mistake and deception of the public as to the identity and origin of the goods.
In addition, the plaintiff states that by "selling power strips that copy Monster's unique design, defendants' have misappropriated Monster's trade dress and falsely represented the origin of relevant products in violation of the Lanham Act."
Monster also alleges that defendants have infringed its copyrights by copying the images and text on Monster's product packaging and Internet Web listings without permission.
"The striking similarity between plaintiff's Web site and packaging images and text on the one hand, and defendants' packaging on the other, indicates that defendants copied portions of text and images on plaintiff's product packaging and Web site listings," the suit states.
The suit continues with allegations of unfair competition and common law injury to business reputation.
Monster is seeking damages including defendants' profits, disgorgement, restitution or other compensation or monetary remedy; punitive, exemplary and/or treble damages; attorneys' fees; costs; injunctive relief; and other just and proper relief.
Eric Findlay of Ramey & Flock PC in Tyler and Robert W. Payne of LaRiviere Grubman & Payne LLP in Monterey, Calif., are representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.
Case No. 2:08-cv-230-TJW
Cardio Access LLC vs. Boston Scientific Corp. et al
Plaintiff Cardio Access is a Texas limited liability company based in Frisco.
The original complaint states that Cardio Access owns all rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,254,097 issued Oct. 19, 1993, for a Combined Percutaneous Cardiopulmonary Bypass (PBY) and Intra-Aortic Balloon (IAB) Access Cannula.
"As it pertains to this lawsuit, the '097 Patent relates to medical devices known as cannulae Ã¯Â¿Â½ the claimed cannulae having multiple access port legs, having at least one hemostatic valve, and which are adapted for the percutaneous insertion of various catheters into the bodies of patients," the complaint states.
Cardio Access alleges that defendants Boston Scientific Corp., Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Cordis Corp., Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic Inc., Medtronic USA Inc. and Medtronic Vascular Inc. have infringed the '097 Patent.
"Cardio Access has been damaged as a result of defendants' infringing conduct," states the complaint. "Defendants are, thus, liable to Cardio Access in an amount that adequately compensates it for their infringements, which by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs fixed by this court."
Because Cardio Access believes the defendants' actions were willful and deliberate, the company is seeking treble damages. The plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees, interest, costs and other just and proper relief.
Edward R. Nelson III of Nelson Baumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff, with assistance from Eric Albritton and T. John Ward Jr. of Longview.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.
Case No. 2:08-cv-231-DF-CE
TransAuction LLC vs. Bidz.com Inc. et al
Plaintiff TransAuction is a Texas limited liability company based in Frisco and claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,343,339 issued March 11, 2008, for an Electronic Bond and Guaranty Process and Business Method.
The suit alleges that defendants Bidz.com Inc., eBay Inc., Overstock.com Inc., Ubid.com Holdings Inc. and Winecommune.com LLC have infringed the '339 Patent.
TransAuction claims it has been damaged by defendants' infringing conduct which entitles it to compensation no less than a reasonable royalty.
In addition, the suit alleges that inventor Shelton E. Harrison corresponded with representatives from eBay concerning eBay's potential interest in purchasing the patent application which was later issued as the '339 Patent.
"Thus, upon information and belief, defendant eBay is aware of the '339 Patent, has knowledge of the infringing nature of its activities, has nevertheless continued its infringing activities and its infringing activities have been and continue to be willful," the suit states.
TransAuction is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, costs, interest, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.
Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview is lead counsel for the plaintiff, with T. John Ward Jr. of Longview and Edward Casto Jr. of Fort Worth.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.
Case No. 2:08-cv-232-DF
Jeffrey Boschert vs. Walter Smith et al
Plaintiff Jeffrey Boschert is an individual residing in the state of California, and defendants Walter Smith and Deborah Smith are individuals residing in California and doing business as Nature's Image.
The plaintiff claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,699,535 B2 for an invention titled Reproductions of Aquarium Life Formed from Translucent Memory Retaining Polymers and Method for Reproducing Same.
The suit alleges that defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the '535 Patent by making, using, selling or importing products related to reproductions of aquatic life formed from translucent polymers without authority.
Boschert is seeking injunctive relief, an accounting of all damages sustained as a result of the infringement, actual and enhanced damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.
Vance Freeman of Shore West Freeman PC in Longview is representing the plaintiff.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and has been referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.
Case No. 2:08-cv-235-TJW-CE
Andrew Katrinecz et al vs. Adesso Inc.
Plaintiffs Andrew Katrinecz of Shalimar, Fla., and David Byrd of Round Rock claim they co-own the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,199,996 and 7,284,872. The patents are for Low Power, Low Cost, Illuminated Keyboards and Keypads.
The plaintiffs allege that Adesso makes, uses, sells or imports products that infringe one or more claims of the patents, and that the infringement has been willful and deliberate.
For the patent infringement, the plaintiffs are seeking damages adequate to compensate them, no less than a reasonable royalty.
The suit also alleges that defendant has infringed the plaintiffs' copyright by copying plaintiffs' words verbatim in written works and on its Web site.
"Defendant Adesso's CEO, Allen Ku, was even quoted in a press release using text that was copied verbatim Ã¯Â¿Â½ and published it on its Web site, specifically noting that defendant's product 'improves night vision Ã¯Â¿Â½ enhances the computing environment by creating a relaxed, ambient atmosphere, conducive to working on those late night projects,'" the suit states. "Plaintiffs did not give permission to or otherwise authorize defendants to copy the copyrighted information."
Plaintiffs also allege that Adesso engaged in such copying knowing they did not have the legal right to do so, and in disregard of plaintiffs' rights.
Katrinescz and Byrd seek a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief to which they may be entitled.
Michael C. Smith of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith of Marshall and attorneys from Taylor, Dunham & Burgess in Austin are representing the plaintiffs.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.
Case No. 2:08-cv-236-TJW