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

Marilyn Tennissen Aug. 6, 2008, 3:50pm


Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Aug. 4

  • Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC vs. Cisco Systems et al

    Plaintiff Linksmart claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118 issued Aug. 17, 2004, for a User Specific Automatic Data Redirection System. Koichiro Ikudome and Moon Tai Yeung are listed as inventors of the '118 Patent.

    The original complaint alleges defendants Cisco Systems, Juniper Networks and Aruba Networks infringe the '118 Patent by making, using or selling wireless Internet access systems which utilize captive portal techniques to block or redirect HTTP requests.

    In addition, the defendants are liable for contributory infringement of the '118 Patent.

    "As a result of defendants' infringement of the '118 Patent, Linksmart Wireless has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless defendants' infringing activities are enjoined by this court," the complaint states.

    Linksmart is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, enhanced damages for willful infringement, damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief.

    Marc A. Fenster of Russ, August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif., is representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-304-DF-CE

    Aug. 5

  • Datatern Inc. vs. Sun Microsystems Inc. et al ('502 Patent)
  • Datatern Inc. vs. Sun Microsystems Inc. et al ('402 Patent)

    Plaintiff Datatern, a Texas corporation, has filed two lawsuits against the same five defendants for alleged infringements of two of its patents.

    In the first suit, Datatern claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,101,502 issued Aug. 8, 2000, for an Object Model Mapping and Runtime Engine for Employing Relational Database with Object Oriented Software.

    According to the original complaint, defendant Sun has had actual knowledge of the '502 Patent since at least Jan. 25, 2007, because on that date Sun requested an ex-parte re-examination of the patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

    Datatern alleges that Sun infringes the '502 Patent by making, using or selling software such as TopLink Essentials and induces others to infringe the patent by requiring compliance with its Java Persistence API portion of JSR 220: Enterprise JavaBeans, Version 3.0.

    The plaintiff claims that Sun's willful infringement of the '502 Patent is demonstrated by public admissions made by Sun's general counsel, Mike Dillon.

    "For example, Dillon spoke publicly about the 'breadth of the ('502) patent and the likelihood that it would be asserted against others,'" the suit states. Further, Dillon stated that Sun had decided to "invest the time and resources into a prior art search."

    Defendants CollabNet, O'Reilly Media, Oracle and BEA Systems are directly infringing or indirectly infringing by inducing or contributing to the infringement. Products that allegedly infringe include TopLink Essentials, Oracle TopLink, BEA Kodo, Eclipse Link, Oracle Fushion Middle Ware and BEA Weblogic Server.

    In the second suit, Datatern is defending its claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,937,402, issued Aug. 10, 1999, for a System for Enabling Access to a Relational Database from an Object Oriented Program. The suit alleges similar claims of infringements against the same defendants.

    As a result of the infringement, Datatern claims it has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined.

    Datatern is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and other relief.

    Daniel Perez of Dallas, Andrew Spangler of Longview and Patrick Anderson of Flint, Mich., are representing the plaintiff.

    The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judges David Folsom and T. John Ward, respectively.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-307-DF ('502 Patent)
    Case No. 2:08-cv-308-TJW ('402 Patent)

    Texarkana Division, Eastern District of Texas

    July 31

  • AtraTechJapan Corp. vs. Chi Mei OptoElectronics USA Inc. et al

    Plaintiff AtraTech is taking on several makers of LCD televisions in a patent infringement suit. The plaintiff claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,090,387 issued Aug. 15, 2006, for a Back Light Illuminating Unit.

    The suit alleges that Chi Mei, LG Electronics, LG Display, Mitsubishi, Samsung and Vizio infringe the '387 Patent by making, using and selling several models of LCD televisions.

    AtraTechJapan is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    Matthew J.M. Prebeg of Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg LLP in Houston is representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.

    Case No. 5:08-cv-137-TJW

    Lufkin Division, Eastern District of Texas

    July 30

  • The Procter & Gamble Co. vs. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc.

    Plaintiff Procter & Gamble claims it owns the rights to three patents for sprays that remove odors.

    U.S. Patent No. 5,783,544 was issued July 21, 1998, for a Composition for Reducing Malodor Impression on Inanimate Surfaces.

    U.S. Patent No. 6,077,318 was issued June 20, 2000, for a Method of Using a Composition for Reducing Malodor Impression.

    U.S. Patent No. 6,248,135 was issued June 19, 2001, for a Composition for Reducing Malodor Impression on Inanimate Surfaces.

    P&G alleges that Johnson & Johnson is infringing its patents by selling Glad Fabric & Air Odor Eliminator-Clean Linen and Glade Fabric & Air Odor Eliminator-Tropical Mist.

    "On information and belief, defendant knows and intends that the fabric refresher products that defendant sells to its customers are sold by those customers to consumers to use for reducing malodors on inanimate surfaces," the complaint states.

    P&G claims it has been damaged, in an amount yet to be determined, by defendant's acts of infringement and will continue to be damaged by such acts in the future.

    P&G is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Kenneth Adamo of Jones Day in Dallas and J. Thad Heartfield of the Heartfield Law Firm in Beaumont are representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ron Clark.

    Case No. 9:08-cv-143-RC

  • More News