Marshall Division, Eastern District of TexasWi-Lan Inc. vs. Research In Motion Corp. et al
Plaintiff Wi-Lan, a Canadian corporation, claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. RE37,802 and 5,282,222.
The '802 Patent was issued July 23, 2002, for a Multicode Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum.
The '222 Patent was issued Jan. 25, 1994, for a Method and Apparatus for Multiple Access Between Tranceivers in Wireless Communications Using OFDM Spread Spectrum.
Wi-Lan alleges that defendants Research In Motion Corp., Research In Motion Ltd., Motorola Inc. and UTStarcom have infringed the '802 and '222 Patents by making, using, importing or selling mobile handsets and/or other products compliant with the CDMA2000 standards or the 802.11 standards.
"Wi-Lan has no adequate remedy at law against defendants' acts of infringement, and unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the '802 Patent and the '222 Patent, Wi-Lan will suffer irreparable harm," the original complaint states.
The plaintiff also alleges that defendants had knowledge of the '802 and '222 Patents, but "have not ceased their infringing activities" which are willful and deliberate.
Wi-Lan is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled.
Sam Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall is lead attorney for the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.
Case No. 2:08-cv-247-TJW
Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. vs. Eppendorf North America Inc.
Plaintiff Bio-Rad claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No.
4,910,140 and U.S. Patent No. 5,186,800 which are both for an invention titled Electroporation of Prokaryotic Cells. In addition, Bio-Rad claims to hold the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,642,035 for a Transfection High-Voltage Controller.
Bio-Rad alleges that Eppendorf infringes the patents through the manufacture, use and sale of the Eppendorf Multiporator, Electroporator and Electroporator Model 2510 products.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and other just and proper relief.
Eric Albritton of Longview is representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP in Redwood Shores, Calif., are of counsel.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.
Case No. 2:08-cv-249-DF
Aten International Co. Ltd. vs. Emine Technology Co. Ltd.
Plaintiff Aten and defendant Emine are both companies located in Tapai, Taiwan.
According to the original complaint, Aten is the leading Keyboard-Video-Mouse (KVM) switch manufacturer in the world and has invested significantly in the research and development of innovative technologies.
"Aten's innovations have resulted in more than 220 issued patents worldwide, including U.S. Patent No. 7,035,112," the complaint states.
The complaint states that the '112 Patent was issued April 25, 2006, to Kevin Chen for an Automatic Switch.
"Other companies in the KVM industry have acknowledged and appreciated the invention in the '112 Patent," the complaint states, naming RATOC Systems Inc. and JustCom Tech Inc. as companies that have obtained licenses of the '112 Patent from Aten.
Aten alleges that Emine makes, uses or sells products that infringe the '112 Patent without Aten's permission or having a "reasonable basis for believing it had or has a right to engage in the acts complained of herein."
The plaintiff also alleges that Emine has sold components of the invention claimed in the '112 Patent.
"Those components are not staple articles of commerce, are specially adapted for use in an infringing apparatus, and are not capable of substantial non-infringing use," the complaint states.
Aten is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.
Deron Dacus and Eric Findlay of Ramey & Flock in Tyler and attorneys from White & Case LLP in Palo Alto, Calif., are representing the plaintiff.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.
Case No. 2:08-cv-253-DF-CE
Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas
Clear With Computers LLC vs. Apple Inc. et al
Plaintiff Clear With Computers, formerly known as Orion IP, is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.
CWC claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,615,342 issued March 25, 1997, for an Electronic Proposal Preparation System. CWC also claims the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,367,627 issued Nov. 22, 1994, for a Computer-Assisted Parts Sales Method.
The complaint alleges that defendants Apple Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Hewlett-Packard Development Co. LP have infringed the CWC patents through methods practiced on various Web sites using supply chain methods, sales methods, sales systems, marketing methods, marketing systems and inventory systems covered by the patents.
CWC is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff is also seeking enhanced damages for the "deliberate and willful nature of defendants' prohibited conduct."
Andrew Spangler of Longview is lead counsel for the plaintiff, with David M. Pridham of Barrington, R.I., and John J. Edmonds of Houston.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:08-cv-243-LED
Aloft Media LLC vs. Yahoo! Inc., AT&T Inc. and AOL LLC
Plaintiff Aloft Media, a Longview-based Texas limited liability company, claims to two U.S. patents dealing with network browsers.
U.S. Patent No. 7,117,443 was issued Oct. 3, 2006, for a Network Browser Graphical User Interface for Managing Web Content. U.S. Patent No. 7,194,691 issued March 20, 2007, is for a Network Browser Window with Adjacent Identifier Selector Interface for Storing Web Content.
Aloft Media alleges that defendants Yahoo! and AT&T infringe the patents by making, using or selling computer software products including AT&T Yahoo! Browser. Defendant AOL allegedly infringes the '443 and '691 Patents through its AOL Explorer Version 1.5.
The plaintiff is seeking compensation for the infringement no less than a reasonable royalty, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
Eric Albritton and T. John Ward Jr. of Longview are representing the plaintiff, along with attorneys from Williams, Morgan & Amerson PC in Houston.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:08-cv-255-LED
Catch Curve Inc. vs. 121 Ltd. et al
Plaintiff Catch Curve, based in Gwinett County, Ga., brings a patent infringement suit against 40 defendants.
Catch Curve claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,785,021 and 7,365,884 for a Facsimile Telecommunications System and Method.
The plaintiff alleges defendants infringe the '021 and '884 Patents by making, using and selling Internet fax services. Defendants include American Voicemail, Broadfax Inc., Business Link International, Fax911, Faxbin.com, Faxts Now Inc., Hi-Tech Solutions, Interfax S, People Line Telecom, Shadowstorage Inc., SRFax, Stonevoice, Telecentrex Inc., Voice Mail Depot and XiFax Ltd.
Catch Curve is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, a permanent injunction against defendants and other just, equitable and proper relief.
Nicholas Patton and Kurt Truelove of Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder LLP in Texarkana are representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley LLP in Atlanta, Ga., and from Kenyon & Kenyon LLP in San Jose, Calif., are of counsel.
Court assignment is pending.
Case No. 6:08-cv-259